Amazon.com

The Salem witch hunts are given a new and nasty perspective when a vengeful teenage girl uses superstition and repression to her advantage, creating a killing machine that becomes a force unto itself. Pulsating with seductive energy, this provocative drama is as visually arresting as it is intellectually engrossing. Arthur Miller based his classic 1953 play on the actual Salem witch trials of 1692, creating what has since become a durable fixture of school drama courses. It may look like a historical drama, but Miller also meant the work as a parable for the misery created by the McCarthy anti-Communist hearings of the 1950s. This searing version of his drama delves into matters of conscience with concise accuracy and emotional honesty. Three passionate cheers for Miller, director Nicholas Hytner, and costars Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (77)

It's About Time
You'd be hard pressed to find a story more compelling than the one that inspired Arthur Miller's 1953 drama The Crucible. Except the one about how it became a movie. It's taken all these years to bring a full version to the screen, and the only thing that explains it is Hollywood's perpetual cluelessness. The Salem witch trials of 1692 destroyed nineteen lives and countless reputations. Hoodwinked by a bunch of flighty teenage girls who wished to escape a whipping for their frolics in the woods, the town brought in the colony magistrates to sort out the devils from the angels.

Miller, who also wrote the screenplay, expresses his blatant contempt for hypocrisy in all forms through the character of John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a humble but once-adulterous farmer. Proctor's sexual escapades with the town's main accuser Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) could, through the girl's treachery, end in his wife's hanging. He can either save himself with a lie or free Elizabeth (Joan Allen) with the truth about himself and Abigail.

It's potent stuff any way you slice it, and the actors here aren't afraid to take big bites of their meaty roles. The film's pacing is fast and furious, hysterical like the history of the event it interprets. If it lacks the McCarthyist subtext it once had, so what. This here's a tragedy--a good old American one.

The movie's inevitable ending won't satisfy those who want only fluff and feathers at the cinema, but the hard lesson won by those who refuse to compromise their principles can't be denied. The Crucible is a faithful testament to their sacrifice.

Great Adaptation of an American Masterpiece
Since Miller helped write the screenplay and one of his sons produced or coproduced the movie, it shouldn't be a shock that the movie is so faithful to the original text where it needs to be and broadens the story where it needs to, as well. Miller knows how to write for the stage, and he apparently knows how to write for the screen, also. After seeing so many "classic" books and/or plays butchered by Hollywood, this movie is a real delight, despite its morbid and all-too-realistic story. This movie has become an essential to my Grade 11 American Literature classes, spectacularly complementing their reading of Miller's play and several pieces from the Salem Witch Trial era.

Ignoring the play's historic flaws and inaccuracies (that's another debate for another time), Miller brilliantly captured the essence of the Salem Witch Trials in his play and has conveyed them to the screen. Hatred, fear, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious mania, attention-seeking, conviction, strength, determination, repentance, and a host of other emotions and character traits are vividly brought to life by a superb cast: Daniel Day-Lewis is a great John Proctor (nobody else could have done better), Winona Ryder is very good as the conniving and bitter Abigail Williams, Joan Allen was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, and Paul Scofield should have won an Oscar for his cold-hearted portrayal of Justice Danforth. The conflict between Proctor and Danforth is what sustains the play's momentum for the second and third acts (about the last hour and fifteen minutes of the movie), and Lewis and Scofield bring that epic conflict to life: the classic good v. evil, with the sides getting somewhat mixed up as to who is who. . . . Lewis plays the flawed hero to Scofield's self-righteous and vindictive villain with palpable energy. How Scofield's performance was overlooked by the Academy is just another example of their oblivion. He gives me the willies with his methodical, calculating delivery of Miller's chilling dialogue: "Who weeps for these weeps for corruption" (among a bunch of great lines from the play/movie).

This isn't simply a play enacted in front of movie cameras (like Death of a Salesman). The director uses his camera very effectively, capturing some great close-up moments, unique perspectives and camera angles, and bringing a sense of "bigness" to the whole story. The play can seem very isolated, with its sparse sets and black-and-white costumes. Miller also expands the movie to begin well before the play does (giving the movie-goer information that he must have assumed the play-reader would already have) and extending it beyond the conviction of Proctor to include his execution, along with that of Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. Just as a side note, each of those three was hanged in a separate group in the original trials--great symbolism from Miller, including each larger original group of victims in the final trio. Also great symbolism in Proctor's Christ-like physical placement in the middle of the two "sinners," as he takes their sins upon him--the crucifixion is represented very effectively.

Bottom line: You won't see a better adaptation of a play to movie anytime soon. Nothing essential is left out, and some nice details are brought in to give the movie a distinction from its original source, the play. If you can make it through this play and not be outraged by the injustice and hypocrisy, then you have a heart as cold as Danforth's. What Miller would likely want you to do is apply that outrage to similar situations that go on every day, just as he intended with his original play (the McCarthy hearings, the "Red" Scare). At least watch the movie, though.

"Your justice would freeze beer."
Although the playwright Arthur Miller was also the screenwriter for this production starring Winona Ryder and Daniel Day-Lewis, the film bears little resemblance to the play in tone and impact. Director Nicholas Hytner has abandoned the intimate, almost claustrophobic atmosphere of the dark, interior scenes in the play, in favor of an expansive setting, with many scenes set outside, including panoramic shots of Salem in 1692, full of costumed "citizens." The expanded setting makes the psychology and motivation of the witchcraft hysteria more difficult to determine, since the intensity of the settlers' repressed, interior lives is not obvious. The explanatory notes which Miller incorporates into the play about land disputes, religious controversies, and personal animosities, which led to specific individuals being accused and arrested for witchcraft, are seen only peripherally.

As a result, we see Winona Ryder, as Abigail Williams, and her coterie of bewitched girls, screaming hysterically and accusing innocent women of witchcraft without the background which would make these accusations plausible. Her previous relationship with John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), in the absence of other motivations, seems to be the primary reason for her behavior, but this thwarted love does not explain the extent of her rage and, especially, the involvement of the other girls. Day-Lewis is reduced to the role of victim, and one of the hallmarks of his acting, his subtlety, is absent here, except in a wonderful final scene with his wife, played by Joan Allen. Details of the scenery also ring false--houses in this period were very small because of the difficulty of heating, one third the size they are here, and the church/meeting houses were modest in accordance with religious restrictions against unnecessary display.

This is a Hollywood version of the witchcraft trials, capitalizing on the sensational at the expense of the complex and subtle forces behind the accusations of witchcraft--the Indian wars which were just ending, the growing independence of individuals, the increasing resentment of hard-line theocratic rule, the abolition of traditional property laws, and most importantly, the lack of any societal role whatsoever for young women, who were not old enough to assume a woman's role and who, bored and left out of decision-making, were on their own in dealing with their adult feelings. The film is beautiful, and the acting, though one-dimensional, is as effective as it can be in the absence of fully-developed motivation for the girls' hysteria. The "witches" are reduced to cartoons here, and Miller's parallels between these trials and the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which give the play a modern context, are missing. Mary Whipple

A Superbly Directed and Acted Film
It is rare nowadays that I come out of a movie feeling moved and enlightened. Suffice it to say that when I first saw The Crucible in the theatre several years ago, I left the movie understanding a bit more about human nature and a greater appreciation for the power of group hysteria. This film draws on the fine acting talents of Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder (in her best role ever), and Joan Allen. Not only is the dialogue brilliant, but the emotional content is incredibly affecting. I am so glad to see it finally on DVD. In this day and age of disposable art, it is heartening to see that movies of this caliber are still being made (even if it is with less frequency).

A great film
I have seen this movie perhaps a dozen times, and never tire of it. It is one of the most compelling, well-written movies I can think of, and the acting is superb throughout, particularly from Day-Lewis, who gives a heart-stopping performance. Because of its theme about witches, the movie gets played a lot around Halloween, but it is by no means a horror movie. It's not even a thriller, really, yet it does manage to thrill and keep the viewer totally involved. I love this movie and can't wait for the DVD. ... Read more

Description

Marlow is an ambitious and adventurous sailor who is employed by an English trading company and sent to an African colony. There he travels up the river, visiting the trading stations who barters for ivory with the natives. On his journey he is told about a man named Kurtz whose station is the one furthest up the river, deep in the African jungle. Some talk of him in awe, others in admiration, but they all seem to fear him. As Marlow gets closer and closer to Kurtz he understands that the man has gone insane and is now doing the most horrible and blasphemous deeds. Based on Joseph Conrad's classic novel about greed and insanity. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

A Close Interpretation of a Classic
Conrad's look at imperialism and the destruction of Africa was an allegory shown by the inner destruction of Kurtz. This film plays out the slow trip of the short novel -- as slow and monotonous as the trip up the river was for Conrad -- an ocean sailor. But the Kurtz character gets lost in the mystery -- and his dark machine-like ablilty to kill is shown only in the contrived yet riveting scene with a pet monkey. Even the skulls are downplayed. Here too Kurtz is allowed to die and be buried in his village by those who "love" him rather than having him die on the way back -- for affect? It is an uneven and, at times, a slow piece. We don't find out much about Marlowe as well. But we get a true sense of Marlowe wishing to spare Kurtz's lover with a lie -- just as those selling ivory chose to lie about the circumstances.

Even good acting can't save this dud. Don't bother.
Starring John Malkovich and Tim Roth, this video was made for an HBO television special. I was interested in it because I have always wanted to read the original Joseph Conrad novella, which was used as the basis of the very successful "Apocalypse Now". I thought this might be a substitute for reading the book. Well, it wasn't. And it might turn just me off to the book forever.

The story takes place in the late 19th century and Marlowe, played by Tim Roth, is an English merchant who is sent to Africa to look for Kurtz, played by John Malkovich, a merchant who has disappeared deep into the jungle and has also stopped the very profitable ivory trade. The tone of the video is morose and sad as Marlow travels further and further into the depths of the jungle and finds evil again and again, especially when he finally meets Kurtz.

I don't know why I continued to watch because I was totally bored throughout. It also was difficult to understand some of the dialog. I guess I was waiting for the inevitable meeting between Kurtz and Marlow. When it finally happened I just didn't care. The acting was good but the performances were wasted. My recommendation: Don't bother.

A rebound for Roeg
I was curious about this film when I heard about it years ago. I love Nicolas Roegs early work but saw that his later movies were weaker and it seemed Roeg had lost his magic. "Heart of Darkness" is a Nicolas Roeg film and it's quite nice to see the old boy has still got it in him. The subject matter suits his odd style of film making. A good film. DVD please!!!

Heart of Darkness
Lights! Camera! Action! These are the three words which cause the distinction between books and movies. When making a movie based on a book, there are additional factors to be taken into account, thus altering the movie from the book. However, usually these changes just serve as tools to enhance the story, making it more interesting to the audience it is targeting. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" is an excellent adaptation of the novel because everything matches up well with the descriptions used by the author, and it captures the true essence of the story on film.
Set in the wild depths of Africa, the tale slowly unravels as a determined seaman, Marlowe, sets out on a journey to Africa, and soon finds himself on a dangerous expedition in search of a missing ivory manufacturer, who has deceived many people waiting for their ivory. The fact that Africa is such an incredible place filled with fascinating cultures is clearly shown by the settings and casts chosen for the movie. The story is told from Marlowe's point of view, as he is telling the story to group of sailors on a boat. Although the time of day during which Marlowe told his tale was switched from evening to daytime, the same effect is produced because each scene in the movie is so vivid and engrossing, therefore each providing its own effects. The setting for each scene perfectly suits the events which take place. The setting has a very big impact on the plot of the story because one purpose of the story is to depict the true meaning of life in Africa, particularly the uncivilized nature of some of the people that live there, or that have been there too long.
The catchy music chosen to accompany each scene, and the simple, but realistic costumes chosen for each character, set the ideal mood that is necessary in conveying the tale. The music consists of rhythmic drumming mixed together with strange noises similar to those of a person gasping for air, or breathing loudly. The drumming fits in with the African theme and like a drum roll, it adds a hint of suspense and foreshadowing to each scene, which is also expressed by the book. An essential part of making of movie is choosing the ideal cast. Each character fits his/her description in the book, allowing for the vague images in one's mind while reading the book to actualize and come to life.
My favorite part of the movie was when Marlowe finally finds the place that Kurtz resides. When he arrives, a crazy guy, who has gone mad from being in the jungle, welcomes Marlowe to the area. I think that this scene is crucial to the plot of the story, because it is the point at which Marlowe finally finds Kurtz. Once he reaches Africa and found out about the unjust doings of the mysterious Kurtz, he makes it his mission to find him. Although the insane man standing at the entrance seems like a trivial character, I think that he actually represents one of the major themes conveyed in the book. This idea is that people can often go mad from living in the jungle too long, which is what happened to Kurtz. Kurtz finally reveals himself, much to Marlowe's relief. However, due to Kurtz's sickliness and insanity, it was difficult for Marlowe to communicate with him. During this scene, another important idea that is stressed is the uncivilized nature that is constantly shown throughout the book. An example of this is when Kurtz nonchalantly breaks the neck of an innocent pet monkey, while it was affectionately draped around Kurtz's shoulders. This part of the movie encompasses many ideas shown throughout the story, making it an important scene.
My favorite character from Heart of Darkness is Marlowe. I admire the determination he possessed when achieving his goals. He deals with many tribulations as he finds himself in the thick of the jungle. He becomes friends with an African man, Mutumbo, who soon suffers a painful death by a strange African tribe. Nevertheless, Marlowe maintains perseverance as he gains strength from every obstacle he is faced with. His bravery and fearlessness lead him to his ultimate goal of finding the mad ivory producer, Kurtz, and rectifying the ivory situation. However, it is interesting to see that Marlowe did change during his time spent in Africa. He completely went against his usual nature by lying to Kurtz's former fiancée about something that Kurtz never really said. I enjoyed seeing the story from Marlowe's point of view, and noting the good traits of Marlowe, that were somewhat tainted by his experience in Africa.
I highly recommend the movie Heart of Darkness to anybody who likes adventure, particularly someone who read the novel as well. The movie was adapted very well from the book, despite a few changes. Each change helped to make the story more realistic and suspenseful. The cast, the music, the costumes, and the setting, created an exceptional combination, perfectly fitting each description from the book. Many details in the story are difficult to visualize, therefore the movie is helpful and informative to watch. The themes are also more apparent and effective in the movie. Although they each tell the same story, the book and the movie work together to complement one another in conveying the underlying messages of the tale.

missing the plot...
There is an inherent difficulty in translating any novel into the film. Every reader's experience is unique and so, before the first film draft ever sees the light of the day, there already are thousands of movies in existence. To compete with them is often impossible. But, there are strategies some directors successfully use (see Milos Forman's version of One Flew Over The Cockoo's Nest). Unfortunately, Nicolas Roeq did not. While explaining/simplifying Conrad's masterpiece and repackaging it into a contemporary genre, he lost the plot. He neither remained close to the original text, nor moved away from it far enough to allow his own voice to be heard. As a result, we have ended up with a neither/nor situation that benefits no one. Rather than adding to our understanding of issues and concerns raised by Conrad over a hundred years ago ('the other', the parallels between the outer and inner worlds, the reciprocal impact of colonisation, actual or metaphorical...) Roeq's film, as other reviewer's efforts indicate, adds nothing, and thus falls short of its potential. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Cy Endfield co-wrote the epic prequel Zulu Dawn 15 years after his enormously popular Zulu. Set in 1879, this film depicts the catastrophic Battle of Isandhlwana, which remains the worst defeat of the British army by natives, with the British contingent outnumbered 16-to-1 by the Zulu tribesmen. The film's opinion of events is made immediately clear in its title sequence: ebullient African village life presided over by King Cetshwayo is contrasted with aristocratic artifice under the arrogant eye of General Lord Chelmsford (Peter O'Toole). Chelmsford is at the heart of all that goes wrong, initiating the catastrophic battle with an ultimatum made seemingly for the sake of giving his troops something to do. His detached manner leads to one mistake after another, and this is wryly illustrated in a moment when neither he nor his officers can be bothered to pronounce the name of the land they're in. That it's a beautiful land nonetheless is made clear by the superb cinematography, which drinks in the massive open spaces that shrink the British army to a line of red ants. Splendidly stiff-upper-lipped support comes from a heroic Burt Lancaster and a fluffy, yet gruff, Bob Hoskins. Although the story is less focused and inevitably more diffuse than the concentrated events of Rorke's Drift which followed soon after, Zulu Dawn is an unflinchingly honest depiction of British Imperial diplomacy. --Paul Tonks ... Read more

Reviews (16)

I Love this Movie!
I highly recommend this movie to all war or history buffs.This movie is based on the true story of the Battle of Isandlwana in south Africa .The battle was fought on Jan. 22nd 1879 between the 24th regiment under the command of Lt.Gen. Lord Chelmsford and the Zulu nation under King Cetshwayo. To make a long story short, The Zulus crushed and wiped out the entire British regiment largely in part because they outnumbered the British 24,000 to about 1,500, but also due to British arrogance(Which is pointed out time and time again in this movie)and the lack of respect and where abouts of the enemy.An allstar cast including Peter O'toole and Burt Lancaster Star in this Classic. The only Bad thing about this movie is that it is no longer in print, which to me is a real travesty, considering all the garbage that was made that still is in print. In fact i had to buy this movie off an online auction. I hope that the Movie Company that made this Great film comes to it's senses and Redistributes this movie so that it can be enjoyed on DVD as well.

Disaster at Isandhlwana
ZULU DAWN is a superb companion film to the classic ZULU, particularly since both films were written by the same man, Cy Enfield. ZULU DAWN climaxes with the Battle of Isandhlwana, which immediately preceded the Battle of Rorke's Drift, accurately portrayed in ZULU. While the Battle of Isandhlana is important, the real significance of ZULU DAWN lies in its revelation of how the British governor of South Africa orchestrated the war against the Zulu. Moreover, the British governor, Sir Henry Bartle-Frere, acted against the wishes of Queen Victoria and Parliament, resulting in the bloody defeat and near annihilation of the British 24th Regiment of Foot at Isandhlwana. The arrogance and carelessness of the British is shocking and the humiliating defeat of the British army in South Africa strikes the viewer as completely justified. The fact that good copies of ZULU are hard to find is pitiful enough, but the unavailability of ZULU DAWN is a real tragedy. It's extremely difficult to rent; it's been out of print so long that most recent video rental establishments have never been able to acquire it. I myself have only encountered two copies for sale ever, and I bought both of them (one went to my uncle, who turned me on to ZULU DAWN in the first place). Keep an eye out for ZULU DAWN in used video stores and exchange shops.

Less Heroics, More History
I really wish this would come out on DVD, it is an excellent movie. This is the 'prequel' to the Stanley Baker. . .and introducing Michael Caine. . .epic, 'Zulu.' While made almost 15 years later, it completes the story. This movie has a much more interesting cast and more accurately shows the fact that the British were the aggressors in this war. The Battle of Isandhlwana was, and is, the single most disastrous defeat of the British Army, and one brought on by the hubris of the commanding officers and the politcal operatives of the British Government. I really like this movie and have it on VHS, but it is getting worn out.

zulu's a kinkin royal butt
very well made movie
large supporting cast and known actors's
those carbines that the infantry used were
the only flaw i seen, after the ammo ran out this'
became a bayonet vs spear.

Great Historical recreation of a British Military defeat.
Very well done. Must watch this movie first and then the 1960 movie "Zulu". Also read about these events. Some shocking facts will surprise you. Excellent movies! ... Read more

Reviews (70)

Subtle and Lovely
This is not a fast-paced, action-packed, Hollywood kind of movie. It's more akin to reading a book than watching a film. That is not to say that this is at all dull or boring.

Remains of the day is a lovely, and even tragic at times, movie about love and the more sweeping themes of life and death, among the reserved and proper English class of housemaids, butlers,and the multitudes of servants employed by large country houses in the early half of the 20th Century.

The story revolves around Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson as the heads of their respective sexes in the household and the deep affection they have for one another, but that Hopkins cannot exhibit. Thomspon's character is outgoing and a bit too modern for Hopkin's somber and traditional disposition.

The story tells of their meeting, and then follows an older Hopkins as he remembers his younger days and Thompson, as he travels to see her one last time.

A Masterpiece from Merchant Ivory Productions!
From the very beginning of the opening titles, set against the backdrop of the English countryside and exquisitely complimented by the music of Richard Robbins, you get the reassuring feeling that you are in for a cinematic treat. Well, 134 minutes later, your reassurances are confirmed, and within this time frame this movie manages to span the full range of emotions with such grace and dignity that you are certain you have seen one of the great motion pictures. Oscar winners Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson reunite (first paired in Howard's End) with the acclaimed Merchant Ivory film making team for this extraordinary and moving story of blind devotion-to-duty and forsaken love. Hopkins stars as Mister Stevens, the perfect English butler, an ideal carried by him to perfectionist lengths, as he serves his English master, Lord Darlington (impeccably played by masterful James Fox). Lord Darlington, like many other members of the British establishment in the 1930s, is duped by the Nazis into trying to establish a rapport between themselves and the British government. Thompson stars as Darlington hall's housekeeper, a high-spirited, strong-minded young woman who watches the goings-on upstairs with quiet disbelief. Marvelously well acted by a supporting cast that includes, among many others, Christopher Reeve as American Congressman Jack Lewis and then newcomer Hugh Grant as Lord Darlington's Godson, Mr. Cardinal, this movie captures on film a bygone lifestyle few are acquainted with, in as flawless a fashion as any you will ever see. Masterpiece!

James Ivory's masterpiece!
This is a slow paced movie, but so well acted and directed that you miss the rhytm. You feel caught from the first images with the voice in off . The photography is splendid. The art is direction is spectacular .
The script is a long tale from the memories of Anthony Hopkins and a failed relationship with Emma Thompson as the mistress in service of James Fox a hard enemy of the German forces in WW2.
The film travels from the passionate speechs about the destiny of the mankind , the human condition and also the intimate portrayal of this loyal servant , keeping the formalities with absolute gentleness.
Never before Ivory had been so inspired and convincing like this one .
The last sequence of the film is an extraordinary metaphor.
Thompson brilliant and Hopkins superb in this work.
This is a heavyweight champion movie , great and marvelous . Don't miss this one!

Dignity in Remains of the day
"Dignity in Remains of the day " by Shahzada Gofran

An American mother lost four out of five of her sons at war in Vietnam during 1954. Yet her head is as high as Mount Everest with patriotic dignity. But it's not the same dignity that we see in Stevens's life depicted on both in Kazuo Ishiguro's novel and James Ivory's film Remains of the day. It is Stevens' dignity that provokes questions to the readers and the viewers mind. It poses them to ponder what dignity actually means in life when they read or watch the film. Stevens (Anthony Hopkins) is the protagonist whose dormant feelings and self-indulgence have been suppressed by the concept of "dignity" that he cherished with profound delicacy throughout his service life at Darlington hall. But unfortunately, that "dignity" has brought little meaning and many unhappy moments in his life. His dignity has existed like a mist in a winter morning that goes away in the glare of a dazzling sun. Nearly at the end of the novel and also in the film, the viewers get to see how dignity plays a treacherous role in Stevens's life. Nevertheless, the film did an excellent job in changing some scenes to emphasize and show dignity that is so ingrained in Stevens' life. Although the book has a greater detail of events than it is in the film, the director kept the central themes congruent.

In the realm of modernism and capitalism, the English aristocracy and the formality of a butler's profession remain as an interesting story, but not as a pervasive manner of lifestyle for today's' generation. The modernism, individuality, and freedom of expression took over the habitual human thinking that was existed during the Darlington's era. Generally ordinary citizens have little right to express their opinions on issues of politics. The English colonialism and their mannerism have also had an impact on the people during that time. According to Bert Cardullo" the elegiac representation of the British imperialism and celebrates its heyday by depicting a return to the practice of social hierarchy"(The servant,1). We also have seen in the movie that the international delegates are so secluded from the touch of the ordinary people. However, one may argue though that the impact of Modernism we have seen in Remains of the day would shape and mold the English civilization gradually rather than occurring as a revolution. There were people during the Darlington era who also have similar mannerism and modern thinking as today. For example Miss Kenton who believed on her opinions and has the dignity of choosing for her own as oppose to Stevens. She opposed the idea of firing those Jews servants and she chooses to marry and quite the job for her own happiness that was impossible for Stevens. For her it is the confidence in what she values has the high dignity and self esteem just as we would in today generation.

The dignity is a quintessential idea in the novel. In the film it is undeniably repeated many times in order to simply establish the importance of it to the readers and the viewers of Remains of the day. The idea of dignity here has revolved around from the perspective of professional success and achievements. But both Stevens and his father have been a merciless victim of "dignity". Stevens father also suppressed his feeling for dignity. He served indifferently to the general even though his son died in war because of his absurd decision ( the remains of the day). But the dignity is nothing but merely a product of social and traditional legacy passed on to the so-called English gentleman's society, which was an impediment to the growth of individuality.

Nonetheless, dignity is not a valuable security that Stevens had thought about throughout his youth while providing service to Lord Darlington. It is unfolded at the end quite dramatically in his life. Because of the dignity he had lost an opportunity of having an affair with Miss Kenton who is Emma Thompson in the movie. Miss Kenton has implied her interests and feelings to him couple of times and tried to convey her love. Once she was invited to go out for a dinner with Mr. Benn and later proposed to marry him. And when she got back to Darlington, she asked Stevens about his opinion on it. But Stevens remained cold and formal as usual and expressed only congratulation that was inadequate and ignited subtly Miss Kenton's emotional feelings( film- remains of the day). It is his dignity once again that has not only left his life sad and gloomy, but lonely as well. Stevens' dignity was all about Lord Darlington. His satisfaction comes from providing a better service without making silly mistakes. But the honor and dignity put Stevens in an awkward position. According to one of the critiques of the Remains of the day, Jennifer Bussey " what a terrible mistake he realized that he made about both his failed romance with her and his support of Lord Darlington's Nazi sympathies. This may be no more than denial and evasion in Anthony Hopkins' performance, but there is more at work in the novel"(critique on Remains).

Eventually, Steven's remuneration of service to lord Darlington has become a nostalgic memory only. Because of his dignity, he remained with the international congregation and did not go to see his dead father. He even had to keep his identity secrete from the outside world because disclosing his identity and his former employer Darlington would demean his value to the people of England. Essentially, his dignity made him a man who has no room for learning his feelings until the end. The director of the movie James Ivory says "he portrays a kind of butler who does not talk or share opinions, but observes and sees ways to serve the master" (ljlkjljlkj). Thus, his "dignity" and professionalism demolished his life that he could have had throughout his youth.

Bibliography

Ishiguro, Kazuo: The Remains of The Day.1989; London.

Cardullo, Bert: The servant, Eden-Webster Library. Info Trac One file Plus.

Jennifer, Bussey article: critical essay on "The Remains of the Day"

Ivory, Jmames: Remains of The Day. Colombia Pictures Ltd.

The Price of Being Perfect
THE REMAINS OF THE DAY is one of my all time favorite books, but when I heard about the film, way back in 1993, I was sure the book wouldn't translate well. It was far too interior and quiet. When I saw the film for the first time, I was really surprised. Merchant/Ivory, along with the extraordinary talented screenwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabuala, seemed to have done the impossible and I knew I'd buy the DVD the day it was released.

THE REMAINS OF THE DAY takes place in 1958 as James Stevens (Anthony Hopkins), a man of late middle age and the head butler at the sumptuous Darlington Hall, begins a motor journey across southern England to the West Country. The purpose of his trip, we learn, is to persuade Ms. Sally Kenton (Emma Thompson), once head housekeeper at Darlington Hall, to resume her old position and, perhaps, a bit more.

Most of the story is told in a series of flashbacks and we gradually come to know Stevens, Ms. Kenton and Lord Darlington (James Fox). Although THE REMAINS OF THE DAY centers on the relationship between Stevens and Ms. Kenton, there are subtle, but definite, political undertones in this film, for Lord Darlington is, of all things, a Nazi sympathizer who wants to prevent war. I've heard criticisms of the film because this subplot wasn't explored in greater detail, but I think Ishiguro (and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala) wrote just enough. To have expanded this subplot might have been interesting, but it would have definitely detracted from the more interesting main plot line, the relationship between Stevens and Ms. Kenton.

Almost from the beginning of the film, it's clear that Stevens and Ms. Kenton love each other. While Ms. Kenton does her best, however, she simply can't crack the wall Stevens has built around himself, the one he's been taught to build around himself, for, as long as Stevens can remember, his family has been "in service."

Stevens is the perfect butler, but at what cost? One of the film's most telling moments comes when Stevens' father, who is himself a retired head butler, dies in the servants' quarters of Darlington Hall. Although summoned by Ms. Kenton, Stevens, because of his strict adherence to perfection in work, and his dedication to "doing one's duty," does not abandon his post at a gala dinner party to be with his dying father.

Political disaster for Lord Darlington and personal disaster for Stevens dovetail in the film, but Stevens might just be given the second chance that most of us never get.

The end of THE REMAINS OF THE DAY is heartbreaking, but inevitable. This is a quiet, sad and extremely introspective film, yet it contains extraordinary emotion.

Anthony Hopkins as Stevens is perfection. Although Hopkins must show us a palette of emotions, he must show them with small gestures, mannerisms and facial expressions. Stevens is a highly complex man but he is, above all else, a man who represses his emotions.

Emma Thompson is Ms. Kenton is also perfect, but don't expect to see a lot of her in this film. This is Stevens' story and, as such, it's Hopkins who takes center stage.

Christopher Reeve is very good as Congressman Lewis, both as a guest of Lord Darlington and as the "new" owner of Darlington Hall. His part is small, though essential, and seeing him active and healthy only adds to this film's profound sense of sadness and loss.

The extras in this DVD include interviews with Merchant and Ivory as well as with Emma Thompson and they are so good, they make it worth owning the DVD rather than just renting it. THE REMAINS OF THE DAY is, at any rate, a DVD I think any film lover would want to own. It's absolute perfection and one I know I'll never tire of no matter how many times I watch it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

If Franz Kafka had been an animator and film director--oh, and a member of Monty Python's Flying Circus--this is the sort of outrageously dystopian satire one could easily imagine him making. However, Brazil was made by Terry Gilliam, who is all of the above except, of course, Franz Kafka. Be that as it may, Gilliam sure captures the paranoid-subversive spirit of Kafka's The Trial (along with his own Python animation) in this bureaucratic nightmare-comedy about a meek governmental clerk named Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) whose life is destroyed by a simple bug. Not a software bug, a real bug (no doubt related to Kafka's famous Metamorphosis insect) that gets smooshed in a printer and causes a typographical error unjustly identifying an innocent citizen, one Mr. Buttle, as suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro).When Sam becomes enmeshed in unraveling this bureaucratic glitch, he himself winds up labeled as a miscreant.

The movie presents such an unrelentingly imaginative and savage vision of 20th-century bureaucracy that it almost became a victim of small-minded studio management itself--until Gilliam surreptitiously screened his cut for the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, who named it the best movie of 1985 and virtually embarrassed Universal into releasing it. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (302)

the definitive look at this masterpiece
Brazil is, arguably, Terry Gilliam's crowning achievement. Originally called 1984 1/2, this film was embroiled in an infamous battle to be distributed. The studio didn't like Gilliam's version and cut together one of their own. Gilliam went to the press and got the L.A. critics behind his movie and finally shamed the studio into releasing his version.

Criterion's 3-DVD set documents the struggle Gilliam went through to get his film shown. Disc One contains his cut of the film with an informative and entertaining commentary by the director. The second DVD contains the bulk of the extra material. Not only is Gilliam's struggle documented but also various aspects of the production are examined -- including the screenplay, costumes, art direction, etc. The final disc contains the studio's ....py cut with a film historian's audio commentary documenting why this version sucks.

Once again, Criterion comes through with an exhaustive look at an important film of modern cinema. Brazil is a brilliant satire of a dystopian society run amok by pointless bureaucracy. Anyone who has worked a souless job in an office will immediately empathise with the protagonist's plight. Like any great work of science fiction, Brazil offers more questions than answers -- not everything is wrapped up neatly, instead the viewer is left questioning certain aspects of our modern society. Great stuff.

Great movie about dreams and hope
Brazil, despite the science fiction, social commentary and surrealism, is at it's core a film about a man who trapped by the mundanity of life, imagines himself in a more fantastic world.

Jonathan Pryce stars as a tiny unimportant member of a vast hyper-capitalistic society. Life is cold and dreary for everyone. All his spare time is spent dreaming of magical romantic worlds and the beautiful woman who lives there. One day, a simple beaucratic mistake causes a monumental disaster. Not that anyone cares... they just don't want to be blamed. Sent to solve the problem, or maybe to be a scapegoat, Pryce accidentally meets the literal woman of his dreams. As he pursues her, he brings suspicion on himself of being a terrorist (the scourge of the government), and his dreams begin to invade his waking thoughts.

A suprising list of talent lend themselves to the film and is written, minus Kafka and Orwell themes, by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam so expect some obvious humor and much biting satire throughout. Depressing and magical without losing it's hope, any person who can identify with the main character should find themselves entranced.

Despite being made in 1985 the special effects prove to be suprisingly effective (although easily noticed). I personally think this movie is the second best Science Fiction film, 2001 being first, and the best 1984 type movie ever made.

Much loved, but I never got it ...
This is a cult classic, but I find it over-rated. It delivers the zaniness, surreality and crazy camera work, but the film has no interest in its characters -- you'll feel nothing for them, and for me that leaves a big hole in the center of the movie.

For a movie with a similar feel but considerably more heart, try Barton Fink instead. Or even Amelie.

Boring
This movie is really disappointing and boring.

a bizzare and frightening film
If you enjoy futuristic Sci-Films then I would heartily reccomend this, as it presents a number of interesting and imaginative concepts.
The setting is the far future.The world is a polluted wasteland. A strange network of wires covers the ceiling of every room.
A corporation-government, Central Services, controls all trade enterprises. Any who indulge in the businesses they control (which are almost everything) without the proper paperwork are labeled terrorists. So, unfortunately, are those who criticize Central Services' inane policies.
Their Cops, clad in spacesuits that look like they came straight out of David Lynch's adapatation of "DUNE", frequently capture these "terrorists" to be interrogated, tortured, and/or executed with bizarre devices.
The "food" eaten by the characters in this film is premasticated garbage, into which are stuck pictures of what the characters believe they are eating.
The rich and powerful under Central Services rule get daily facelifts and parties,
and they strike the viewer as stupid and frightening.
The plot of the film concerns a daydreaming young paper-pusher (Jonathan Pryce) for Central Services' Ministry of Information who discovers a glitch in some paperwork that led to the wrongful arrest and unfortunate execution of Archibald Tuttle, who was mistaken for Archibald "Harry" Tuttle (Robert DeNiro), who has fallen out with the law because of his entrepeneurial fix-it man services.
Soon, a truck-drivin' gal(Kim Greist) who witnessed Archibald Buttle's wrongful arrest pleads for his release to the Ministry of Information, who label her a terrorist.
Later, The young MOI employee notices her picture in the lobby of his workplace, and decides to pursue her. He saves her from being arrested, and, in doing so, is labeled an enemy of society, which eventually leads to his tragic end at the hands of his friends(Ian Holm and John Palin).
This frightening look at the evils of technology, corporations,wrongful arrests, and totalitarian governments is not to be missed by any except the very young(if it gave ME nightmares, imagine the effect it would have on a seven-year old boy!) . ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Best film ever made
This movie is a cinematographic masterpiece. For me it was amazing how well the actors managed to get into their roles. I was dissapointed that all reviews talked mainly about Jane Seymour. You couldn't have done this movie without her, true! But there is so much more. Patrick McGoohan who plays the uncle is outstanding. The settings and camera work make this a winner. The photography is unique. Nobody mentioned the music. It was composed by Arnold Schoenberg (Austria) and is entitled "Transfigured Night". You can find the CD at any classical music shop. In my opinion a great movie has to have the power to involve you. For over two hours, when you see this movie, you'll be absorbed in the nineteenth century. If you like adventure, horror, drama, romance and powerful music, JAMAICA INN is whatyou want. If you love this movie I recommend "JACK THE RIPPER" with Michael Cane. Same atmosphere, same century and same brilliant acting. "Jack the ripper" also features Jane Seymour in a surprising role. Get them both now!

Not Quite Du Maurier . . .But, Good
In this mini-series adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's novel "Jamaica Inn", Jane Seymour stars as the confused yet ethical Mary Yellan, a young woman who finds herself confronting some unknown evil on the Cornish moors.

I will not critique Du Maurier's story--it is a great Gothic masterpiece which employs tone, description, plot and characterization to near perfection---read the book to enjoy Du Maurier's talent and imagination at its best.

This adaptation follows the novel much more closely than Hitchcock's earlier film. However, some twists were added to further dramatize an already tumultuous story. I must wonder why this was necessary and can only think, sadly, that the original story was thought too tame in the light of our 20th/21st century viewpoints of violence. In this version, Mary's parents are victims to the sinister plot that wraps Jamaica Inn in secret, making Mary's involvement all the more desperate and poignant. If one has read the book before viewing the film, this addition seems overdone, detracting from the original and eliminating the self-righteously ethical factor so important to Mary's character. In order to emphasize the romance in the plot, Mary's relationship with the landlord's brother tallys up more screen time when compared percentage-wise with the novel's presentation of the same interplay---there are actually more scenes in the book where the characters are together, yet the book allows you to speculate as it plays the romance off the tale of suspense and the film does not. Patrick McGoohan plays Joss with a little too much gruffness--we never really see the vulnerability and helplessness which lie beneath the surface and appear after he has soaked himself in rum. There are never any scenes with both Jem and Joss together---the necessary comparison made between the brothers is not allowed and hence, we do not quite see Mary's dilemma in her attraction to Jem or what might have attracted her Aunt in the past. Aunt Patience, played by Billy Whitelaw, would have been perfect as the once beautiful woman worn down by the knowledge of her husband's misdeeds. However,through her stern cautionary conversations with Mary, she appears too logically complacent, more a fully functioning partner to Joss rather than the frightened remains of the silly woman whose head was turned by him in the first place. Jane Seymour's portrayal of Mary includes the bit of pep that DuMaurier states but never fully demonstrates, yet she tends to be too saucy at times, playing the active willing foil to Jem's criminal antics rather than the shocked observer from the pages of the novel.

The film is most definitely capitalizing on Du Maurier's so-called reputation for escapist romance; yet the book is not a romance at all, but rather Du Maurier's grim testament to the status of women as dependent creatures, shoved here and there by their stronger male counterparts. Mary doesn't necessarily find love nor does love conquer adversity as we are meant to conclude from this presentation. There is no moral lesson scorching Du Maurier's pages. Du Maurier's vision was much more dismal---Mary, finally beaten,accepts her fate and plays second fiddle to Jem's maleness; she learns to acquiesce to her dependency. Despite these fundemental differences, the film as a romantic interlude, is still good; it fully depicts Du Maurier's Cornwall seeped in its weather and crowned by monoliths. The film's music tends to be a little melodramatic--it is of the Camille Claudel genre--I think an insiduous pan pipe along the Braveheart vein would have been a better contrast with the rain, gloom and terror than 'Transfigured Night' which doles out more of the same.

A must have
One of our favourite films. The case of lending it to someone and not getting it returned!
No longer available in PAL format unless you want to pay over the odds on e-bay, we bought this NSTC version, so we can play it on an American friend's video player.
A classic

Riveting Performances
I have watched this video at least 10 times and am impressed each time with the intensity that is ever present in this dark and terrifying story. Yet within we have a romance between the impossibly young Jane Seymour and Trevor Eve, who are both cute as can be and still thoroughly reflect the grimness and tragedy of the tale. Twists and turns take you places wholely unexpected and keep you glued even to the rather capriciously happy ending!

Beautiful adaptation
Jamaica Inn is one of my favorite books. I have not seen the older version of the movie but I think this one is terrific. It follows the book very well and is a visual treat.It has everything, action, romance and intrigue. Jane Seymour, Patrick McGoohan, Trevor Eve and John McEnery were wonderful in their parts and the music was hauntingly beautiful. I have since learned from another reviewer that the music is " Transfigured Night" by Arnold Schoenberg. I think it's a shame that it's been allowed to go out of print and hope it will be released again, hopefully in both formats. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Though not as briskly exciting as the 2002 theatrical release, this earlier TV adaptation of Robert Ludlum's bestseller has distinct advantages over its big-screen counterpart. It's far more loyal to Ludlum's serpentine plot, boasts greater latitude of geography and character development (allowing Richard Chamberlain's fine performance in the title role), and rises above TV limitations to achieve a big-budget look and feel. Suffering from amnesia and forced to piece together his past as a world-class assassin, Jason Bourne (Chamberlain) enlists the aid of a Canadian economist (Jaclyn Smith), and this pairing of '80s miniseries mainstays remains consistently intelligent, well paced, and altogether respectable. Chamberlain and Smith have adequate chemistry (albeit somewhat shallow), and their dangerous adventure--and eventual romance--is played out against a dozen European locations. Incorporating more of Ludlum's interwoven subplots, this ambitious Bourne is a globetrotter's delight, with a spy-thriller identity all its own. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Bourne is a lot nicer than in the book.
This is an intriguing movie and it will hold your attention from beginning to end. The plot is well conceived and there are no holes to drive trucks through. They could not have picked better actors for the characters. They may not match the descriptions in the book; but this is not a book.

The Bourne in the movie is much nicer. You have to make allowances for the transformation to the screen. However he does a lot more borrowing instead of stealing and is not as vicious with people on his travels.

Unlike the movie [Three Days of the Condor ASIN: 6300216748 (see my review September 25, 2000)], They did not let director distort the story for his own agenda. Basic story is someone wakes up with amnesia and naturally must find out who he is and why someone wants to kill him? As with all the amnesia stories he could be good, bad, or (I'm not going to say ugly) the person he is seeking.

BOURNE to be re-make..........
I've seen this tv-miniseries version of Robert Ludlum's bestselling novel many times, that I can actually say the lines and the dialogue in most scenes. However, that doesnt stop me from buying the new dvd version -- one plus, is having a new cover with Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. The first one that came out is just plain white cover and the second version is just an artwork. So, this cover version for one is worth collecting.

This version came out in 1988 and became a big hit worldwide in rental video and in some countries, it was released theatrically. Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith, I must say, did an excellent job in this movie. Jaclyn Smith was a revelation in this movie. Well, she and Richard Chamberlain are well known-as the King and Queen of the Miniseries genre, but this is Jaclyn's first foray to the action/thriller mold and she's very good at it. There's no high-popping special effects nor high-tech flying action scenes, but this movie delivers what an espionage thriller should be. It will hold you from start to finish. It's a non-stop gripping action thriller and the photography and the musical score are absolutely fantastic.

A big thumbs up and worth watching again and again!

Mostly true to Ludlum's novel
I saw the original movie when it aired on TV, and thought it was excellent - a great combination of suspense, intrigue, and romance. Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith (the King and Queen of the TV miniseries at that time) were both excellent in the starring roles and had great chemistry together. Inspired by the movie, I purchased the book and found the movie to be fairly true to the original. To the reviewer in New Jersey, I can only respond, have you read the book? In my opinion, at least, Richard Chamberlain was much more believable in the role of Jason Bourne than Matt Damon could ever be. From what I've seen so far, the new movie will probably pale in comparison to the original.

Bourne to Review....again!!!
After watching the dvd version of Matt Damon's version of "The Bourne Identity," I can't help myself but watch again(!) the tv miniseries version. The new version is the typical action movie of the current trend to suit the taste of today's movie lovers and I can't disagree with the new audience liking it(I enjoyed it!)and it's hard not to make a comparison but the main reason why this miniseries version is, I believe--and I know most fans will agree-- is the two stars, Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. Both stars had a chemistry that Matt Damon and Franka Potente lack. Don't get me wrong, both Damon and Potente are good but the XXX factor doesn't click at all.

Anyway, it's great having both in my collection and maybe years from now, I'll do another review and make a comparison --just in case things changes......

Great Passion
When the new one came out with Matt Dameon I was excited to see it, but was sorely disappointed. There was just emptiness, the story was changed and chopped with the loss of any of the great passion of the TV Miniseries.
The miniseries doesn't have all the special effects, but it has passion from people that are believeable and not contrived as in the Dameon movie. Their characters are real and you understand what they are feeling, from love to frustration, from fear to grief, and from confusion to loyalty. Since the Movie changed the story, none of these aspects where even attempted to be shown, just a love affair with no substance. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This retro-futuristic adventure depicts a 1964 in which Hitler won the war and Joe Kennedy Sr. is U.S. president. Europe is known as Germania and opens its borders to American journalists, hoping to line up the U.S. as an ally against Russia. Set design and costumes very effectively create a potent and prosperous state, culled both from imagination and the history books. More downbeat and perhaps more effective than Robert Harris's chilling novel, Fatherland is brought to life by Rutger Hauer as an SS officerwho stumbles onto eye-opening secrets. Miranda Richardson is the tough-cookie American caught up in a web of lies made all the more intriguing by a superb supporting cast. They hook up to solve a murder and uncover an atrocity dating back to World War II. Watch for a particularly nasty Jean Marsh in a supporting role; she steals every scene in which she appears. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Solid Political Sci-fi Thriller...
In my estimate FATHERLAND is a rare film which is superior to the novel it's based on. Rutger Hauer is excellent as dedicated Police Inspector, Xavier March( former decorated U-boat Commander), who stumbles on a plot by GESTAPO to exterminate remaining participants in the infamous WANNSEE CONFERENCE (where top Nazis engineered the FINAL SOLUTION). The premise posits German victory in Europe. And: that aging, triumphant Adolph Hitler wishes to "crown" Third Reich supremacy with alliance (or at least DETENTE) with the United States. The Fuhrer "schemes" this will permit the Germans to finally crush still-Stalin-led recalcitrant Soviet Union forces (perhaps even using The BOMB with tacit US compliance).

While Robert Harris novel's focus is REVELATION of Der ENDLOSUNG and politically-driven killing of architects of mass murder, the movie tries to deal with more. An uneasy relationship between March and his young son ( well-played by Rory Jennings) has more depth than the book and more complex resolution. The film-emphasized ironies of alliance between Hitler-led Germany and a President Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.-led USA speak for themselves. Nazi eugenics/abortion policies are given brief, but powerful rebuke in "Father-Son" breakfast sequence wherein young Pili March guilelessly relates to papa what he's learning in school. Jean Marsh has a terrifying cameo as former paramour of a targeted Nazi henchman trading secret knowledge of the Holocaust for asylum in America. Her vile gloating over the fate of the Jews is scary. Miranda Richardson essays the role of American reporter sent to cover THE KENNEDY-HITLER meeting (to be held on Hitler's 75th birthday). She's okay. But her characterization as recklessly fearless, confronting barely masked terrorism of the Police State is sometimes gratingly unbelievable. As is...to some extent...the unsurprising "surprise" ending. The film's pacing and (retro-futuristic: 1964) art direction is fine. This "WHAT-IF?" is recommended for genuinely provocative moments making it a solid, political sci-fi thriller......

ein volk! ein riech! ein fuerer!
this is a what if story about if hitler would have won ww2.its a hbo-back to the 1860s-movie so no stars in this one.the kids will probably fall asleep if they watch it.it isthe second best 3rd reich based movie ever.most of the head full of crap-forced in by society and school types will be offended .but anyone with a mind will enjoy it.the real message here is you cant belive everything you here or read.

Superb speculation about our world as it might have been.
The theme of "Fatherland" is imaginative, and constitutes one of the best "alternate history" scenario stories I have ever come across. Without giving away any spoilers, it is simple: the Normandy invasion of France is an utter failure, and Nazi Germany ultimately becomes the master of Europe, as America turns away from the European war to concentrate on defeating Japan. By 1960, the "Cold War" between Germany "Germania" (still ruled by the 75 year-old Adolf Hitler) and the United States is in full swing. The novel is set in Berlin. The plot centers on a political murder being investigated by Sturmbahnfuhrer Xavier March, of the German SS Criminal Police. More would be telling.

This is a very well done film, and I agree with some of the other reviewers that this film is even better than the book. (By the way, the book is superb as well, and also merits five stars). This is one of those wonderful films in which the musical score adds an extra dimension to the mood, and Gary Chang deserves kudos for his work here. Rutger Hauer turns in an outstanding performance as Xavier March, once again proving that this underrated actor is a considerable talent. Overall this movie absolutely convinces the viewer about how our world might have been. And thank God is not.

I trust that this superb film will soon be available on DVD.

Fairly good Movie
I happened to catch this movie on Fox26 and I thought it was a pretty good movie.

A bit disappointing after the book
I must say, as a disclaimer, that a lot of movies look disappointing after a great book. The pictures in my head are always more entertaining than what I see on the screen. That said, I think the movie was as good as it could have been. It clearly looks as though the people making it had some fun (if that's the right word) creating an image of "Germania," the united Germany Empire after Hitler won the WWII. The first few minutes of watching the movie are so disconcerting that one wants to look away from the swasticas and images of content citizens everywhere. What do you say when SS are actually the good guys? Still, once you get used to this warped atmosphere, it's possible to enjoy the movie for what it is... a good thriller. It's not more and not less. According to the premise, Russia is still fighting the war on the Eastern front, and America and Germania are deciding whether to combine their forces and restore peace once and for all. But would that truly happen if the secret of Holocaust, that everyone is trying to cover up, comes to light?

The acting was impeccable but not outstanding. I think this movie is worth seeing, but I'd recommend sticking to the book and keeping the picture R. Harris paints in the novel. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Superb Adaptation of Good Old-Fashioned Detective Novel
I watched this video twice, and found this is simply a superb adaptation of Wilkie Collins' classic
novel, and the film succeeds not only in presenting the
atomosphere of the original novel but in drawing the viewers
into the complicated mystery about the missing stone, faith and
betrayal, and secret love.

There a lot of things in it, which a great mystery fans as well as avid readers of 19th century novels would relish;
the brooding sinister-looking quicksand in the opening secne, a dashing hero and
strong-willed heroine, a mysterious housemaid, and of course,
the Moonstone, a cursed diamond which brings sudden
unhappiness to a peaceful country house. As this beautiful
diamond vanishes one night, a series of mysterious incidents
ensues. Now enters the rose-loving detective Sgt. Cuff, and
his investigation starts, but ... well, after that see what
happens for yourself, if you haven't read the origibal novel yet.

For those who have already read the novel, and know the plot
from the beginning to the end, the way they adapted the original
is so skillful that you will never feel disappointed. The spirit of Wilkie Collins' classic tale is preserved intact
like the acclaimed Sherlock Holmes series featureing the late, great Jeremy
Brett, and no unnecessary liberty was taken during the process
of making it a film. Shot with visually fine production designs
and based on good script which faithfully visualize the original, "The Moonstone" comes out as a winner, including first-
rate cast. Greg Wise, after rather minor role in "Sense and
Sensibility," portrays the likable hero with good acting, and
Keeley Hawes is a standout as the lovely but independent heroine who is not afraid of having her own will (a kind of a woman
Collins loved to portray). Minor characters are also given
moments to shine, and even comic relief Miss Clack is no exception.

Of course, there are several changes done; for example, Mr.
Candy is given another job of explaining something about the
diamond, (which, by the way, he didn't do in the original novel),
but those changes are all reasonable.
And some scenes may look strange to the 21st century audiences,
(especailly how to locate the missing stone with some medical
help), but after all the book was written more than 130 years
ago, and we should accept these things as they are, shouldn't we?

So, to all fans of good, old-fahioned detective story and Victorian novels, this video is strongly recommended, and I hope
you will enjoy watching it, as I did.

Overall, an okay read
An interesting and winding plot, the Moonstone puts a twist on the traditional detective story. Containing several narratives rather than just the single side of the story usually pretaining to the detective alone, the reader has a chance to see every possible angle of the story. I really enjoyed this aspect of the novel, and I find myself now wishing that more books had followed Wilkie Collin's example.

The one negative thing about this book, if anything, is that the narratives tend to be dragged out to almost excessive lengths. I found myself wishing at some points that the characters would just shut up and move on with the story. Some of the things that they were discussing in no means were related to the story, so I couldn't see why they had to be mentioned.

But all in all, this is a rather good read, whether for the detective lover or first time reader.

3 Thumbs up!
A great film! Highly recommended ... Read more

Reviews (79)

Definitely worth seeing. Worth owning? Questionable.
Dustin Hoffman is a living legend. You can read any of the other excellent reviews here to get a good idea of what the movie is about, so instead I'm going to give you 'the truth as I see it' about why you should see this movie.
Obviously, Dustin Hoffman plays the role of David wonderfully. Susan George does a good job, although it would have been nice for this intended town hottie to have a pretty smile along with her pretty physique. But I guess that's the catch 22 in selecting a British cast, especially from that day and age.
The controversial rape scene in this movie, is almost paralyzingly disturbing. (Yes, paralyzingly...I don't care if it's not a word.) It's disgusting really. It was also very confusing for me, because of the fact that she was saying no, but the viewer actually does get the impression that she doesn't mean no. She kisses her 'rapist' and pulls him closer, and she invites him in in the first place, and then tells him not to leave. A very awkward occurrence. When the second guy rapes her, we understand clearly that she does not want him, but still she seems to have some strange bond with the first guy (apparently and ex-boyfriend or something) as they have a sort of strangely mutually understanding chemistry throughout the movie. This was one of the most disturbing scenes in any movie I've seen recently. It doesn't help that all the while we get up close facial expressions from her, showing a sense of horror and disgust, but at the same time thrilling satisfaction.
Basically, she gives in very easily when there is any sense of punishment as a consequence of resistance. She is trapped in a kind of school-girl mentality, playing childish pranks and teasing the men by showing her breasts and underwear to them. I'm guessing this is related to the way she was treated when she was that age. David, on the other hand, is a controlled, maturing man, trying to focus on his work. He doesn't give in so easily, and although some have said that he plays the role of mouse time and time again until he finally emerges as a 'real man' in the end of the movie, I personally feel that he is not the timid guy everyone thinks him to be, but rather that circumstance does not allow him to show his manliness (for example, when his wife brings in the bowl of milk with the beers). He is more confused than anything because he doesn't believe there is any real reason to confront the hooligans, until the execution of Kitty.
Anyway, like a lot of other people I was very confused by the ending. The implications of David defending his house, his wife, his honor, and his sense of manhood by protecting a man that actually was guilty of murder (albeit accidental), raise a whole other topic of discussion.
The violence, with the exception of the rape scene, is pretty tame according to today's standards, but the psychological horror is in full throttle here. This is a thinker's horror/suspense (not horror in the conventional sense of the word) movie.
The laughter of the crazy hooligan was really annoying to me. I'm sure many people will disagree with my views on the movie, but I think it's important to look at the movie for what it IS, as well as what it means.
I'm definitely glad to have seen this movie, and would highly recommend it, but I don't believe I'll be adding it to my collection. I might see it again one day, but movies this disturbing and confusing aren't usually on my list of favorite flicks to cuddle up to late at night.

PEACENIK HOFFMAN GOES BONKERS
In 1971 Sam Peckinpah's controversial STRAW DOGS was censored by the British Board of Film Classification. The cuts made it even more provocative than Peckinpah intended. Consequently, Straw Dogs was labeled by the media as an obscene, misogynistic piece of filmmaking. Regarding the uncut American version, even the esteemed Pauline Kael said it's "the first American film that is a fascist work of art."

"Straw Dogs" stands as one of Peckinpah's best, and a reminder of the ongoing struggle between an artist's freedom and suppression by the powers that be. But more than that, it's a brilliant and harrowing exploration of man's primitive animal nature and its implied, inherent violence.

The transfer's clean and sharp. Extras include an 80 minute look at Peckinpah's films and a new interview with Susan George, who talks about her daring, controversial performance of a woman who for a few brief moments seemed to enjoy being raped.

What does "Straw Dogs" mean? Is it from the saying: Behind every coward's eyes burn straw dogs? If so, what does that mean? What are "straw dogs"?

Another thing. Recently (of this writingt) Dustin Hoffman has made a point of speaking out about certain military operations to free brutalized, oppressed people. Personally, I'd rather not know what an actor thinks and feels about politics. However, in "Straw Dogs" Hoffman shows what it takes to fight evil aggression. His screen performance will outlive his words.

Recommended.

HORRIBLE!!!
I agree with another reviewer in that you'll either love this or hate it. But I think most people will hate it. (Note: I have nothing against violence in films, and I liked the Kill Bill movies.) The main problem here is that almost every character in this film is utterly unlikable, and terrible things happen to the two characters who are likeable. But even that wouldn't be so bad, if the film had a message.

Dustin Hoffman's character is a whiney, wimpy, and mean spirited person who, when he finally decides to act, he does so for all of the wrong reasons & defends the wrong person. I end up hating him MORE than the bad guys.
I rank this as the most unwatchable movie I have ever seen, even below "Short Cuts".
However, if you liked "Short Cuts", you'd probably like this, and vice versa.

A Remarkable Film Which Stands the Test of Time.
This is a really interesting film on many levels. It's not perfect; but, few works of modern art are. Nevertheless, this work stands the test of time. Firstly, one of the most remarkable things about this film is the absolutely Hitchcockian editing, which is remotely primitivistic, but strangely compelling: the editing engenders a peculiar ambience to the film right from the beginning brawl scene in the pub. Then, from the denoument sequence--which begins with the equally primitive church function and runs through to the climax and epilogue--the editing is nothing less than fine art. Secondly, the sets of the pub and the farm house are very convincing and interesting in their own right: there's plenty to look at. Also, the outdoor scenes with the ocean in background and the Cornish village all have the verisimilitude of realism. Thirdly, the soundtrack is not at all bad. Fourthly, the acting is good: of course, Hoffman is nothing less than brilliant; Peter Vaughn is excellent as the burly boorish Englishman; and Susan George isn't bad: she begins weak, but by the middle of the film she's quite okay, and from the denoument mentioned above, she's fine. Also, David Warner as the half-witted cripple is excellent--though not given notice in the credits. Lastly, the story is fairly well formed and possibly plausible--though that's no recommendation for fiction! It is possible in realistic or naturalistic fiction that a university professor might get a grant and take a semester or even a year off to do research; and this professor might want to go to some remote European destination where his wife has ancestral property by the sea, to get away from it all to do his thought-work; and it is possible that this professor might have married the woman out of sexual attraction, fully knowing that she had much less education than himself and was his intellectual inferior. But the plot has a quasi-classical form of characters with flawed personality traits; tension and contentious issues; incident follows upon incident resulting in a shattering climax, followed by an ambivalent coda. What more can one say?

Another amazing masculine character study by Peckinpah.
It's not at all hard to see the connection between Peckinpah's two greatest movies: Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch. Both are studies of what it means to be a man, a look at the masculine and sometimes violent male nature. Basically, Straw Dogs is about an extremely timid American intellectual who decides to escape the Vietnam-fueled violence of the USA by moving into the small English town where his wife was raised. However, the man soon realizes that violence is pretty much omnipresent, when the men he hires to fix up his new home begin pushing him and his wife around. I won't give away the ending, but if you know Peckinpah you can probably guess.

of course, most people will probably want to see the movie for its infamous rape scene (which got the film banned in the UK, where it was filmed). Not only is the rape graphic, but the victim actually appears to enjoy it; at least at first. Here I must disagree with the lengthy rant of a prior reviewer when I say that the rape scene is not simply an exercise in mysoginy, but rather helps to show just how immasculinated the main character has become. Throughout the first half of the movie we see his wife slowly flirting with the contractors (at one point even letting them see her topless). This suggests quite obviously that she has become so disgruntled with her husbands lack of backbone that she is actively seducing the very masculine contractors, and the fact that she enjoys the rape is simply the logical extreme of her desire to have a truly "manly" partner. Of course, those who've seen the movie know that eventually she's punished for her covetry of man's aggressive nature.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. In fact, I'd suggest you get it ASAP, since the Criterion version has been out of print for months now and won't likely be available for much longer. You need a strong stomach to watch it, certainly, and the pace is very deliberate, but those who have patience and put effort into understanding the meaning of the film will be very well rewarded. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Frenchman Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson), imprisoned for stealing bread, is paroled after nearly two decades of hard labor. A gift of silver candlesticks from a kindly priest helps him begin anew. Forging a decent and profitable existence, he finds success as a businessman and as the mayor of a small town. He even takes in a pregnant young woman (Uma Thurman) and raises her daughter as his own. When a former prison guard (Geoffrey Rush) recognizes Valjean, his past catches up to him. Director Bille August culls mesmerizing performances from his cast, but loses us with an ending that panders to teen audiences. The focus shifts dramatically, and uncomfortably, from the haunted Neeson and his hawk-like pursuer, to his daughter (Claire Danes) and her romance with a handsome revolutionary. After this narrative shift, the script leaves behind the Victor Hugo classic's themes of revenge and redemption to focus improbably on teen angst--hardly what Hugo had on his mind. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (160)

Absolutely beautiful!
I had never read the book, but had heard of the story numerous times. I'm a huge Liam Neeson fan, so I wanted to see it. I've now watched it six times! It is a wonderful story! Plenty of things going on to keep you waiting to see what will happen next. The characters are so real! You can't help but love and respect Valjean and all the changes he goes through. If only we could all learn from our mistakes as he does! To love a woman so much in so short a time to consent to raise and love her daughter as his own! Oh! Claire Danes is adorable as Cosette (of course!) And Marius - well lets just say it would be entirely possible to fall in love with him at first sight! The passion in his eyes when he speaks to her is enough alone! As I said, I hadn't read the book, so I had no idea what would happen to them and their newfound love. How stressful! I won't spoil it by saying what happens in the end, but let's just say it is well worth the watch! I have told all of my friends and family to get this movie! I have since read the book and am now saving my own copy of the letters Marius wrote to Cosette. If only men these days spoke of love in those words! I promise you, you will love this movie!

A Terrible Adaptation
This is a good movie. I mean, not badly cast. Lovingly done. The acting is great. Yeah, you should enjoy it. Assuming you know absolutely nothing about Victor Hugo's original story. The truth is, if I didn't know better, I'd say whoever wrote the script never read Hugo's masterpiece and based it completely on the 1935 version. Come to think of it, I don't know better. That's probably exactly what happened.

I never thought I'd say this, but I am so glad Hugo didn't have to live to see this movie.

If you've read the book, you will hate this film. TRUST me. The plot, especially toward the end, is mercilessly butchered and rewritten. At some points it becomes utterly unrecognizable. Many of the revisions completely miss or even destroy the essence of characters, and some do not even make sense, the movie ending with Jean Valjean jubilant over the death of Javet, whose life he has made an enormous sacrifice to save.

Likewise, Javert would never attack Cosette; he was obsessively professional, not cruel. Nor would end his life (with minimal explanation, no less) in front of Valjean. Marius would NEVER act like Enjolras (oh, I forgot, there IS no Enjolras). Neither Marius NOR Enjolras would smile at remarks about making love to Cosette, so I find it hard to believe that some mutant hybrid Marjolras would. Cosette would never consider leaving Marius, her soulmate, to stay with Valjean, her adoptive father. And above all, Jean Valjean would NEVER, EVER fall in love with Fantine. The mere suggestion of this limits the portrayal of his charity to people he takes a special interest in.

Small variations are to be expected in any film adaptation of a book, but these all completely distort characters. The people who made this movie may have gotten the message (love, charity, etc.), but they missed the point.

If you've never read the book, see this movie. It is touching and carries a good message.

But it is not Les Misérables.

Great movie, but.....
Great movie, but the book was better...The movie is about the ex-convict, Jean Valjean, trying to help Fantine, a poor woman trying to make enough money to pay the Thenardiers to take care of her child Cosette, and later raising Cosette as his own, while also being persued by the persistant Inspector Javert.

What happens in the movie basically happens in the book as well, but the book also has much more going on. The book has an intricate connection between many of the character