Amazon.com

The Arab anti-defamation leagues understandably had a field day with this one. Sally Field plays Betty Mahmoody, an American who marries an Iranian (Alfred Molina) and has a child. They go back to Iran for a visit and, to her horror, he tells her he's decided to stay there. If she wants to leave, she must leave her daughter behind. If she stays, Betty must live in a culture vastly different and, she believes, very dangerous. Part thriller, part culture clash, the film certainly takes advantage of Americans' perceptions of Iran after the unrest of the '70s and early '80s. Molina is truly despicable as the husband, while Field projects a lot of overheated anguish as Betty tries to figure out a way to escape the country with her daughter. Overheated, in fact, is the word for the whole melodrama. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (93)

A true-life account...NOT an attempt at defamation.
I own the film "Not Without My Daughter," and have viewed it many times. I've also read both of Betty Mahmoody's books. Frankly, I'm amazed at the terrible reviews of the movie by those who obviously feel the movie was a blanket attack on Islam. Without having visited Iran myself, I can't say whether the scenes of Tehran are likelife. But the story itself was based on a true-life account of a woman who escaped her husband who held her hostage in a country she didn't want to live in. THAT'S ALL. It was not an attempt at blaming all of Islam for this woman's bad marriage, but rather her husband ONLY, as an individual man. Moreover, many or even most of the characters in the movie are portrayed as sympathetic and caring. The only "bad" characters are those who attempt to hold a woman and child in a country against their wills.

If you read Betty Mahmoody's books, you will see she has wonderful things to say about the value and beauty of Islam, and encouraged her daughter to celebrate her Islamic heritage back in America. Betty apparently had and maintained many Arab friends in the US after her return from Iran. I don't know what more she could do to get the point across that she appreciated Islamic culture and its people, and was only against people of any country or culture who try to abuse the rights of others.

The point of the movie, to those who obviously refuse to "get it," is that Betty Mahmoody and her daughter were forced to stay in a country against their wills. They were kept there by threats of violence or real acts of real violence. The movie is NOT about Islam. It's about an abusive man who happens to be a Muslim. And it depicts that the consequences of that man's actions on his wife and daughter.

Superb movie, and completely TRUE!!
This is one of my favorite movies. This fact based story is as close to the real thing as possible, I can personally vouch for that.

I was in Iran for almost 2 years before the Shah was kicked out in 1979 and I can tell you that every aspect of Iranian life you see in the film is absolutely true. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really full of BS, and I got a few other words for you.

This is a heart felt story of escaping evil for a mother's love of her daughter. There is nothing wrong with thie movie at all. I would recommend it to everyone, it's a real tearjerker. And the most telling part is that the whole thing actually happened.

racist attack on Iranians and Muslims generally
This film is a real low. A complete racist attack on Iranian people and Muslims generally, and part of the propaganda that has been used to justify the West's new crusade and assault against the people of the Middle East. Sally Field should be ashamed to have been associated with this film. They might as well have commercials for the Pentagon and big oil companies throughout the movie. Full of stereotypes and total lies, it glorifies a woman who kidnaps her daughter and takes her out of Iran illegally, depriving her husband of custody unlawfully and unjustly. Unbelievable!

One of my favorites!
Don't get me wrong, this is not a "feel-good" movie of any kind, as a matter of fact it is downright disturbing and horrific, especially taking into account that it is a true story, and that many other women and children are probably in the same condition right now. I have read several reviews and I'm a little disappointed by all of the "I want to hear Dr. M's side of the story" and "she must have made this up--it couldn't have really happened" and "this movie is anti-Islamic" sentiments. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, this is one woman's true story of being held against her will by her outrageously domineering and abusive husband in a country she does not want to be in. It has little to do with Iran or Islam, except for the fact that fundamental Muslims believe in and savagely defend that a woman has no rights without her husband. I applaud Betty for doing what is right when she got back here to the US, which is speak out about her traumatic experience, and try to help those in similar situations. Otherwise, how would we even know that such horrors exist? I guarantee that with all of the post-9/11 Koran-kissing going on, a movie such as this would never be made today. I'm thankful that it was made at a time when people weren't afraid to hear the truth. For some reason this movie regularly comes to mind when I hear someone complaining about women's rights in this country...unfortunately sometimes we don't realize how good we have it. If you choose to read Betty's books, do so only after seeing this movie...then you won't be able to whine that "the movie isn't as good as the book"...

Neat movie but a letdown for fans of the book
I originally saw the last three quarters or so of the movie on TV. I enjoyed it a lot and was more excited when I found out it was based on a true story and a book. I read the book and loved it. It is now one of my favorites. I then saw the movie again but in its entirety, on the DVD. It is a good movie overall. However, it falls short compared to the book in several areas:
The trailer-The trailer showed on the DVD is one of the most attention grabbing I have ever seen. If I had seen it in the theatre without knowing anything about the book, I would have been one of the first in line to go see it. However, trailers are made simply for publicity and I might be disappointed since I had already read the book when I saw it. The movie was less exciting than the trailer made it out to be.

Length-This movie was way too short. I know the movie could not have included all the details of the book, but even an extra 50 minutes bring it in at two and a half hours could have filled in plenty of holes without making the plot drag.

Details-Again, some stuff had to be truncated but I think they could have done a better job. For me to elaborate on every detail would take up too much space and would be of little interest to those who haven't read the book. The biggest hole was the evolution of Moody's character. In the book, Betty spends much time giving flashbacks on how they met and how such a loving husband and father could have turned into the man he did when they arrived in Iran. I found that in the movie, Moody seemed to evolve without any explanation. The book starts the flashbacks in 1974 whereas the movie starts immediately in 1984. There are aloso minor holes such as how Betty and Mahtob had passports when they escaped since Moody had taken them. In the book this makes perfect sense as the Swiss Embassy re-issued new passports to Betty and Mahtob unbeknownst to Moody. I know this may seem like a minor detail but I am sure it annoyed more than one movie buff and this was one oversight that could have easily been corrected. There are other things such as characters' roles and even names from the book being changed for the movie.

Don't get me wrong. This was a good movie. But being a huge fan of such a rich and detailed book, I guess I feel that no movie version could have properly chosen exactly which details to include in the movie. If they had to make a film version of the book, it might have been a better idea to make a mini-series that could have elaborated more on plot details.

But in any case, read the book!!! It may look long but you will get through it fast and not be able to put it down in the process.

By the way, to respond to the criticisms of both the movie and the book being biased, she was held against her will in a foreign country for no justifiable reason. End of discussion. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Oscars for Wilde
There can only be one explanation for why this movie wasn't revered and esteemed world over. Society really hasn't changed that much since the times portrayed in 'Wilde.' But this isn't supposed to be a social commentary, but a grand ovation for what is, in my opinion, one of the best movies ever. To begin with, the performances of Stephen Fry and Jude Law are really quite extrordinary. Stephen Fry, in particular, manages not only to look unnervingly like Oscar Wilde, but to embody the wonderful (and complicated) character to an uncanny extent. I applaud Jude Law as well for choosing movies like this instead of (or perhaps as well as ^_^) the normal Hollywood teen fare. He really does give a frighteningly good performance, manic depressive to the core. Jennifer Ehle is also very good in the understated but understanding role of Wilde's wife. All in all, I was really blown away by this movie. Not only is it an incredible tribute to Wilde's wit, but also to his life, to the "love that dare not speak its name" and how it is as true and wonderful a love as any other. Sometimes painful, always powerful, Wilde is a rare gem.

Beautiful, you will want to visit Paris...
In WILDE, Stephen Fry (Jeeves in "Jeeves and Wooster") is the consummate Wilde. Jude Law plays his lover Bosie Douglas. Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth Bennett in "Pride and Predjudice") plays Wilde's long suffering wife. Vanessa Redgrave and Tom Wilkinson also have important roles. What a cast.

The Belle Epoch is beautifully recreated as Wilde travels between England and France--clothes, interiors, architecture, grounds. You don't even have to understand the story to enjoy "being there" in the parks, homes, carrriages.

Oscar Wilde was a writer, best remembered perhaps for "The Portrait of Dorian Grey" although modern audiences may be more familiar with his stage play "The Ideal Husband" (recently made into a film with Jeremy Northern and Cate Blanchett) or "The Importance of Being Earnest."

Wilde was a homosexual in England in an age when one could and did go to prison for acting on instinct. (Nowadays in Saudia Arabia they take off your head.) Although the public became aware of his proclivities, Wilde remained one of Europe's most admired writers. Unfortunately, his term in prison for his sexual preferences may be remembered longer than his works which contain a wonderful drawing room humor many folks fail to grasp. This is a great film, and if you're an Anglophile you must add it to your collection. -- And Paris?? That's where Oscar is buried.

A well-made depiction of Wilde's life
Wilde is a beautifully made film, and I agree with the other customer reviews that found it an impressive portrait of the writer's life. As an expert on Wilde myself (I am writing my master's thesis on him) I would like to comment on some of the objections raised to its handling of his life by scholars and critics. Several scholars whose comments on the film I have read (they know who they are) have pointed out its factual inaccuracies, and have complained about its emphasis on Wilde's love life rather than his literary career. Admittedly, if the viewer wants a more scrupulous account of Wilde's life than is given by this film, she/he would be better off reading Ellmann's biography, on which the film is rather loosely based. Artistic liberties aside, I think we would all agree that the sight of a man making love is more dramatically interesting than the sight of him writing; the film's depiction of Wilde's intimate experiences, speculative as they are, serve to give us additional insight into who he was and the emotions that drove him. The film's greatest strength is its depiction of the neurotic relationship between Wilde and Douglas, which helps the viewer to understand how Wilde got into the jam he did.
I'm sure nobody can complain about the performances in the film, which are dead on, especially that of Stephen Fry in the title role; unlike many actors portraying famous people he not only acts as Wilde must have acted but looks quite like him, which adds to the film's feeling of verisimilitude. Unfortunately, since we don't have a DVD player yet, this review is based on my copy of the video. Hopefully, I'll be able to get the DVD later to examine the extras.

Stephen Fry's memorable performance as the tragic Oscar
My introduction to Oscar Wilde consisted of three disparate sources. First, I read "The Importance of Being Earnest," the wittiest play ever written in the English language. Second, there was Monty Python's Oscar Wilde sketch, where Wilde, James McNeil Whistler and George Bernard Shaw force each other to turn insults into compliments for the Prince of Wales. Third, there was the "Masterpiece Theater" mini-series "Lillie," in which Peter Egan played Wilde and where for the first time I heard the speech from Wilde's court case where he explains "the love that dare not speak its name." It is one of the most unforgettable declarations from the docket in human history and I think I just about have it memorized because it was really burned into my mind the first time I heard it.

When I watched "Wilde," my knowledge and understanding of Oscar Wilde was extended in several key ways. In playing the title role actor Stephen Fry makes Wilde seem less the dandy and more the kindly man he must have been to be put in the situation that caused his down fall. In contrast, Lord Alfred Douglas (Jude Law), known as "Bosie," might be beautiful of face but it is most decidedly skin deep. He is an ugly human being and when Wilde does what he does out of the goodness of his heart, the tragedy that it is for somebody who does not deserve it. I had not really thought much of Bosie before, but after watching "Wilde" I consider him a most despicable figure. Wilde was in prison within three months after the opening of "The Importance of Being Earnest," and the thought of what has been lost to literature and drama is rather sickening. It is only in the film's final scene that for the first time I found myself thinking of Oscar Wilde as a pathetic figure, and again it was because of Bosie.

I had long appreciated the irony that despite his homosexuality Wilde truly loved his wife Constance (Jennifer Ehle), but in Julian Mitchell's screenplay, based on Richard Ellmann's noted biography, I learn an even greater irony with regards to Wilde's downfall, namely that his physical relationship with Bosie had been of short duration and that they were not lovers at the time of the libel suit involving the Marquess of Queensberry (Tom Wilkinson). In that regard this 1997 film enhances the tragic aspects of the story. Of course, the essence of the tragedy is articulated by Wilde himself, who declares: "In this life there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants. The other is getting it."

Beautiful looking and sounding, and heartbreaking as well
This movie is everything about why I love the courageous, crisp, brainy and brilliant British media. Stephen Fry is a gem who could recite the phone book and turn it into a soliloquy on the cruelty of human history. His voice is marvelous, and he rolls his consonants around in his mouth like Jordan almonds -- all without affectation, somehow. Wilde's many quips and epigrams drop out of his mouth without the slightest artificiality, natural and thoughtless as dew rolling off a leaf. Jude Law's Bosie is terrifyingly unstable, and his beauty serves only to throw his instability into high relief. You can't take your eyes off of him while he's on screen at the same time you want to turn away and skitter under the cabinets to stop watching.

The rest of the supporting cast is magnificent (if only the American film industry permitted its great actresses to work past the age of 40, we might boast such luminaries as Vanessa Redgrave and Zoe Wanamaker someday as well as Helen Mirren and Judi Dench!), the directing is flawless, the costumes and set design stunning but never overstated. All of it is used only to support the story, and as beautiful as it all is, it never pulls you out of the story or distracts you, only providing a seamless and textured foundation for the action.

I admit, I'm somewhat amused at the reviewers who imagine that this film shouldn't have concentrated so much on Wilde's sexuality. This is the story of him as much his work -- and his work at any rate was quite informed by his sexuality, nebulous at best during a time when anything but rigid adherence to a particularly joyless version of heterosexuality was a sin and a crime. Beautiful as this film is (and delicious as it is to see so many gorgeous young British men running around au naturel), it breaks your heart with the realization that happiness and fulfillment in life, as well as success and self-respect, can be so profoundly influenced by nothing more significant than the year in which one was born. In a hundred years, what will people be saying about the great women, gays and lesbians, and other minorities who lived in our time? ... Read more

Amazon.com

It was one of those "something in the air" moments in Hollywood. In the space of a year, four different films came out on the same subject: A kid lands in an adult's body (and, often, vice versa--get it?). The best was Big, but this one was surprisingly amusing, thanks to a goofily adolescent performance by Judge Reinhold (as the kid in an adult's body) and a comically serious one by young Fred Savage, who can convey the sense of an grownup trapped in a kid's world. The plot is virtually identical to its competitors--overworked Dad has a big deadline and has to rely on the unreliable kid to come through for him, even as he gets a sense of what his son's life is like--but Reinhold and Savage charm their way through it. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (7)

My All Time Favorite Movie
Whatever you do, don't miss this jewel. I have enjoyed this movie since it came out in 1988. Frankly, it remains my favorite all time movie. This movie is just PURE FUN to watch and moves along in a brilliant manner. You can't watch this movie without laughing out load. Now, isn't this the reason we watch movies? The complete cast should be applauded for a wonderful performance. If you have not seen this movie, buy it or rent it as fast as you can and join in the FUN!

This is quite an exquisite movie.
WOW! what excellent promos. You cant do any better, I mean Judge Reinhold and fred savage in the same film. It is a really good movie. Al i've got to say is, "GIMMIE TWO FOR MALICE"

Vice Versa
Judge Reinhold was very funny transforming into a young boy. But the most amazing thing in the whole picture is my ex-wife, Michelle Philpot. She was brilliant as the cosmetic salesgirl; smearing eye cream on the bad guy. She was amazingly beautiful and funny in her short but sweet part. I still feel proud when I see the movie and, by the way, I own it! Look for her 51 minutes into the film. Everyone on the set gave her the nickname Pebbles. Watch it and you'll see why!

You'll Laugh For Sure In This 1988 Film!
Marshall (Judge Reinhold) plays a wonderful role as seperated, over-worked father who is trying to make his son Charlie (Fred Savage) happy while he is visiting. After Marshall's trip to Thailand, he is sent an ancient, powerful skull by mistake that changes Marshall into Charlie and Charlie into Marshall! So now, Marshall is going to have to realize how it feels to be a 12 year old kid.....again and Charlie is going to have to learn how to run a business, take care of meetings and give speeches.....alone!! How will they change back to normal??

Like "Ruthless People" (Released 1986) Judge Reinhold has made us laugh again with his hillarious acting! This is definetly a film of the 80s! "Vice Versa" was released in 1988 and released onto video in 1989. It is packed with lots of comedy and entertaining with a cool soundtrack!

Watch it on cable, it's cheaper.
While the movie has its moments, I recommend you just watch comedy central, it's bound to be on there at least once a month. I mean don't have a judge reinhold spaz or anything, just check it out for free, save some cash. By the way, Reinhold delivers a tour de force performance, I'm sure he was proud of this role. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Tom is T.S. Eliot (Willem Dafoe), the St. Louis-born poet who tried to turn himself into an Englishman. Viv is his wife, Vivienne Haigh-Wood (Miranda Richardson). She's got money, which allows him to give up his job and focus on poetry. She urges him on, promotes him to the Bloomsbury group (which adopts him but looks down its nose at her), and begins to go slightly crazy. Is it Eliot's chilly demeanor (in a terrific repressed performance by Dafoe) that's driving her nuts, or something else? In fact, she suffers from misdiagnosed physical ailments, and a combination of drugs and alcohol send her around the bend. It's hard to get emotionally involved in Dafoe's Eliot or to really plug into this story, though Richardson's passion nearly pulls you in.--Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Not with a bang, OR a whimper -- just a stiff upper lip.
This film is a portrait of the marriage of T.S. Eliot and his highly eccentric first wife, Vivienne. There is love between them, real love. However, Vivienne's fitful outbursts and T.S.'s ridiculously conformist ways try their love more and more, as the film goes on. They are a star crossed couple, all right -- T.S. has stars in his eyes, as he yearns toward English propriety, and Viv seems to have stars spinning around her head half the time, like a cartoon of a dazed person. Miranda Richardson is fantastic as Vivienne, she steals every scene she's in. Not that Willem Dafoe gives her much of a struggle -- he plays T.S. Eliot as a very cold, distant sort of conformist. Both actors are excellent, as are Rosemary Harris, playing Viv's compassionate, enduring, regal yet human mother; and Tim Dutton, playing Viv's likeable, somewhat befuddled brother, Maurice.

Watch for the sad ending, with unloved, unappreciated Viv rusting her life away in an asylum... She deserved better -- even when she was at her most crazed, she always had spunk. She fought the good fight -- she was driven crazy by things that SHOULD drive people crazy, it wasn't her fault she had a chemical problem that kept her from dealing with things the way most people do. T.S., I thought, was almost as sad, as the American poet who becomes a British subject. We seem to be presented with a choice of two destinies here -- Viv keeps her soul, but loses her life, or at least the freedom to Live it. T.S. keeps the freedom to live his life, but, in a very real sense, he loses his soul. I was left wishing T.S. Eliot had spirited Viv off to free America, away from the stifling pressures of England, and led a life as an English teacher in his hometown of St. Louis, taking his students on field trips to Mark Twain's All-American birthplace up the river in Hannibal... Maybe they both would have been happier, without all the pressures to conform and "play the game" in England.

A movie with interesting parallels to this one, if anyone's interested, is the German film "Mephisto," starring Klaus Maria Brandauer. There is the same theme of the self-deluding artist, making too-extreme concessions to the politics of the world around him, and involved in incredibly damaging relationships with the women in his life. Another film viewers might like is the Italian film "Il Conformista," by Bernardo Bertolucci. There are numerous parallels.

This is a very interesting piece of filmmaking. I really recommend it. Two thumbs up.

Tom & Viv - - EXCELLENT!
Wow! I cannot get this movie out of my thoughts, it was an excellent portrayal of the turbulent marriage between T. S. Eliot and his lovely wife, Vivienne. First of all here is a 'bravo' to Miranda Richardson and Willem Dafoe, they obviously spent many hours perfecting the characters they portrayed so well. I understood what each were going through and it was a tragedy in the end that they could not live their lives together. It was obvious the love was there, but it was a sad, misunderstood love. Excellent job Mandy, you've proved your great acting capabilities to me once again, you never let your fans down do you? I highly recommend this movie to anyone, it was amazing and I cannot quit thinking about it.

"I can make you happy my darling"
Thomas Stearns Eliot was born in Missouri on September 26, 1888. He lived in St. Louis during the first eighteen years of his life and attended Harvard University. In 1910, he left the United States for the Sorbonne, having earned both undergraduate and masters degrees. After a year in Paris, he returned to Harvard to pursue a doctorate in philosophy, but returned to Europe and settled in England in 1914. The following year, he married Vivienne Haigh-Wood and began working in London, first as a teacher, and later for Lloyd's Bank.

Variously diagnosed with "moral insanity," anorexia and hysteria, Vivienne Haigh-Wood suffered from severe menstrual symptoms most of her life, as well as an inherited tendency for manic depression. Having collided in their desperation to escape their mothers, she and Tom married in 1915, to their families' disapproval and to Tom's quickly encroaching disgust. By the time Vivienne was committed to an asylum in 1938, five years after T. S. Eliot deserted her, she was a lonely, occasionally demented figure. Shunned by literary London, she was the neurotic wife whom Eliot had left behind.

Tom and Viv, a gorgeously produced, but terribly sad movie, begins after Tom and Vivienne have met and focuses on their troubled the marriage. The opening scenes show Vivienne fraught with headaches, sudden violent mood swings, irregular periods and showing her finding a type of solace and security in her relationship with Tom. Told from the point of view of both Tom and Vivienne, the movie is judiciously divided into four parts: 1915 - when Tom and Viv are courting, and when Vivienne shows signs of mental illness: 1919, straight after the war, when Tom is beginning to achieve notoriety as a poet; 1932, when Vivienne's illness is beginning to cause public embarrassment to her family, and 1944, after she has been finally committed to the Northumberland House sanitarium.

At first, her family is extremely hesitant to allow the marriage between Tom and Vivienne to take place. Her brother Maurice - stylishly played by Tim Dutton - neglects to tell Tom about her "troubles," and Vivienne's father accuses Tom of being after the family money. Tom, at the time, is a struggling poet, living in an attic in the City with Bertrand Russell who is considered "the most hated man in all of London." Tom feels that poetry is a "mugs game" but he tries to appeal to the good judgment of Vivienne's mother - played with remarkable grace by Rosemary Harris - to let him into the family. Vivienne desperately wants to make Tom happy, and it is to Miranda Richardson's credit that the viewer really gets a sense of Vivienne's quiet desperation. Vivienne is also very supportive of Tom - she reads for him and assists in getting his poetry published; he relies on her completely - she's his "first audience."

Willem Defoe brings a quiet and understated elegance to the role, and he expertly conveys Elliot's obvious love for Vivienne, while at the same time expressing a silent frustration over their relationship. As Vivienne steadily spins out of control, becoming more emotionally erratic, Tom realizes that he's married to a woman "that he loves, but everything that he does with her falls apart." Although he eventually contributed to Vivienne's institutionalization, she remains an honest person, who sticks by Tom, and his beliefs and she spiritually never really leaves him.

With a fine sense of period detail, the film gracefully and elegantly portrays life during the Edwardian era - the stuffy but gorgeous drawing rooms, the hats, the frocks and the newly invented motorcars. Tom and Viv is a fine-looking period piece that is emotionally quite heart wrenching, and the movie contains some of the best performances from some of the finest actors in the business. Mike Leonard June 04.

Sliced Version
Careful: This DVD release of TOM AND VIV cuts my favorite scene contained in the original VHS edition--the one in which Viv dresses in disguise and goes to a public reading and book signing given by Tom, who graciously signs her book and pretends not to know her. If anyone else noticed this and has an explanation, please post!

if in doubt, blame a woman's menstrual cycle
The first time I viewed this film (about 3 or 4 years ago), I too was confused about plot details, particularly what exactly was mentally and/or physically wrong with Vivian. But even in my ignorance/innocence, I didn't find it necessary to angrily ridicule her as the crazed hag who threatened to ruin the great T.S. Eliot's literary career (and I never felt that way about Zelda Fitzgerald either--call me humane--despite what my learned English professors said to the contrary--"Oh, poor Scott and Tom, having to deal with 'women's issues'). The focus of Tom and Viv is on Viv, not Tom, because, as the film explains in the beginning, Vivian's brother, Morris, felt guilty about abandoning his sister to a mental hospital. If you watch this film to reaffirm your illusions of how great literary production was once again stifled by a woman, you would do better to check the library for critical books on Eliot circa 1950-90. I may be looking through non-rose-colored glasses, but this film does not intend to redeem Eliot (although it does not completely villify him either), so it should not be gawked at for its failure to do so. Why is it so hard for us to admit our "great literary gods"--Shakespeare, Dickens, Frost, Fitzgerald, and, yes, TS Eliot too--were really monsters? It is important to understand that the late Victorian conception of mental illness as most often applied to women was directly linked to very sketchy and incorrect knowledge of her reproductive organs. In short, a woman was more prone to hysteria than a man simply because she had a uterus. Hysteria/uterus. Look it up. And when watching the film, pay close attention to the doctor's description of "moral insanity" and the ludicrous questions the doctors ask Vivian in order to assess her sanity. If that doesn't gain your sympathy for Viv over Tom, then watch the manner in which Viv is informed of the news that she is in fact "morally insane." Most disturbing to this viewer is not the news that as Lyndall Gordon's recently revised biography of Eliot points out, he was an imperfect man (to say the least). Most disturbing are the reviews of this film that continue to blame Vivian Eliot, after watching a film designed to help us understand the complexities of this couple's relationship, not to mention the old cliche--"it takes two to tango!" Oh yes, I too love The Great Gatsby, The Waste Land, but there's no denying that Prufrock's got some serious sexual hang-ups when it comes to women. Why is that still so horrifying? ... Read more

Reviews (1)

DVD please...
Although somewhat neglected in the world of cinema, this charming little tale of love in Paris remains a classic of the genre, and unfortunately, hasn't yet been released on DVD!

Give New Line some time, and this will be rectified, I'm sure. But I fell in love with the final scene with its Romeo And Juliet recitation amongst a crowd of people which was nothing if not cinematic magic.

If you can find a copy, do yourself a favour and please check it out. One of the best date movies of all time. ... Read more

Reviews (93)

A true-life account...NOT an attempt at defamation.
I own the film "Not Without My Daughter," and have viewed it many times. I've also read both of Betty Mahmoody's books. Frankly, I'm amazed at the terrible reviews of the movie by those who obviously feel the movie was a blanket attack on Islam. Without having visited Iran myself, I can't say whether the scenes of Tehran are likelife. But the story itself was based on a true-life account of a woman who escaped her husband who held her hostage in a country she didn't want to live in. THAT'S ALL. It was not an attempt at blaming all of Islam for this woman's bad marriage, but rather her husband ONLY, as an individual man. Moreover, many or even most of the characters in the movie are portrayed as sympathetic and caring. The only "bad" characters are those who attempt to hold a woman and child in a country against their wills.

If you read Betty Mahmoody's books, you will see she has wonderful things to say about the value and beauty of Islam, and encouraged her daughter to celebrate her Islamic heritage back in America. Betty apparently had and maintained many Arab friends in the US after her return from Iran. I don't know what more she could do to get the point across that she appreciated Islamic culture and its people, and was only against people of any country or culture who try to abuse the rights of others.

The point of the movie, to those who obviously refuse to "get it," is that Betty Mahmoody and her daughter were forced to stay in a country against their wills. They were kept there by threats of violence or real acts of real violence. The movie is NOT about Islam. It's about an abusive man who happens to be a Muslim. And it depicts that the consequences of that man's actions on his wife and daughter.

Superb movie, and completely TRUE!!
This is one of my favorite movies. This fact based story is as close to the real thing as possible, I can personally vouch for that.

I was in Iran for almost 2 years before the Shah was kicked out in 1979 and I can tell you that every aspect of Iranian life you see in the film is absolutely true. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really full of BS, and I got a few other words for you.

This is a heart felt story of escaping evil for a mother's love of her daughter. There is nothing wrong with thie movie at all. I would recommend it to everyone, it's a real tearjerker. And the most telling part is that the whole thing actually happened.

racist attack on Iranians and Muslims generally
This film is a real low. A complete racist attack on Iranian people and Muslims generally, and part of the propaganda that has been used to justify the West's new crusade and assault against the people of the Middle East. Sally Field should be ashamed to have been associated with this film. They might as well have commercials for the Pentagon and big oil companies throughout the movie. Full of stereotypes and total lies, it glorifies a woman who kidnaps her daughter and takes her out of Iran illegally, depriving her husband of custody unlawfully and unjustly. Unbelievable!

One of my favorites!
Don't get me wrong, this is not a "feel-good" movie of any kind, as a matter of fact it is downright disturbing and horrific, especially taking into account that it is a true story, and that many other women and children are probably in the same condition right now. I have read several reviews and I'm a little disappointed by all of the "I want to hear Dr. M's side of the story" and "she must have made this up--it couldn't have really happened" and "this movie is anti-Islamic" sentiments. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, this is one woman's true story of being held against her will by her outrageously domineering and abusive husband in a country she does not want to be in. It has little to do with Iran or Islam, except for the fact that fundamental Muslims believe in and savagely defend that a woman has no rights without her husband. I applaud Betty for doing what is right when she got back here to the US, which is speak out about her traumatic experience, and try to help those in similar situations. Otherwise, how would we even know that such horrors exist? I guarantee that with all of the post-9/11 Koran-kissing going on, a movie such as this would never be made today. I'm thankful that it was made at a time when people weren't afraid to hear the truth. For some reason this movie regularly comes to mind when I hear someone complaining about women's rights in this country...unfortunately sometimes we don't realize how good we have it. If you choose to read Betty's books, do so only after seeing this movie...then you won't be able to whine that "the movie isn't as good as the book"...

Neat movie but a letdown for fans of the book
I originally saw the last three quarters or so of the movie on TV. I enjoyed it a lot and was more excited when I found out it was based on a true story and a book. I read the book and loved it. It is now one of my favorites. I then saw the movie again but in its entirety, on the DVD. It is a good movie overall. However, it falls short compared to the book in several areas:
The trailer-The trailer showed on the DVD is one of the most attention grabbing I have ever seen. If I had seen it in the theatre without knowing anything about the book, I would have been one of the first in line to go see it. However, trailers are made simply for publicity and I might be disappointed since I had already read the book when I saw it. The movie was less exciting than the trailer made it out to be.

Length-This movie was way too short. I know the movie could not have included all the details of the book, but even an extra 50 minutes bring it in at two and a half hours could have filled in plenty of holes without making the plot drag.

Details-Again, some stuff had to be truncated but I think they could have done a better job. For me to elaborate on every detail would take up too much space and would be of little interest to those who haven't read the book. The biggest hole was the evolution of Moody's character. In the book, Betty spends much time giving flashbacks on how they met and how such a loving husband and father could have turned into the man he did when they arrived in Iran. I found that in the movie, Moody seemed to evolve without any explanation. The book starts the flashbacks in 1974 whereas the movie starts immediately in 1984. There are aloso minor holes such as how Betty and Mahtob had passports when they escaped since Moody had taken them. In the book this makes perfect sense as the Swiss Embassy re-issued new passports to Betty and Mahtob unbeknownst to Moody. I know this may seem like a minor detail but I am sure it annoyed more than one movie buff and this was one oversight that could have easily been corrected. There are other things such as characters' roles and even names from the book being changed for the movie.

Don't get me wrong. This was a good movie. But being a huge fan of such a rich and detailed book, I guess I feel that no movie version could have properly chosen exactly which details to include in the movie. If they had to make a film version of the book, it might have been a better idea to make a mini-series that could have elaborated more on plot details.

But in any case, read the book!!! It may look long but you will get through it fast and not be able to put it down in the process.

By the way, to respond to the criticisms of both the movie and the book being biased, she was held against her will in a foreign country for no justifiable reason. End of discussion. ... Read more