Reviews (4)

Very funny
Norman "Fletch" Fletcher (played by Ronnie Barker) is a career criminal, and is now back doing time "at Her Majesty's pleasure" at Slade Prison. But, Fletch knows life in prison, and how to get things done. So, if he can just avoid the tough guard Mr. Mackay (Fulton Mackay), and manipulate the soft-spoken Mr. Barrowclough (Brian Wilde), he might just do OK.

My family and I are all fans of British comedies, and I took a gamble and bought this one sight-unseen. Well, my gamble paid off! This show is very funny, and I must admit that I enjoyed seeing that champion actor Ronnie Barker again. There is some sexually frank conversation in this show, and in one episode Ronnie Barker is reading a magazine called, "T*tbits." (That's right, my daughter noticed and asked me about it!) But, other than that, this is a very good show, and I highly recommend it to you.

This tape contains three of the half-hour episodes:

A Day Out - Series 1, episode 4 (September 26, 1974) - Volunteering for a work detail, Fletch plans on getting more than fresh air and wholesome work. And, when Mr. Mackay leaves the prisoners in the less-than-capable hand of Mr. Barrowclough, it looks like Fletch may get his chance. [As an added bonus, this episode includes Phillip Jackson (Inspector Japp from the Poirot mysteries) playing the role of an imprisoned hippy!]

Ways and Means - Series 1, episode 5 (October 3, 1974) - Tired of hard work, Fletch schemes his way into a job in the prison library, and is not averse to helping out his friends.

Disturbing the Peace - Series 2, episode 3 (November 7, 1975) - With Makcay moving on, it looks like happy days are here again in Slade Prison, but when his replacement is even worse, it's up to Fletch to come up with a solution.

Pleasing Adaptation Of A Television Classic
They say that British television shows make poor movies, especially when the original directors are replaced by cinema stalwarts and original scriptwriters are replaced by bankable John Junkin types. Now that Dick Clement & Ian Le Frenais have been successfully used as script doctors themselves (on The Rock, and Never Say Never Again, among others), the decision to retain their scriptwriting talents for this film seem to have
been vindicated. The action is sustainable over a feature film's length, largely due to Ronnie Barker's excellent acting skills and the fine supporting cast. The prison set somehow looks even more real on film than it did in video, and the atmosphere seems remarkably unspoiled by the change in format. This is great fun, and will not let any fans of the television series down

A Very Enjoyable & Entertaining British Comedy (4.5 stars)
I purchased Porridge on the strength of its star, Ronnie Barker, whom I enjoyed immensely in the Open All Hours videos. Both of these shows date back to the 1970s and both were written for Barker. Though Open All Hours is, I must confess, my personal favourite of the two, I nevertheless enjoyed Porridge very much.

Barker plays the clever and quick-witted Norman Stanley Fletcher, a small-time villain doing "porridge" (ie. time in prison) for theft. Nevertheless, Fletcher has succeeded in making himself quite comfortable and always manages to get the better of his superiors and fellow prisoners.

As for Fletcher's superiors, they couldn't be better cast or more hilarious. Firstly, there is Mr. McKay (pronounced "McKie"), a highly-strung, no-nonsense, and extremely regimental prison warden, whose rigid personality is reflected to a tee in his body language. He's in a position of power and authority, and he's not about to let anyone forget it.

The other prison warden is the mild-mannered, soft-spoken, and extremely unassertive Mr. Barraclaff, played superbly by Brian Wilde (The Last of the Summer Wine's Foggy Dewhurst). The timid Barraclaff is the polar opposite of McKay, and as he's unable to bark orders and forcefully command obedience, he usually resorts to begging and pleading. One could easily envision him working as a library assistant, but as a prison warden, he's hopelessly inept.

This video contains three 30-minute episodes. Briefly, the first episode, "A Day Out," has Fletcher and a few select inmates enjoying a day in the countryside digging drains. Things don't quite go as planned, however, when McKay leaves Barraclaff in charge for a few hours. In "Ways and Means," Fletcher goes to rather extreme lengths (and heights) to get reassigned from knitting fishing nets to the prison library instead. Finally, "Disturbing the Peace" has Fletcher and his mates thinking prison will be a holiday camp when McKay goes away on a training course. However, if they thought McKay was a tough warden, they're in for a real surprise when they meet his replacement.

In short, I found this to be a very enjoyable series. I have both Porridge videos, and if I have one complaint, it is only that there aren't more episodes available on video (the same goes for Open All Hours). Ronnie Barker (who retired officially in 1988) is a splendid character actor and is so entertaining to watch. Recommended to anyone who enjoys British comedy.

One Of Britain's Best Character/Comic Actors.
Ronnie Barker is an English national icon and a living treasure! Convict Norman Stanley Fletcher ('Fletch' to his mates) is one of Barker's greatest creations. In a career that spanned something like five decades, Barker created many memorable comic characters. Fletcher is a wise but sarcastic man, survivor of many of Britains toughest prisons. Still, he is a rogue with a heart of gold and becomes a father figure to Lenny Godber and a host of other naive and slightly dim cons. 'Porridge' is a movie version of the cult television series that although extremely funny, often gave subtle moral lessons about life and the power of right and wrong decisions. And did I mention that 'Porridge' is funny? It's the writing and fabulous cast that makes it so, and there is nothing better and more ingeniously funny than watching Fletcher and Godber try to break back INTO prison after being accidently sprung during a charity soccer match! American viewers may be a bit bemused by the thick accents and occasionally wry humor, but if this film came out today, it would be as big a hit as 'The Full Monty'. You would not regret buying this movie. And seek out the television series, which is even better. ... 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 (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 characters that the movie doesn't have, and also focuses on much more than Jean Valjean, whom the movie mostly focuses on.

I would suggest reading the book first, and then watching the movie.

An enjoyable classic!
I can't judge this movie fairly. I have read the book and watched the musical, both live and on DVD. So, naturally, I will be making subconscious comparisons, even though we all know that movies generally undertake their own artistic direction.

For one, although some people have claimed the storyline to be jumpy, I thought it was rather smooth-flowing, possibly because I already know the story beforehand. Although changes were made to the original story, for example, Valjean admitting to Cosette that he is a convict when he only did so before he died in the end, and Cosette remembering that Valjean is not her father when it was originally intended for her to believe that he was her real father, these changes were probably made to accommodate the short play time (2 hours is barely enough to fit in a 1484-pages story).

Liam Neeson portrayed Valjean to be exactly the way Hugo would have intended Valjean to be. In the beginning, he was a hard, animalistic beast of a man. But Neeson is able to morph into the gentle Mayor with ease, and that highlights Valjean's transformation. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as Javert. Never was there anyone more suited to play the cold, sadistic inspector. Uma Thurman is surprisingly convincing as Fantine. I had begun to stereotype her as the sort of action-thriller-sci-fi flick girl but this proved me wrong. Watch this movie for these three actors alone, for they bring class to your living room.

What I didn't like about the movie was the lack of development on the revolution. Hugo was a revolutionary. He wanted Les Mis to ignite the people's spirits. The revolution was a crucial scene, and the death of the revolutionaries a touching one. Through this movie, I can barely recognize which ones are Enjolras, Courfeyrac, Feuilly etc and yet the character names appear on the credit roll in the end.

The change of the ending (with Valjean walking free) did not leave much of an impact on me compared with the original ending. I loved the last page of Hugo's novel, where Cosette read Valjean's letter. Valjean had a tragic life. He was one of the Les Miserables, the underdogs, the wretched. For me, they had distorted the true message of Les Mis by changing the ending of the wonderful classic.

i didnt like it
I seen this Movie in English. and i didnt like it at all. i found it boring and the guyz hittin faintain and it isnt right. my friends and i didnt like it at all. it had a story... buh it was kind of jumpy. we only watched the first part, i would like to see the second part just to see how it all ends and everything. but to be honest i didnt like the movie at all. i am a grade 9 student and i dont think i know anyone who likes the movie. other then the teacher (maybe) ... 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

Reviews (1)

A Dreyfuss affair a fair 'Dreyfus affair'?
This is an accurate account of the famous (infamous, more likely)
Dreyfus affair, a scandal that nearly drove France to civil war at the
turn of the century. And it could have been a good movie too, if
director Ken Rusell hadn't overdone it miserably by pretending
"the whole thing was a comedy"!

The film manages to get
its facts right (a rare acomplishment for a Hollywood movie), features
an elaborate production, with fine costumes and sets (although its
'Paris' resembles London), and boasts a great cast led by Richard
Dreyfuss, who gives an above-his-usual performance as the officer
trying against all odds to save Dreyfus, while disliking him
personally for being a Jew.

Why, then, spoil it with all those
cartoonish "comic" details that serve no purpose whatsoever,
except to ruin the whole picture?: A French general, at work, dresses
as Zeus for a portrait (its painter complete with pointy moustaches
and a red beret!) later on display in his office. Another general (a
fat, grumpy, bearded lout who looks a lot like Bud Spencer, and sinks
every scene he's into) sings child-like racist songs with his junior
officers at an elegant military club that seems to accept all ranks
inside its halls, for one sees in one room the entire French army,
from maréchales to privates, getting drunk, pounding tables and
shouting at each other in their messed up uniforms. There's a War
Minister serving cake to his subordinates, a chanteuse lampooning 'La
Marsellaise' (the French applaud!), a German officer -pickelhaube and
all- dancing with a male spy in drag, and a sinister meeting inside a
church, with generals sniggering as they cross themselves. My, oh my!
Aren't these the bad guys!

Seems to me, the director tried so hard
to stress the point, he completely missed it. ....


... 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 characters that the movie doesn't have, and also focuses on much more than Jean Valjean, whom the movie mostly focuses on.

I would suggest reading the book first, and then watching the movie.

An enjoyable classic!
I can't judge this movie fairly. I have read the book and watched the musical, both live and on DVD. So, naturally, I will be making subconscious comparisons, even though we all know that movies generally undertake their own artistic direction.

For one, although some people have claimed the storyline to be jumpy, I thought it was rather smooth-flowing, possibly because I already know the story beforehand. Although changes were made to the original story, for example, Valjean admitting to Cosette that he is a convict when he only did so before he died in the end, and Cosette remembering that Valjean is not her father when it was originally intended for her to believe that he was her real father, these changes were probably made to accommodate the short play time (2 hours is barely enough to fit in a 1484-pages story).

Liam Neeson portrayed Valjean to be exactly the way Hugo would have intended Valjean to be. In the beginning, he was a hard, animalistic beast of a man. But Neeson is able to morph into the gentle Mayor with ease, and that highlights Valjean's transformation. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as Javert. Never was there anyone more suited to play the cold, sadistic inspector. Uma Thurman is surprisingly convincing as Fantine. I had begun to stereotype her as the sort of action-thriller-sci-fi flick girl but this proved me wrong. Watch this movie for these three actors alone, for they bring class to your living room.

What I didn't like about the movie was the lack of development on the revolution. Hugo was a revolutionary. He wanted Les Mis to ignite the people's spirits. The revolution was a crucial scene, and the death of the revolutionaries a touching one. Through this movie, I can barely recognize which ones are Enjolras, Courfeyrac, Feuilly etc and yet the character names appear on the credit roll in the end.

The change of the ending (with Valjean walking free) did not leave much of an impact on me compared with the original ending. I loved the last page of Hugo's novel, where Cosette read Valjean's letter. Valjean had a tragic life. He was one of the Les Miserables, the underdogs, the wretched. For me, they had distorted the true message of Les Mis by changing the ending of the wonderful classic.

i didnt like it
I seen this Movie in English. and i didnt like it at all. i found it boring and the guyz hittin faintain and it isnt right. my friends and i didnt like it at all. it had a story... buh it was kind of jumpy. we only watched the first part, i would like to see the second part just to see how it all ends and everything. but to be honest i didnt like the movie at all. i am a grade 9 student and i dont think i know anyone who likes the movie. other then the teacher (maybe) ... 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