Amazon.com

Sally Potter's self-reflective film stars Potter (an actress and the director of Orlando), more or less as herself, learning to tango from master dancer Pablo Veron and considering making a film called The Tango Lesson. The film that we happen to be watching, however, is concerned largely with the delicious conflict between the politics of tango--the need for one partner, typically the woman, to yield to the other--and the expectations of the filmmaker to do things on her own terms. Can Potter simultaneously surrender and control for the duration of this circular project? The question is made more complicated by Veron's desire to be in one of Potter's films--in other words, to follow her lead. Potter may not be Veron's equal on the dance floor, but that isn't the point of this interesting movie and its provocative, internal debate. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (56)

Striking movie that captures the spirit of the Tango
Most dance movies obscure the actual dancing in a barrage of MTV-quick-cut shots of heads and feet. This one doesn't. Why not? Because it doesn't have to. The dancers are terrific, and shooting them full-length, with the camera on them for minutes at a time, shows them and the Tango to advantage.

After a distracting yet stylish introduction, the movie settles down into its intelligent portrayal of two exceptional people learning to love each other and dance together. The director wisely keeps the dialogue to a minimum, and lets the dancing tell the story. And what dancing! The Tango is a captivating dance to begin with, and these folks dance it with grace and passion.

Pablo Veron has more screen presence than any other actor alive, and he's a world-class dancer to boot. Sally Potter, the movie's director who plays his partner is also an excellent tanguera. Did I say it before? The dancing is amazing!

From the parks of Paris to the Tango salons of Buenos Aires, the characters speak to each other in French, Spanish, and English. This ain't Hollywood fare. No car chases, no pulling of heart strings, no wacky characters. Just striking cinematography, a fine, spare script, and delightful dancing. If you like beautiful things, you'll like this movie.

To set things straight...
I saw the Tango Lesson and found it a genuine work of Art. I recommend those who love good movies to watch this one. The Tango Lesson perhaps has a weak plot, but a film director isn't necessarily a story teller. The meta-narration which takes place in the Tango Lesson certainly makes this movie an advanced art product, which has nothing to do with the telling of actual occurrences, but rather focuses on the developing of Art itself in the mind and life of an Artist. In my opinion, one of the strong-points of this film is that it allows us to peek into the director's head, and see Art through her eyes (I can assure it's quite a sight). Some may interpret this film as an "exercise in self-indulgence," but personally, I think this approach misleading, in the age of the "Self." We're talking Art here, and Sally Potter is the Artist. Herself: no one else should be the starting point and centre of her own movie. The Lady knows how to direct, act, dance and sing: why shouldn't she do all of the above? I think she deserves much admiration: she's a well rounded Artist, and there aren't many! (Besides, as I've said already, to me the film is about Art and Life before anything else: the director uses her own experience and many skills to make a point and to get things done exactly how she wants them, but the movie isn't "about" Sally Potter.) Now to the point. The editing has character, it's intelligent, original, definitely not a Hollywood product. The photography is breathtaking - and eloquent: it says "the Tango Lesson is about Aesthetics, Beauty itself." The acting is honest, fresh, and charming. In my opinion, the acting is superb: Sally Potter really knows what measure and elegance are. The soundtrack is exquisite. The tango pieces are great, and so is the leitmotiv of the movie: the seagull-like cry in the airport scene tears my heart out every time I listen to it (it's also the one track that made me decide to buy the CD). This film, someone said, has little to offer the general public. I'm afraid this is accurate. Or rather, "the general public" probably would have some difficulty in tacklig this art-movie, which I don't believe was meant to give easy answers to difficult questions (like so many other films) but to make people think. Nonetheless, seeing this movie made me realise all over again that it's definitely worth trying.

Great dancing, great locales, not enough courage.
Sally Potter is a great director and Pablo Veron, her sometime teacher/boyfriend is a great dancer. Having said that, there is a reason why this film , despite its apparent honesty, fails.

It doesn't cut deep enough into the dark or shamefull flaws of the leads. It's too subtle for its own good, or rather it's subtle by default, it lacks courage. Sally plays herself and wistfully looks up at the apartment building where her teacher, Veron (who also plays himself) resides. It's a beutifull shot, with snowflakes falling. . .

In another scene she tells him she has been in love with him as a woman for over a year but that he just wants her to get into the movies and be a star, whereupon his reaction is once again, er...subtle.

The point I'm getting at is that she's much more than merely 'wistful' , she'a a middle aged woman who is making a complete ass of herself, acting like a 14 year old with a crush towards a man who is indeed ruthlessly exploiting her for the money of the lessons and for his chance at a movie role.

But we don't get to the heart of that.

These dark sides are whitewashed in wistfull snowflakes . . .

Had these flaws been brought out the characters would have been infinitely more vulnerable and interesting. The love between them (yes , despite their flaws there is love) would still have been there, the magic of the dance and its art would also have been there in all its glorious obsession. Most of all, the contradictions that make these two human beings unique and interesting would have come forth.

Still worth watching for some of the best Tango numbers choreographed. But it's a pity compared to what it could have been. . .

One of My Favorite Movies
I absolutely loved it because it's an adult love story told from an adult point of view. The two main characters have strong personalities, and because of their occupations, are used to being in control. They learn that in life, sometimes you lead and sometimes you follow. The cinematography is perfect; you only see what needs to be on screen, nothing superfuous. The same can be said about the dialogue. Sally Potter was involved in every aspect of her film: directing, writing, acting, dancing, writing music/lyrics, and singing. There is great chemistry between the two main characters and the music and dancing are wonderful. You won't be sorry you purchased it. The music will make you raptuous and the dancing will inspire you to dance.

Choregraphy is great!
The film as a film justly explores the politics of tango and is well directed. The film may lead the uninitiated to believe a student could reach such an advanced level of dance in such a short period of time. However . . . it is a film produced as entertainment.

All in all - for tango lovers, the dance scenes are worth watching again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (351)

Hail to the Queen!
During its theatrical run, critical praise of ELIZABETH was subdued somewhat due to the film's historical inaccuracy and emphasis on melodrama. While both of these observations are admittedly correct, ELIZABETH is none-the-less a spectacular production. From the riveting opening credits to the chilling finale, this movie is full of provocative dramatic elements: sex, betrayal, politics, religion, violence, and revenge. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are outstanding. The settings alternate between dank medieval gloom and brilliant regal spendor. Cate Blanchett gives a dynamic performance of Meryl Streep calibre. (She should have won the Oscar, but ELIZABETH wasn't nearly as popular as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.) In plot and theme, ELIZABETH is like a hybrid of THE LION IN WINTER and THE GODFATHER. It begins as the reign of Elizabeth's sister, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary")is coming to an end. The film then details the controversial ascension of Protestant young Elizabeth to the throne. The movie focuses on the early years of her reign, as Elizabeth struggles to solidify her power and overcome conflicts of religion and political intrigue; questions of marriage; and numerous plots to depose or assassinate her. As previously mentioned, the movie takes a good deal of license with history, taking events and relationships that occurred throughout Elizabeth's reign and condensing them into the first few years of her reign. Overall, ELIZABETH is an excellent production-- as chilling and dramatic as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is romantic and funny. The two films are wonderful counterparts.

Not Your Average Costume Drama
Shekar Kapur's account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign in not your average costume drama, it is a visceral and entrancing film that despite all the historical inaccuracies that other reviewers have noted (and they are many), perfectly captures the climate of religious conflict, struggle for power and constant danger that characterised the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Michael Hirst's script portrays the young queen as an innocent caught in the throes of international politics, who by the end of the film has become a calculating monarch willing to sacrifice almost anything to ensure her survival and the welfare and prosperity of her kingdom. Kapur's brilliant direction gives the film a vertiginous rhythm, while Remi Adefarasin's ominous cinematography adds a menacing and sinister atmosphere that sometimes gives Elizabeth the feel of a horror movie. Also worthy of praise are the magnificent production design, the gorgeous costumes and a surprisingly eclectic soundtrack that includes Byrd, Mozart, Holst and Elgar as well as some great original music.

The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke of Norfolk; Richard Attenborough as Cecil, Elizabeth's most loyal and trusted aide; and Kathy Burke as the frustrated and paranoid "Bloody Mary". However, the real jewel is Cate Blanchett's amazing, star-making turn as the title character. She gives a complex, mesmerising and moving performance as she makes the transition from scared and vulnerable young woman to quasi-preternatural icon.

If you are interested in the "true historical facts" of Elizabeth's reign you should choose a documentary of one of the many great books that have been written about her (my favourite is Alison Weir's biography), but if you are looking for a great cinematic experience that explores the young queen's personality and motivations in remarkable depth this is definitely the one to choose. In my opinion Shekar Kapur's masterpiece is the best film of its kind.

Entertaining, but wildly inaccurate
If you're not bothered by historical inaccuracies, then go ahead and check out this movie. It's extremely well-acted for the most part, although Fiennes's Dudley turns milksop in an entirely fictitious turn of events that aligns him with a Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots (whose death in the movie is all wrong, too). Events from decades later are all condensed into what is clearly supposed to be the first year or two of Elizabeth's reign (which begain in 1558): Norfolk didn't rebel until the Northern Rebellion in 1569; Elizabeth wasn't excommunicated until 1570; she didn't even enter the Anjou courtship until 1578; and Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded in public, not murdered in her bed, and that not until almost thirty years later, in 1587! Furthermore, in 1558 Lord Robert Dudley was not yet Earl of Leicester (he wouldn't be until Elizabeth gave him that title in 1564, and he was NEVER a duke!), and as another reviewer has pointed out, there's certainly more drama and intrigue in his REAL story than the movie allows -- he was rumored to have murdered his wife, Amy Robsart, after all.

I won't go on, but my point is that there is a hell of a lot wrong with the storyline that didn't even need to be wrong. It's still an entertaining movie, as I mentioned before, and Cate Blanchett really does deliver an exceptional performance. But at least some sort of gesture towards a measure of historical accuracy would have been appreciated.

Well acted, but distorts the actual events
Elizabeth is a well acted and entertaining movie, with some very well done performances and is visually stunning. The problem is that the writers decided to change so many events, that it ends up unnecessarily distorting the actual history.

To see a factual, well-acted, and still superb movie of the same era, get the 1971 film "Mary Queen of Scots" with Vanessa Redgrave. Not only does this follow the actual events, but the drama of 2 queens battling for power is so forcibly played that you can watch it over and over

What's wrong with the real story?
Lovely, beautifully acted, blah blah...

But why would the producers/writers take such an EXCITING true story, and change all the facts, and make is so much boring than it actually was? The real story has everything: romance, murder, betrayal, a wife pushed down the stairs, politics... so why turn it into such a dull, ordinary, mushy romance?

If you want to watch a strong woman influencing world events, watch "The Lion in Winter." If you want to read about the TRUE story of Elizabeth's ascent to the throne, read Alison Weir's books. If you want to watch a goopy romance movie, there are plenty of much better ones to choose from. But don't waste your time with this movie. ... Read more

Reviews (150)

Monsters, Madmen & Art
This tale of the supression and imprisonment of the Marquis De Sade in the insane asylum at Charenton and the ensuing struggle and turmoil caused by the arrival of Dr. Royer-Collard to stop his smuggled-out writings from being published has much to recommend it, especially in the first half of the film. Chiefly the performances of Jeffrey Rush as De Sade, Joaquin Phoenix as the caring and humane Abbe Coulmier in charge of Charenton, and Kate Winslet as the sympathetic laundress, Madeleine, who is smuggling the manuscripts for fun and profit.

This De Sade is a monster of sorts, not so much of depravity, as of vanity and selfishness & self-obsession. He is compelled to write at any cost, and is by turns clever and obnoxious and self-destructive and indifferent to anything or anyone but his own need for self-expression. Well-played by Rush, he is a reminder that art mustn't be confused with the artist--terrible people can create beauty. In this instance, the art of De Sade may not be beautiful and may not even be "art" to most minds, but the need to create is real and just as valid with bad art as with genius and must be protected.

Winslet and Phoenix present foils for De Sade in the forms of, by turns, an enticing virgin intrigued by and intriguing with the Marquis and a conflicted man of the cloth enjoying the intellectual challenge of the man while protecting and seeing to his care. Both are fine.

Alas, we come to the fourth character in this drama, the conservative Dr. Royer-Collard played by Michael Caine. A bureaucrat and a closet sadist, before the name had become attached to the behavior (bit of irony there), he is such a villain that he only lacks a long black moustache to twirl. I won't fault Caine because I imagine he's playing him as written, and, especially in one scene at a door in the Apocalyptic finale I felt expected to hiss & boo him. The finale was a bit much as well.

But it is the Caine character that brings the movie down to my mind. It is too much an obvious and cheap shot. The mendacious conservative. It would have been so much more interesting had the character not been so one-dimensional in his evil. When we first are introduced to him, Dr. Royer-Collard looked to be interesting: a true believer in his own nutty cures (soaking madmen upside down to calm them) so I had hopes of an exploration of two halves of crazy extremes, the libertine (De Sade) and the orthodox conservative, the incendiary & the politician. Both monsters & madmen in their own ways. Well, you won't find it here. What you get is beknighted artist and slimy bad guy. Cliches. Also, the subplot of Royer-Collard's young wife is a wasted & unnecessary plot device, no more.

What you will find is some extreme behaviour from Rush in a good, but at times mannered performance, [an incomplete] defense of art at any cost, a penny-dreadful villain, some nice honest performances from the younger set (Winslet & Phoenix), a fiery finale that is over-the-top and a bit silly, and an ending that is not a twist or surprise but wants to be. Snappy dialogue isn't enough to carry the day.

Yet, Phil Kaufman is too intelligent and talented a director to make a boring film, and this isn't one. The production values are great and this is a film at least about SOMETHING, and there are ideas afloat here. While I think it ultimately didn't convince me, it is a worthy effort. Probably 3-1/2 stars.

Delicious dramatic period piece from Philip Kaufmann.
While I can't help but laugh at the fact they made the Marquis de Sade the central character in a story about artistic expression and sexual repression, I can understand why. Here is a man who wallowed in excess, seeming unconcerned with the weight of his decisions, his only escape and expression the very thing that caused his downfall. The Marquis de Sade was not a martyr for freedom of speech. He was a seriously disturbed individual whose callous disregard for mankind (he thought murder should be a privilage for the rich) was reflected in his writing. But here he is a curious old coot, with a marvelous sense of humor and a deeply hidden soft side. But Geoffrey Rush's performance makes it all easier to swallow. He is a brave actor (appearing completely nude in several scenes) who loves to portray wounded characters and he simply shines. Kate Winslet (likewise great and brave) plays the innocent laudry maid Madeleine who secretly sneaks the Marquis' writing out of the asylum where he is kept and into the arms of a publisher. When these writings reach the hands of Napoleon, the emperor sends an accomplished doctor, Royer Collard (the great Michael Caine), to silence him, undermining the authority of the asylum's resident priest (Joaquin Phoenix), who sees Sade as a creature who must be saved and who NEEDS to write in order to clean his soul. The film is filled with sexual energy, reaching certain points of eroticism that recall director Philip Kaufman's earlier masterpiece 'The Unbearable Lightness Of Being'. This is a beautiful film, nicely detailed and extremely playful. It is also dark and grisly, nothing too graphic yet certainly unsettling at times. I suppose, if nothing else, 'Quills' does stand as a 'freedom of speech' movie. I look at it as a film which simultaneously acknowledges our fasination with sex and spanks us for our dirty thoughts. But it ultimately reminds us that we all have a right to be heard and that everything has an audience. And if you've just finished watching this movie, well then thank you for helping me prove that point.

RECIPE FOR A FIERCE BUT INTOXICATING COMIC ROMP
Take a controversial character, for instance, an infamous French aristocrat who writes fearlessly explicit pornographic tales from his asylum jail cell to which he has been consigned for committing violent crimes of passion.

Cast a maniacal Geoffrey Rush in that role, and use him with more than a pinch of artistic license, to philosophically discuss censorship and freedom of expression in art. Tipped in water-tight dialogue and a dramatically dark ink.

Throw in some action and intrigue, for example, our incarcerated prisoner having to smuggle his lurid works out of the asylum via a sweet, innocent maid who gains vicarious pleasure from reading the stories to self and others.

Of course, a dash of morality never hurt, so add a holier-than-thou priest who brings to the table a fresh aroma of common sensibility.

Stir well and add spice to taste. Viewers will revel in the mind play between the sordid characters you have created and be aghast at the depths to which it is possible for them to stoop. There, you have a marvel of a film that'll be seen again and again.

Quills is without reservations a fascinating cinematic masterpiece of our time, in every sense of the word, and deserves a warm place in every self-respecting film collection.

A great achievement!!
I really liked the movie for it's powerfull dramatic theme and the strenght that it shows. It's one of my all-time favorites!!

Too good to be true!!!
Wow, this is indeed the best movie tht I have ever seen. It has passion, love and flawless acting. Simply brilliant! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The popular children's books by Mary Norton have been filmed before, but never with as much imagination and ingenuity as you'll find on display in this delightful fantasy film released to critical praise in 1998. The "Borrowers" of the title are a family of tiny people who live in the walls and under the floorboards in the homes of "normal-sized" humans; they earn their by "borrowing" the household items (string, food crumbs, buttons, etc.) needed to furnish their tiny hiding places and provide their meals. The little Clock family lives happily undisturbed in the home of an aged aunt, but when the aunt dies and her will is stolen by an unscrupulous lawyer (John Goodman), the Clocks face eviction and the frightening hazards of the outside world. Under the ingenious direction of Peter Hewitt, this simple, straightforward movie mixes comedy, adventure, and suspense with some of the cleverest special effects you've ever seen, taking full advantage of effects technologies to immerse you in the world of the tiny people. A climactic chase scene in a milk-bottling plant is a visual tour de force, and the movie's smart and dazzling enough to entertain parents and children alike. After its modest success in theaters, The Borrowers stands a good chance of becoming a home-video favorite. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Reviews (351)

Hail to the Queen!
During its theatrical run, critical praise of ELIZABETH was subdued somewhat due to the film's historical inaccuracy and emphasis on melodrama. While both of these observations are admittedly correct, ELIZABETH is none-the-less a spectacular production. From the riveting opening credits to the chilling finale, this movie is full of provocative dramatic elements: sex, betrayal, politics, religion, violence, and revenge. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are outstanding. The settings alternate between dank medieval gloom and brilliant regal spendor. Cate Blanchett gives a dynamic performance of Meryl Streep calibre. (She should have won the Oscar, but ELIZABETH wasn't nearly as popular as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.) In plot and theme, ELIZABETH is like a hybrid of THE LION IN WINTER and THE GODFATHER. It begins as the reign of Elizabeth's sister, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary")is coming to an end. The film then details the controversial ascension of Protestant young Elizabeth to the throne. The movie focuses on the early years of her reign, as Elizabeth struggles to solidify her power and overcome conflicts of religion and political intrigue; questions of marriage; and numerous plots to depose or assassinate her. As previously mentioned, the movie takes a good deal of license with history, taking events and relationships that occurred throughout Elizabeth's reign and condensing them into the first few years of her reign. Overall, ELIZABETH is an excellent production-- as chilling and dramatic as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is romantic and funny. The two films are wonderful counterparts.

Not Your Average Costume Drama
Shekar Kapur's account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign in not your average costume drama, it is a visceral and entrancing film that despite all the historical inaccuracies that other reviewers have noted (and they are many), perfectly captures the climate of religious conflict, struggle for power and constant danger that characterised the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Michael Hirst's script portrays the young queen as an innocent caught in the throes of international politics, who by the end of the film has become a calculating monarch willing to sacrifice almost anything to ensure her survival and the welfare and prosperity of her kingdom. Kapur's brilliant direction gives the film a vertiginous rhythm, while Remi Adefarasin's ominous cinematography adds a menacing and sinister atmosphere that sometimes gives Elizabeth the feel of a horror movie. Also worthy of praise are the magnificent production design, the gorgeous costumes and a surprisingly eclectic soundtrack that includes Byrd, Mozart, Holst and Elgar as well as some great original music.

The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke of Norfolk; Richard Attenborough as Cecil, Elizabeth's most loyal and trusted aide; and Kathy Burke as the frustrated and paranoid "Bloody Mary". However, the real jewel is Cate Blanchett's amazing, star-making turn as the title character. She gives a complex, mesmerising and moving performance as she makes the transition from scared and vulnerable young woman to quasi-preternatural icon.

If you are interested in the "true historical facts" of Elizabeth's reign you should choose a documentary of one of the many great books that have been written about her (my favourite is Alison Weir's biography), but if you are looking for a great cinematic experience that explores the young queen's personality and motivations in remarkable depth this is definitely the one to choose. In my opinion Shekar Kapur's masterpiece is the best film of its kind.

Entertaining, but wildly inaccurate
If you're not bothered by historical inaccuracies, then go ahead and check out this movie. It's extremely well-acted for the most part, although Fiennes's Dudley turns milksop in an entirely fictitious turn of events that aligns him with a Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots (whose death in the movie is all wrong, too). Events from decades later are all condensed into what is clearly supposed to be the first year or two of Elizabeth's reign (which begain in 1558): Norfolk didn't rebel until the Northern Rebellion in 1569; Elizabeth wasn't excommunicated until 1570; she didn't even enter the Anjou courtship until 1578; and Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded in public, not murdered in her bed, and that not until almost thirty years later, in 1587! Furthermore, in 1558 Lord Robert Dudley was not yet Earl of Leicester (he wouldn't be until Elizabeth gave him that title in 1564, and he was NEVER a duke!), and as another reviewer has pointed out, there's certainly more drama and intrigue in his REAL story than the movie allows -- he was rumored to have murdered his wife, Amy Robsart, after all.

I won't go on, but my point is that there is a hell of a lot wrong with the storyline that didn't even need to be wrong. It's still an entertaining movie, as I mentioned before, and Cate Blanchett really does deliver an exceptional performance. But at least some sort of gesture towards a measure of historical accuracy would have been appreciated.

Well acted, but distorts the actual events
Elizabeth is a well acted and entertaining movie, with some very well done performances and is visually stunning. The problem is that the writers decided to change so many events, that it ends up unnecessarily distorting the actual history.

To see a factual, well-acted, and still superb movie of the same era, get the 1971 film "Mary Queen of Scots" with Vanessa Redgrave. Not only does this follow the actual events, but the drama of 2 queens battling for power is so forcibly played that you can watch it over and over

What's wrong with the real story?
Lovely, beautifully acted, blah blah...

But why would the producers/writers take such an EXCITING true story, and change all the facts, and make is so much boring than it actually was? The real story has everything: romance, murder, betrayal, a wife pushed down the stairs, politics... so why turn it into such a dull, ordinary, mushy romance?

If you want to watch a strong woman influencing world events, watch "The Lion in Winter." If you want to read about the TRUE story of Elizabeth's ascent to the throne, read Alison Weir's books. If you want to watch a goopy romance movie, there are plenty of much better ones to choose from. But don't waste your time with this movie. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Not that bad...
Pointless sequel, they should have left poor King Kong dead. Linda Hamilton (along with a bunch of other doctors) brings ol' King Kong back to life, but this time... somewhere in some jungle, they find Lady Kong, whom they drag to the US... then a strange romance unveils between both Kongs... and on and on.
I'm not surprised why they didn't do a follow up to this one.
Average special effects, but this movie has a haunting musical score.

King Kong might live but he will regret it with this turkey
"King Kong Lives" is so boring that even pre-schoolers will probably get up and wander out of the room on this one to go play with a cardboard box or watch paint dry. It is one thing to make a sequel to a splatter flick where Michael/Jason/Freddy constantly comes back from the dead, but another thing to try and put the same trick with King Kong. Thousands of people die around the world each year because of heart attacks, but working on an artificial heart for a 50-foot ape who has been in a coma for ten years seemed like a good idea to heart specialist Amy Franklin (Linda Hamilton). Meanwhile, in the jungles of Borneo big game hunter Hank Mitchell (Brian Kerwin) finds a female Kong. This is good news because she can provide the blood Kong needs during the operation (let us all think about the world's biggest by-pass machine). Amy falls for Hank because they have so much in common, while the two apes do the same. Needing privacy, Kong and his love flee into the woods where the Army proceeds to hunt them down. The movie makes it seem like it only took the army a couple of days to hunt down two 50-foot apes running loose in the wild, but it must have been many, many months because when the Army catches up with them the female Kong is in labor.

This movie is jaw-droppingly bad. But given that Jessica Lange survived the original "King Kong" remake and Linda Hamilton had some success after this turkey, there is really no reason for any young actress to ever turn a role in one of these films, no matter how bad the script. King Kong's leading ladies do pretty well. The gap between the original "King Kong" and the remake is certainly a lot closer than "King Kong Lives" and the original sequel, "Son of Kong." Sure, that one had the mystery of where was Frau Kong all this time, but that giant hole is nothing compared to the rampant stupidity in this one. The person I respect after watching this film would have to be Margaret Mitchell, who avoided having a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" for half a century. Way to go Mrs. Peggy Marsh!

Mistake On My Part, And The Director's
It's long after Kong fell off the Empire State Building, and all this time scientists tried to save Kong with an arteficial heart. Meanwhile the army finds out about Lady Kong and try to kill both of them. This plot is good but they make the movie seem so boring you want to run away. I was going to get Rodan when I was younger but my mom showed me this and I chose it. Turns out Rodan was 17,000,000,000 times better than this pathetic film. If you want to die of boredom, watch this terrible excuse for a King Kong movie.

Greatly entertaining.
This sequel to the 1976 remake of King Kong is pure cheese, but very entertaining for monster fans! I found it more entertaining than King Kong (1976), and not as long and drawn out as the latter movie.

Highly recommended if you can get a copy of it.

It actually makes the Godzilla movies look good....
1986 sequal to the terrible 1976 remake, finds Linda Hamilton and a bunch of scientists revive Kong with a new mechannal heart, then they find a Lady Kong and the two have a son, all the while the military wants all the apes dead. It really is a cheesy movie with bad effects work. Two actors in terrible ape suits. A lousy music score and terrible acting by everyone. Thankfully they never followed it up with another movie. It's not a key with the recent Godzilla movie that put a supernatural take on the Big G. Bleeech. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Reviews (129)

Don't listen to the critics.....
Despite achieving an extraordinary critically acclaimed career as a pop music artist, a successful acting career has so far eluded Madonna. Applauded for her debut role in Desperately Seeking Susan, subsequent acting roles have been publicly criticised except for a handful of hits (A League of their Own, Evita and Dick Tracy come to mind).

In 2002 Madonna once again performed in a movie, entitled 'Swept Away.' What makes this movie interesting though is that the writer and director is none other than her husband, acclaimed cult film director Guy Ritchie. I'm sure the knives were already out before the first scene was even shot. The critics don't seem to take too kindly to husband/wife filmmaking teams, and the Madonna/Guy combination was no exception.

Before the film hit the cinemas, huge headlines adorned the press proclaiming this movie to be the biggest bomb ever made, so the audiences stayed away in droves. Is this movie really as bad as those critics have suggested?

Even though I'm a Madonna fan I tried to see this film without any preconceived ideas, though I was hoping it would be good - and that hope came true.

The story centres around Amber (played by Madonna) going on a holiday with her rich husband and several socialite friends. Amber is a money obsessed, emotionally surpressed rich woman that we all love to hate. She makes Pepe's (the ship's resident fisherman and all round helper) life miserable.

A turn of events sees Amber and Pepe alone together on a deserted island. It is here where Pepe becomes the 'boss' and Amber must come to grips with being in a situation where money cannot be used to buy whatever she wants.

The first thing one notices about Swept Away is the stunning cinematography of the locations. You can almost reach out and touch that crystal clear water. The DOP and Cinematographer should have been nominated for some award for their talents here.

So for the burning question - how does Madonna perform???? She has shown that she has matured and developed as an actress to give a credible performance as Amber - playing the mean spirited socialite perfectly with a mixture of comedy and pure meanness. When we see Amber show her emotional and sensitive sides, Madonna comes up trumps here also - I had tears in my eyes watching Amber cope with those last remaining moments of the movie.

The DVD itself has some great extras. A 'behind the scenes' featurette actually lives up to it's name - no cheesy self promotional clips here but a true behind the scenes encounter where we see many candid moments between Madonna and Guy, including them with their children. Next is a selection of deleted scenes and the audio commentary with Guy and one of his producers. Whilst divulging the odd interesting fact, it is actually quite tedious to listen to with a considerable amount of umms and aahhhs. He may a brilliant filmmaker but he needs some lessons on how to give good commentary!!!!

I found Swept Away to be a wonderfully tender and romantic movie that reached inside me and tugged at my emotions. It is a shame that audiences have been brainwashed into thinking that this is a bad movie just because Madonna is in it. It is actually a well-crafted piece of cinematic art.

Mediocre attempt at filmmaking by Guy Ritchie......
I watched this one with a bit of caution. I was curious to see what the outcome would be. I liked Guy Ritchie's previous films, so I thought, despite all the bad press surrounding this film, I'd give it a shot. Well, here it goes...

It was mildly entertaining, but it wasn't great at all. Madonna can't really act all that well, and needs to stick to her day job. She was great in "A League of Their Own", but in this particular film, you could tell she was trying really hard to make the best of it, but it just didn't work. The script by Ritchie was full of unbelievably corny scenes and bits of dialogue. The scene where Giancarlo Gianni and Madonna play charades in the cabin by the beach is unbearable...

Other than all of that, the scenery is beautiful, and like I said, its mildy entertaining...enough so that you can make it through the entire film. BARELY make it through, rather.

SKIP IT or watch if there is absolutly nothing else to choose from.

Bandwagoned By Many, Seen By Few
OK, let me start off by saying this movie wasn't what the critics made it out to be. The movie was actually good. Although Madonna's acting, as usual, left something to be desired, you can't help but think to yourself, she played the part off though . . . .and that's exactly what she did.

Firstly, I'd like to say that the script killed the movie. It wasn't a bad movie, it was just a horrible script. I cringed to so many parts of the film because I thought to myself, "I know Madonna knows this isn't going anywhere." That's why some complained, because the fact that it took so long to get into the movie, because honestly, the movie took off when Madonna and Adrianno were stranded, and the climax was the very unexpected ending. (I haven't seen the first, so it was unexpected to me.)

Madonna's nonchalance acting wasn't very believeable and at times, it was quite cheesy, but this was probably her best acting preformance after Evita ofcourse. The movie was saved by the acting of Adrianno, and the chemistry that him and Madonna shared. It was good to see a movie that stepped out of the love story clich'e a little bit.

The music in the movie was thoughtful and very good to listen too, especially the song that is playing while Madonna and Adrianno are sitting down with eachother to an orange sunset. My favorite song , well instrumental, has to be the instrumental that is played on several parts of the movie, and for the ending credits. (the instrumental I'm speaking of is titiled "Partied" on the soundtrack) The music montages that guy came up with were also funny, and that preformance by Madonna to a classic by Della Reese was also great.

I remember months before the movie came out it was getting a media blitz for being Madonna's next movie, but then weeks before it came out the critics destroyed it, and I'm sure that's why it was a box office bomb, because too many people took the point of view of critics that were criticizing Madonna more so than her acting. I thought that was ludicrious, and it was obvious because the movie wasn't at all what they made it out to be. But now in all honesty, it seems as though if a star couple gets together and makes a project, for instance, a movie, it bombs single-handedly. That's what happened to Gigli. Gigli was what the critics said, but they overblown this movie, which was at fault by from the dull script, not Madonna;s acting, although she was overshadowed by the powerful preformance of Adrianno.

Madonna isn't given credit for the wide array of roles she chooses, but honestly, that's exactly what she needs to rethink. Some of the roles Madonna potrays in films can only make me wonder, "Why?" She needs to reanalyze her intuition in choosing roles. I think she is still trying to gain respect from critics for her acting. She's still trying to get her Oscar like Cher did. She was humiliated because she said to a lot of reporters on interviews that she will win the Oscar for her role in Evita, but after her Golden Globe win she found out she wasn't nominated. I think they only did that to upset her and because she's "Madonna." She deserved an Oscar for Evita, if not a nomination at least. Madonna isn't the best actress in the world, but neither is the overated Julia Roberts, and she certaintly isn't a bad actress. Heloooooooooo she has a Golden Globe. Julia Roberts is remembered for two movies only, which are Still Magnolia's and the all time favorite Preety Woman. Madonna on the other hand with less success in the acting relm, is known for more than two movies, excluding the one's that bombed and were critically panned. Madonna has roles that she is known for: Desperatly Seeking Susan, Dick Tracy, A League Of Their Own, and her climax Evita. Evita was her role of the lifetime, and usually that term comes garnered with an Oscar, but they weren't ready to give her one yet, at least for her acting. It's ironic that many critize Madonna's talent as an actress but she's known for more roles that she played than heavyweights like Gweyneth, Julia, Kate, Sandra, and others. She's better than some actresses that don't get bad reviews like: Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Debra Messing, Jennifer Anniston, and others. Like I said, I think that just cause she's Madonna they try to keep her stray from acting praises. It's obvious that critics don't quite favor the singer turned actor . . .let's face it.

See this movie. At least rent it from Blockbuster or watch it on HBO. Trust me it's not what the critcs claimed it to be. It's not the best movie in the world, certainly not Madonna's best, but it's quite close. I cried at the end . . .so you know this movie is emotionaly driven. Trust this review, I'm not biased because it did kind of cut up my favorite actress Julia Roberts. (I say that beacause I said she was overated . . .and she is. The fact that she is America's Sweetheart is what makes her movies so appealing, but her roles are very redundant and not to wide, while Madonna's are. Julia won an Oscar for Erin Brokovich . . . .and Madonna didn't even get a nod for Evita . . .that's why I say Julia is very overated, because for a role like she played on Erin Brokovich she gets garnered with an Oscar. That's not her lifetime role, but I guess because she's Julia then it's OK. Case closed!) Believe me, this is a must see.

It really isn't that bad...
After reading all the negative reviews for this movie, I was hesitant to see it. But, I really enjoyed it. It's funny, and sad. I highly reccomend it.

Swept away
This is a very funny and entertaining movie. I don't care what the critics say, I enjoyed watching it/ ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Not that bad...
Pointless sequel, they should have left poor King Kong dead. Linda Hamilton (along with a bunch of other doctors) brings ol' King Kong back to life, but this time... somewhere in some jungle, they find Lady Kong, whom they drag to the US... then a strange romance unveils between both Kongs... and on and on.
I'm not surprised why they didn't do a follow up to this one.
Average special effects, but this movie has a haunting musical score.

King Kong might live but he will regret it with this turkey
"King Kong Lives" is so boring that even pre-schoolers will probably get up and wander out of the room on this one to go play with a cardboard box or watch paint dry. It is one thing to make a sequel to a splatter flick where Michael/Jason/Freddy constantly comes back from the dead, but another thing to try and put the same trick with King Kong. Thousands of people die around the world each year because of heart attacks, but working on an artificial heart for a 50-foot ape who has been in a coma for ten years seemed like a good idea to heart specialist Amy Franklin (Linda Hamilton). Meanwhile, in the jungles of Borneo big game hunter Hank Mitchell (Brian Kerwin) finds a female Kong. This is good news because she can provide the blood Kong needs during the operation (let us all think about the world's biggest by-pass machine). Amy falls for Hank because they have so much in common, while the two apes do the same. Needing privacy, Kong and his love flee into the woods where the Army proceeds to hunt them down. The movie makes it seem like it only took the army a couple of days to hunt down two 50-foot apes running loose in the wild, but it must have been many, many months because when the Army catches up with them the female Kong is in labor.

This movie is jaw-droppingly bad. But given that Jessica Lange survived the original "King Kong" remake and Linda Hamilton had some success after this turkey, there is really no reason for any young actress to ever turn a role in one of these films, no matter how bad the script. King Kong's leading ladies do pretty well. The gap between the original "King Kong" and the remake is certainly a lot closer than "King Kong Lives" and the original sequel, "Son of Kong." Sure, that one had the mystery of where was Frau Kong all this time, but that giant hole is nothing compared to the rampant stupidity in this one. The person I respect after watching this film would have to be Margaret Mitchell, who avoided having a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" for half a century. Way to go Mrs. Peggy Marsh!

Mistake On My Part, And The Director's
It's long after Kong fell off the Empire State Building, and all this time scientists tried to save Kong with an arteficial heart. Meanwhile the army finds out about Lady Kong and try to kill both of them. This plot is good but they make the movie seem so boring you want to run away. I was going to get Rodan when I was younger but my mom showed me this and I chose it. Turns out Rodan was 17,000,000,000 times better than this pathetic film. If you want to die of boredom, watch this terrible excuse for a King Kong movie.

Greatly entertaining.
This sequel to the 1976 remake of King Kong is pure cheese, but very entertaining for monster fans! I found it more entertaining than King Kong (1976), and not as long and drawn out as the latter movie.

Highly recommended if you can get a copy of it.

It actually makes the Godzilla movies look good....
1986 sequal to the terrible 1976 remake, finds Linda Hamilton and a bunch of scientists revive Kong with a new mechannal heart, then they find a Lady Kong and the two have a son, all the while the military wants all the apes dead. It really is a cheesy movie with bad effects work. Two actors in terrible ape suits. A lousy music score and terrible acting by everyone. Thankfully they never followed it up with another movie. It's not a key with the recent Godzilla movie that put a supernatural take on the Big G. Bleeech. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Reviews (150)

Monsters, Madmen & Art
This tale of the supression and imprisonment of the Marquis De Sade in the insane asylum at Charenton and the ensuing struggle and turmoil caused by the arrival of Dr. Royer-Collard to stop his smuggled-out writings from being published has much to recommend it, especially in the first half of the film. Chiefly the performances of Jeffrey Rush as De Sade, Joaquin Phoenix as the caring and humane Abbe Coulmier in charge of Charenton, and Kate Winslet as the sympathetic laundress, Madeleine, who is smuggling the manuscripts for fun and profit.

This De Sade is a monster of sorts, not so much of depravity, as of vanity and selfishness & self-obsession. He is compelled to write at any cost, and is by turns clever and obnoxious and self-destructive and indifferent to anything or anyone but his own need for self-expression. Well-played by Rush, he is a reminder that art mustn't be confused with the artist--terrible people can create beauty. In this instance, the art of De Sade may not be beautiful and may not even be "art" to most minds, but the need to create is real and just as valid with bad art as with genius and must be protected.

Winslet and Phoenix present foils for De Sade in the forms of, by turns, an enticing virgin intrigued by and intriguing with the Marquis and a conflicted man of the cloth enjoying the intellectual challenge of the man while protecting and seeing to his care. Both are fine.

Alas, we come to the fourth character in this drama, the conservative Dr. Royer-Collard played by Michael Caine. A bureaucrat and a closet sadist, before the name had become attached to the behavior (bit of irony there), he is such a villain that he only lacks a long black moustache to twirl. I won't fault Caine because I imagine he's playing him as written, and, especially in one scene at a door in the Apocalyptic finale I felt expected to hiss & boo him. The finale was a bit much as well.

But it is the Caine character that brings the movie down to my mind. It is too much an obvious and cheap shot. The mendacious conservative. It would have been so much more interesting had the character not been so one-dimensional in his evil. When we first are introduced to him, Dr. Royer-Collard looked to be interesting: a true believer in his own nutty cures (soaking madmen upside down to calm them) so I had hopes of an exploration of two halves of crazy extremes, the libertine (De Sade) and the orthodox conservative, the incendiary & the politician. Both monsters & madmen in their own ways. Well, you won't find it here. What you get is beknighted artist and slimy bad guy. Cliches. Also, the subplot of Royer-Collard's young wife is a wasted & unnecessary plot device, no more.

What you will find is some extreme behaviour from Rush in a good, but at times mannered performance, [an incomplete] defense of art at any cost, a penny-dreadful villain, some nice honest performances from the younger set (Winslet & Phoenix), a fiery finale that is over-the-top and a bit silly, and an ending that is not a twist or surprise but wants to be. Snappy dialogue isn't enough to carry the day.

Yet, Phil Kaufman is too intelligent and talented a director to make a boring film, and this isn't one. The production values are great and this is a film at least about SOMETHING, and there are ideas afloat here. While I think it ultimately didn't convince me, it is a worthy effort. Probably 3-1/2 stars.

Delicious dramatic period piece from Philip Kaufmann.
While I can't help but laugh at the fact they made the Marquis de Sade the central character in a story about artistic expression and sexual repression, I can understand why. Here is a man who wallowed in excess, seeming unconcerned with the weight of his decisions, his only escape and expression the very thing that caused his downfall. The Marquis de Sade was not a martyr for freedom of speech. He was a seriously disturbed individual whose callous disregard for mankind (he thought murder should be a privilage for the rich) was reflected in his writing. But here he is a curious old coot, with a marvelous sense of humor and a deeply hidden soft side. But Geoffrey Rush's performance makes it all easier to swallow. He is a brave actor (appearing completely nude in several scenes) who loves to portray wounded characters and he simply shines. Kate Winslet (likewise great and brave) plays the innocent laudry maid Madeleine who secretly sneaks the Marquis' writing out of the asylum where he is kept and into the arms of a publisher. When these writings reach the hands of Napoleon, the emperor sends an accomplished doctor, Royer Collard (the great Michael Caine), to silence him, undermining the authority of the asylum's resident priest (Joaquin Phoenix), who sees Sade as a creature who must be saved and who NEEDS to write in order to clean his soul. The film is filled with sexual energy, reaching certain points of eroticism that recall director Philip Kaufman's earlier masterpiece 'The Unbearable Lightness Of Being'. This is a beautiful film, nicely detailed and extremely playful. It is also dark and grisly, nothing too graphic yet certainly unsettling at times. I suppose, if nothing else, 'Quills' does stand as a 'freedom of speech' movie. I look at it as a film which simultaneously acknowledges our fasination with sex and spanks us for our dirty thoughts. But it ultimately reminds us that we all have a right to be heard and that everything has an audience. And if you've just finished watching this movie, well then thank you for helping me prove that point.

RECIPE FOR A FIERCE BUT INTOXICATING COMIC ROMP
Take a controversial character, for instance, an infamous French aristocrat who writes fearlessly explicit pornographic tales from his asylum jail cell to which he has been consigned for committing violent crimes of passion.

Cast a maniacal Geoffrey Rush in that role, and use him with more than a pinch of artistic license, to philosophically discuss censorship and freedom of expression in art. Tipped in water-tight dialogue and a dramatically dark ink.

Throw in some action and intrigue, for example, our incarcerated prisoner having to smuggle his lurid works out of the asylum via a sweet, innocent maid who gains vicarious pleasure from reading the stories to self and others.

Of course, a dash of morality never hurt, so add a holier-than-thou priest who brings to the table a fresh aroma of common sensibility.

Stir well and add spice to taste. Viewers will revel in the mind play between the sordid characters you have created and be aghast at the depths to which it is possible for them to stoop. There, you have a marvel of a film that'll be seen again and again.

Quills is without reservations a fascinating cinematic masterpiece of our time, in every sense of the word, and deserves a warm place in every self-respecting film collection.

A great achievement!!
I really liked the movie for it's powerfull dramatic theme and the strenght that it shows. It's one of my all-time favorites!!

Too good to be true!!!
Wow, this is indeed the best movie tht I have ever seen. It has passion, love and flawless acting. Simply brilliant! ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Reviews (150)

Monsters, Madmen & Art
This tale of the supression and imprisonment of the Marquis De Sade in the insane asylum at Charenton and the ensuing struggle and turmoil caused by the arrival of Dr. Royer-Collard to stop his smuggled-out writings from being published has much to recommend it, especially in the first half of the film. Chiefly the performances of Jeffrey Rush as De Sade, Joaquin Phoenix as the caring and humane Abbe Coulmier in charge of Charenton, and Kate Winslet as the sympathetic laundress, Madeleine, who is smuggling the manuscripts for fun and profit.

This De Sade is a monster of sorts, not so much of depravity, as of vanity and selfishness & self-obsession. He is compelled to write at any cost, and is by turns clever and obnoxious and self-destructive and indifferent to anything or anyone but his own need for self-expression. Well-played by Rush, he is a reminder that art mustn't be confused with the artist--terrible people can create beauty. In this instance, the art of De Sade may not be beautiful and may not even be "art" to most minds, but the need to create is real and just as valid with bad art as with genius and must be protected.

Winslet and Phoenix present foils for De Sade in the forms of, by turns, an enticing virgin intrigued by and intriguing with the Marquis and a conflicted man of the cloth enjoying the intellectual challenge of the man while protecting and seeing to his care. Both are fine.

Alas, we come to the fourth character in this drama, the conservative Dr. Royer-Collard played by Michael Caine. A bureaucrat and a closet sadist, before the name had become attached to the behavior (bit of irony there), he is such a villain that he only lacks a long black moustache to twirl. I won't fault Caine because I imagine he's playing him as written, and, especially in one scene at a door in the Apocalyptic finale I felt expected to hiss & boo him. The finale was a bit much as well.

But it is the Caine character that brings the movie down to my mind. It is too much an obvious and cheap shot. The mendacious conservative. It would have been so much more interesting had the character not been so one-dimensional in his evil. When we first are introduced to him, Dr. Royer-Collard looked to be interesting: a true believer in his own nutty cures (soaking madmen upside down to calm them) so I had hopes of an exploration of two halves of crazy extremes, the libertine (De Sade) and the orthodox conservative, the incendiary & the politician. Both monsters & madmen in their own ways. Well, you won't find it here. What you get is beknighted artist and slimy bad guy. Cliches. Also, the subplot of Royer-Collard's young wife is a wasted & unnecessary plot device, no more.

What you will find is some extreme behaviour from Rush in a good, but at times mannered performance, [an incomplete] defense of art at any cost, a penny-dreadful villain, some nice honest performances from the younger set (Winslet & Phoenix), a fiery finale that is over-the-top and a bit silly, and an ending that is not a twist or surprise but wants to be. Snappy dialogue isn't enough to carry the day.

Yet, Phil Kaufman is too intelligent and talented a director to make a boring film, and this isn't one. The production values are great and this is a film at least about SOMETHING, and there are ideas afloat here. While I think it ultimately didn't convince me, it is a worthy effort. Probably 3-1/2 stars.