Reviews (495)

A cinematic masterpiece!
Meet Oskar Schindler. A German living in occupied Poland during World War II. A member in good standing of the Nazi party. A womanizer, a war profiteer...and ultimately a man of conscience. A man who became one of the great unsung heroes and humanitarians of the war.

"Schindler's List" chronicles Oskar Schindler's spiritual odyssey from war profiteer to humanitarian and hero. Winner of seven Academy Awards® in 1993, including Best Picture, this harrowing and heart-rending film is Steven Spielberg's masterpiece, and perhaps one of the finest and most important movies ever made. It depicts Schindler's ultimately successful attempt to rescue 1,100 Jews from Hitler's "Final Solution" by getting them to safety outside Poland.

Dynamic performances abound in this beautiful movie, Especially noteworthy are Liam Neeson as the suave Schindler, Ralph Fiennes as the monstrously depraved Nazi colonel, Amon Goeth, and Ben Kingsley as the dignified, principled Jewish prisoner Itzhak Stern.

"Schindler's List" is definitely not light entertainment! This beautiful movie allows viewers to feel like they're actually a part of one of the darkest, most horrific periods in history. (I'm sure this is the reason the film was shot in black-and-white, with only minor "colorized" bits included.) The story of the Holocaust needs to be told over and over again, in hopes that future generations can understand the horrors perpetrated on an entire race of people and prevent future occurrences. "Schindler's List" is perhaps one of the best and most effective vehicles for telling that story I've ever experienced.

Whoever Saves One Life Saves the World Entire!
That's the tagline of Steven Spielberg's 1993 holocaust epic, SCHINDLER'S LIST (a film that has inspired me with my own film, TRIANGLE). What is this film? A documentary? A memorial service? A biopic? The answer is all of the above. It is a realistic look at a man who began as a womanizing criminal and ended as a sympathetic savior to thousands of Jewish people.

Based on Thomas Keneally's bestselling novel, it is passionate look at the Jewish struggle during the ghetto liquidation by the Nazis and in the concentration camps.

Filmed entirely on location in Poland and in black-and-white, with some color aspects, SCHINDLER'S LIST brings to life one of the saddest chapters in history. Starring Liam Neeson as industrialist Oskar Schindler; Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth; Ben Kingsley as Schindler's accountant Itzhak Stern; and Caroline Goodall as Schindler's wife, Emilie.

This is a film too sad to imagine, but also very important to watch and shameful to miss. Neeson does an extraordinary job in showing us the man who saved so many lives. A man whom most would call a pirate, he has shown us a brighter light. But, honestly, the one who impressed me (and shocked me the most) was Ralph Fiennes as a Nazi superior. Fiennes was known for playing romantic heroes on the London stage before playing such a dastardly role. (In the end, you can't help but cheer when he is eventually hanged.) And to Ben Kingsley (Oscar-winner for GANDHI), always the dependable one! His Stern provided me enough time to breathe a sign of relief and smile at his nervously mousy character. From his being trapped inside the train to his trying to reason with Schindler about the one-arm man's dependability working in the factory (a rare comedic moment in the film).

This is a triumph in every way possible! To watch a man, whom we never even heard of, save thousands of lives is heart-breakingly wonderful. Good job, Steven!

Winner of 7 Academy Awards including: Best Picture - Steven Spielberg, Branko Lustig & Gerald R. Molen; Best Director - Steven Spielberg; Best Adapted Screenplay - Steven Zaillian; Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski; Best Art Direction/Set Decoration - Allan Starski, Ewa Braun; Best Score - John Williams; and Best Film Eediting - Michael Kahn.

Approximately: 3 HOURS and 17 MINUTES

**Schindler's List **
This film from Steven Spielberg was shot in black and white and is very effective as a film to portray what happened to the Jews in Germany/Poland etc.. from the ghettos to the concentration camps. The film is very realistic in its portrayal and the environment of that time in history of the 1930's and 1940's. This is a film that you may only want to watch once. It is an excellent film. The acting is very good, the reality of the killings is very graphic. The cinematography is excellent. The only reason I think that is a film to viewed once or twice in one's life is due to the depressing nature of the film. I think it is a film that younger generations (teenagers and some people in their 20's) should see because many are coming out of school without even knowing who Adolf Hitler was and what he had done. I think it's important that they see what occurred so a repeat of history does not happen. This is an important film, but not necessarily one you want to view over and over again.

Some other reviewers on this forum start bringing up that "other genocides occurred in history" and how come only this one is made into a film. I'm afraid folks that Spielberg didn't make an all encompassing film to include all of the past atrocities that happened in the past 1000 years. He focused just on the Holocast. Also it is just pure ignorance to deny that 5-6 million Jewish civilians were killed/murdered. Even if it was 10,000 Jews, it does not make it any better. It doesn't really matter if they were Jews or any other religion. The fact is that 6 million PEOPLE who were civilians were murdered. They were Germans, Polish, French and many other nationalities. It just happened they were of the Jewish faith that was targeted by the Nazis(Jews were used as a scapegoat to blame all of Germany's economic ills as a country on. The Nazis also killed and murdered gypsies too. The people (men, women and children) killed were white people (Jewish is not a race. It is a religion).
Actual documentation of what the Nazi's did is on film shot by British news cameras as the American and British soldiers entered these concentration camps throughout 1945. Disease was rampant in these camps due to all the mass graves and thousands of bodies that were left to rot (by the Germans) as the British bulldozers needed to bury these corpses. My father and grandfather were in the 2nd World War as part of the American and British invasion of Germany and witnessed it first hand. That's enough proof as far as I am concerned. Yes. Not all Germans were bad people, but there were enough of them to throw the world into a World War in 1939 and to allow this to go on just a few miles from their towns and villages.

This is a good film. Good coverage of a very bad time in world history.

Not the best Special Edition one can expect, but still...
Although this 5 time Academy Award winning film certainly gets a beautiful presentation on disc, I both do and do not understand the complaining of the DVD presentation of Schindler's List. But first, let me discuss the benefits of the disc first.

The picture here is impressive, although there are noticeable flaws. The 1.85:1 anamorphic picture showcases excellent detail and rich black levels; at times the picture looked so good I thought that the movie was remastered by Lowery Digital Services. But then minor flaws show up, such as excessive grain and minor print flaws (such as in the sequence where Schindler Jews are calling out their names, I spotted a vertical line). Flaws aside, the picture is still beautiful and Janusz Kaminski's photography is put to good use here.

The audio is presented in Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Surround. All Dolby and DTS tracks give a sense of place to the film, and while the tracks aren't bass-heavy, they fit the movie's tone perfectly. It demonstrates excellent stereo separation and bass response, all the while not calling attention to itself. The two-sided disc cuts down on cost, and the menus allow one to access each part of the DVD with considerable ease. (The movie is also given French and Spanish spoken languages and subtitles, while the extras have optional subtitles in English, French, and Spanish.)

Now, the disadvantages. I know people were expecting an extras-packed version of this movie, but we only have two real extras included; the "Voices From the List" Featurette and "Behind the Shoah Visual Foundation" Featurette. Both are good extras detailing the various stories recounted by actual Schindler Jews, and while these are substantial enough, I had the feeling more could've been added. If Spielberg were to do commentaries, I would appreciate one done for this film, and the addition of the theatrical trailer would help too. Inclusion of those two extras would've added much more to the DVD.

Still, quibble about the extras aside, the disc release of this film gives newcomers a chance to be introduced to one of Spielberg's greatest cinematic achievements ever made, with great picture and sound. It may not always be easy viewing, but the impact it leaves is indelible and unforgettable. For fans of Spielberg's work and this movie, this disc is a must-have, despite the slim extras. (If you're intent on having more, the gift set is a viable option. Along with the DVD, it also includes a booklet, the movie's soundtrack CD, certificate of authenticity, a photo still book and a Plexiglas keep case.)

History repeating it's self?
Why don't we hear about other genocides, like the ones in Russia and Turkey that inspired the German one? The movie was so distorted and stereotypical it's ridicules. The nazi's weren't all-bad and the Jews weren't all good. Jews aren't as innocent as they are portrayed. This could be due to Hollywood being monopolized by them. See how much trouble Mel Gibson had when he tried make a movie that portrayed Jews as less than perfect. If they had really went through all that trauma, why would they go to Palestine and commit the same atrocities only decades before to the Arabs? Schindler's List is just one of the yearly Jewish propaganda films that are thrown at us, like the pianist for ex. And worst of all, every year schools have to show this movie to young children. And Disney show's this movie every yr on the wonderful world of Disney. Why is this gruesome movie targeted at kids I have no idea. "so we won't forget the past my A**" ... Read more

Reviews (68)

John Hughes At His Best
Movies like this are what make one want to cry over the media-provoked labeling and fall of "The Brat Pack". The stars of the 1980s teen films were expected to form the next generation of great actors until Hollywood tore them apart and sent them scraping for whatever cable-movie parts they could get their hands on. Though Pretty in Pink was more-or-less the swan song of John Hughes'-masterminded films, to this day it continues to bring in fans to the genre with it's sweet and simple poor girl/rich guy romance and the social issues therein. Though star Molly Ringwald is occaisonally over-emotional in her portrayal of the girl from the wrong side of the tracks, it is not unfitting with her strong but somewhat neurotic character, Andie. Andrew McCarthy, though of greater acting capability than he displays here, still plays his rich but insecure Romeo (Blane) to a T, and is cute enough to make any teenage girl fall in love with him-despite the wierd eye thing. Annie Potts and Harry Dean Stanton are both memorable in their roles of somewhat bizzare parental-type figures, as is a young James Spader as Blane's perfectly condescending best friend. However it is Jon Cryer, as Andie's best and besotted friend Phil "Duckie" Dale who truly steals the show with what is surely one of the top performances of Cryer's varied career. Though on the outside this movie may appear to be pure teen fluff, the story has an endearing quality that will continually find it back in the VCR on any all night movie fest.

A girl from the wrong side of the tracks and her life
This movie set in the mid 80s era of brat-prack movies is a unique shining star. Molly Ringwald is Andie a girl from the wrong sides of the tracks who has romantic intrests from both sides of the spectrum; Duckie (Jon Cryer) who's puppy-dog love for her is both sweet and endearing to watch, and Blane (Andrew McCarthy) the rich guy who has everything going for him. What follows is Andie having to deal with this, the bitchy cheerleader type girls at school, her loving but dishonest father (Harry Dean Stanton) and through all this will she get an invatation to the prom? This is a great film, with both Blane, and Andie having to deal with their friends disagreeeing with their relationship. Steff (James Spader at one of his very best) Blane's best friend, who tries to make Blane try to decide between Andie and himself, when really he just wants his finger in the pie. Annie Potts as Iona, Andie's quirky older best friend is excellent and her weird and orginal costume changes throughout the movie are a highpoint. This is a emotionally raw film a rareity at the time it was made. If you ask me this should have swept the Oscar nominations with Molly Ringwald getting Best Actress, but hey regardless of the miss of Oscars watch this, it is a powerful film and a great piece of film making

Watch 16 Candles or The Breakfast Club, instead
Pretty in Pink is truly one of the worst bratpack movies ever made. Whiny Molly Ringwald has by this time thoroughly worn out her welcome; her perpetual pout, her eye-rolling and her generally sour disposition are extremely grating, all the moreso because she is in virtually every scene! The only interesting thing about Ringwald's "performance" is her ever-changing haircolor (throughout the movie, her hair goes from strawberry blonde to dark auburn to nearly chartreuse back to strawberry blonde, and so on. At least SOMETHING changed; her expression never did!).

Andrew McCarthy is the wimpiest "romantic hero" ever, and, like Molly, his expression never changes. "Must remain bland" was surely his mantra throughout filming.

Jon Cryer plays "Ducky" (did YOU go to high school with anybody who had a nickname like that???) like a spastic goofball. James Spader is wasted in a one-note role as "The Mean Snobby Guy." There's no end to the talent wasted in this film: Annie Potts and Harry Dean Stanton are also squandered in thankless, my-character-only-exists-to-showcase-Molly-Ringwald roles.

As if all that's not annoying enough, Molly's character is the richest "poor girl" ever, with her own lilac-colored Kharman Ghia, an endless supply of funky vintage dresses, petticoats, sweaters, granny boots, and hats (if you think she picked all that swag up at Salvation Army, you're crazy), and her own phone complete with answering machine (no big deal now, but it was in the '80s).

The cherry on top is the fact that the dress Molly cobbles together and "triumphantly" wears to Prom is ugly. Ugly, ugly, UGLY. That's not just my opinion, either: I saw this dog in the theater, and people LAUGHED when she made her entrance.

Bottom line: if you're in the mood for a bratpack movie, watch 16 Candles or Breakfast Club, instead.

One of the better Brat Pack movies.
Molly Ringwald did an good job in this film. The movie wasn't the best brat pack movie, but it is enjoyable. The supporting cast is okay, and the romance you are able to relate to. All, in all good, and heartfelt. See it, if you love teen romance movies.

Pretty good 80's movie
This isn't really my favorite movie that John Hughes made, Sixteen Candles is my favorite, but this one is also pretty good..besides the ending. Molly Ringwald was SO much better with Duckie. Duckie is the best character in this, he's so funny. The part at the end when he's at the dance and he looks at you through the camera, it's priceless!! You got to check this movie out, it's a good one. ... Read more

Reviews (50)

A Wonderful Family Masterpiece
I can't express how much Parenthood is a great film. It's a beautifully crafted story with comedy and drama all woven together in a perfect movie gem. The film centers around a large family who are just going through the trials and tribulations of life. Kids, sex, jobs, relationships, divorce. You name it. Steve Martin headlines this film that has an undoubtedly brilliant unsemble cast. Dianne Wiest stands out in a hilarious and yet, very real performance. She has trouble adjusting to son in law Keanu Reeves. She has a few classic scenes that are undeniably funny and brilliant. The legendary Jason Robards is on hand as the family patriarch. He is solid and wonderful. The remaining cast is outstanding: Mary Steenburgen, Rick Moranis, Martha Plimpton, Joaquin Phoenix, Tom Hulce. You can't go wrong with any of them. Director Ron Howard is a master at putting this film, with different story arcs, together. This is his best work. Steve Martin also shows at how good he can do dramatic parts. If he is deserving of an Oscar, then he should've been recognized for this. Parenthood is a stylish, clever, funny, and teriffic film on family life. See this movie and you'll feel good in the end.

Will have you alternately laughing and crying!
Steve Martin is top billed in this film and he is excellent but the rest of the cast is just as good. This movie is actually divided into four separate parts-four different branch off's of the same family (the father, his kids and their families)-that allows this fine ensemble to portray all the ups and downs of family life. It is a film that teaches without preaching and it's lesson is clearly understood: in life, you can't have the peaks without the valleys. And because of it every character comes to stark realizations about themselves and their relationships with other people. All the characters, that is, except the one played by Tom Hulce. But even that character is correctly written; it just simply isn't the right time for him to realize.The interactions between the father (Jason Robards) and his two sons (Hulce and Martin) tell us much about all three characters' past, present and future. Unfortunately there isn't any interaction between the father and the two daughters, played by Martha Plimpton and Dianne Wiest, but with so many characters to deal with and so many ties to bind, there simply wasn't time. But the time the writers have is well spent indeed. Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel have taken a very basic idea and expanded on it in a realistic and original way. It's no wonder that all the characters are tied together so perfectly in the end.Ron Howard has taken that script and directed these tremendous performers to superlative work. Very seldom have any of them been better. Martin shines in an everyman IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE portrayal of the father of three and the second oldest child of the four earlier mentioned. Not since ROXANNE had he given a performance of such range and depth. Dianne Wiest as his older sister won another Oscar nomination and is just as good as she was in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS. Martha Plimpton as the next oldest child is fine as a mother torn between her high-tech-education-supporter-husband (Moranis, his best work since LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS) and her young childhood deprived daughter. Tom Hulce is the youngest of Jason Robards' four kids and has the toughest role to play. He wasn't given the one-liners the others have. His character isn't likeable. His father obviously favors him at first, which is hard for the rest of the family as well as the audience to understand. But he portrays the character as it should be played-a wanderer with unstoppable dreams who is also to be pitied. Robards' portrayal of the father is one of his best and should have garnered him another Oscar nomination. Through Robards' father character we see how his kids turned out the way they did. And we see him growing and learning as he finds you CAN teach an old dog new tricks. Joaquin Phoenix, here billed as Leaf (River's kid brother as Wiest's youngest) and Helen Shaw as Grandma, the matriarch of the family are also excellent. Keanu Reeves (Wiest's son-in-law) and Mary Steenburgen (Martin's wife) round out the cast beautifully. Randy Newman's score is perfect and the song "I Love to See You Smile" is very infectious.Pulling everything together for a production is not an easy thing. When you couple that with the fact that in this movie, comedy and drama are blended together seemlessly, Howard and his cast and crew have created a true treasure. Being a perfect parent is not easy. Being a perfect person is impossible. If you are anything less, see this movie.

Very Good now
When I first saw this movie about 7 years ago I did not like it. I did not get why it was so funny back then and thought it all rather sad.
But I tried and it was worth it! It is sometimes very gripping in what happens in the lives of people, though it is sometimes a little exaggerated, like in an Irving book.

It is also funny. The things that happen in itself are hilarious, and sometimes also there are some funny things interspersed ("Take Grandma away from the Nintendo").

The part of Keanu Reeves is also interesting. He plays a dumb guy like in Bill and Ted's excellent adventure. There is a touching scene where he talks to his wife's mother about her son's masturbation ("That's why little dude's do"). Even though he is the stupidest, he has the best advice.

Tom Hulce is brilliant as the youngest gambler son. The dad, useless in the beginning, now finally realized what he has to do.

It is a funny movie and sometimes touching. One of the better Steve Martin movies.

Overpriced, no-frills DVD of a wonderful movie
This is a wonderful, heartwarming film that always manages to make me laugh AND cry....that's why I wanted to own a copy. Unfortunately, the DVD lacks any special features to enhance it (especially frustrating since it's a comparatively expensive one!). How tough would it have been for Ron Howard, Steve Martin or any of the supporting cast to offer a commentary track?

That's why I'd recommend it as a rental only. Dianne Wiest and Helen Shaw deliver exceptional performances...Steve Martin's at his most charming...the child actors are superior and it's one of Mary Steenburgen's best performances.

"No widescreen", "NO SALE"!!!!!
This is such a good film that ranks in the top five of Steve Martin films, with such a great supporting cast and a truly original and funny screenplay for them to work with, it just seems a shame that we the consumer had to wait more than a decade for a "Pan-Scan" DVD release of this great family film, I'm sure alot of people would agree with me that it's like watching 1/2 of the original movie. I hope the distributer of this DVD gets copies of all these reviews and then thinks twice about the next movie he "butchers" by releasing it in a "Pan-Scan" format on a DVD because he just lost a lot of sales due to the lack of a widescreen version of this DVD and "I am sad to say I'm one of those lost sales". ... Read more

Reviews (333)

65 Million Years is Well Worth the Wait!
Intense, supersonic-paced science fiction adventure finds paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and company invited to a remote tropical island theme park inhabited by genetically engineered dinosaurs! The awe and wonder is abruptly replaced by terror and a fight for survival after the park's security system is sabotaged, granting the resurrected behemoths free run of the island!

Director Spielberg is at his creative best in this tour de force of suspense, acutely blending action, thrills, awe and humor. Equal to the challenge is composer John Williams with an appropriately rousing and kinetic score that sounds something like Stravinsky on melodic steroids!

Expert direction, superb performances (Richard Attenborough is particularly effective as the eccentric billionaire entrepreneur, John Hammond) and breathtaking, unprecedented visual effects (the ILM computer generated dinosaurs are completely convincing!) more than compensate for less than dimensional characters and rudimentary plot. Along with the action and fun, "Jurassic Park" also raises some serious questions about the ethics of advanced science and cloning.

Perhaps Steven Spielberg's best adventure film, "Jurassic Park" truly is a cinematic masterpiece and one of my five favorite films of all time!

Unbelievable
Jurassic Park has got to be one of the greatest movies of all time. The directing, animatronics, acting, graphics, and casting were perfect in this movie. The beginning was perfect, no sitting around waiting for action. It opens with a worker being attacked by a velociraptor and Muldoon(Bob Peck) trying to help him.

You meat a character named Nedry(Wayne Knight) who is working for a company that will pay him 1.5 million dollars if he steals the dinosaur embryos.

Then some other stuff happens, yaddah yaddah, anyway, Grant(Sam Neill), Ellie(Laura Dern), Gennaro(Martin Ferraro), Malcolm(Jeff Goldblum), and Hammond(Richard Attenborough), reach the island. The island is owned by Hammond the billionaire. It is a theme park with real dinosaurs. The main four go on a tour with Hammond's grandkids.

Needless to say, the tour goes bad. Nedry steals the embryos, pulls the power and runs off. The five remaining characters are stranded out by the tyrannosaur paddock. Ellie has already gone back to the visitor's center where she, Hammond, Muldoon, and Mr. Arnold(Samuel L. Jackson) try to figure out what Nedry has done.

The tyrannosaurus escapes, eats Gennaro and nearly kills everyone else. Moments later Ellie and Muldoon come to try and find everybody, but they have left. They find Malcolm lying in a pile of hay, and the two cars destroyed.

Now Grant, and the two grandchildren, Lex and Tim, must find their way back to the visitor's center while Ellie, Malcolm, Muldoon, Hammond, and Mr. Arnold try to get the power back.

This was THE movie of my generation
As a college student now, I was 9 years old when Jurassic Park hit theaters and it couldn't have come at a better time. Watching it again, Jurassic Park holds up as great entertainment, even if the characters and storylines seem a bit flimsy at times. It's probably more worthy of 4 stars than 5, but hey, this is the movie of MY generation and I'm not going to apologize for its rating. Jurassic Park continually reminds its viewers that Steven Spielberg is the greatest entertainer since Walt Disney. Constantly filling the screen with visual treats, keeping the plot moving at a brisk pace (once the obligatory exposition is filled in), and allowing us to enjoy ourselves without stooping too low, nobody does blockbusters like this man. Since he was to direct Schindler's List that same year, this was more or less his kiss-off to the popcorn genre he helped invent (consisting of classics like Jaws, Raiders, and E.T.--some with more dramatic substance than others, but all damn entertaining). Like I said, I was nine when this movie premiered and I still remember watching in the dark theater as the whole show unfolded--perhaps taking it for granted that movies should be so thrilling and fun, and that every filmmaker was capable of such wonders. Wrong on both accounts, but it did spur me on to shoot my first movie on video camera that summer (admittedly, it was highly derivative). Now I'm a film student...thanks Steve
5/6

"This is a UNIX system. I know this"... And black leather?
Jurassic Park is good entertainment, but take most of the "science" it presents with a grain of salt.

All the characters seem to think the idea of cloning dinosaurs is a good idea except chaos theorist Goldblum who wonders if we should do what we apparently can do.

Innovative in its presentation of realistic looking dinosaurs, Jurassic Park is the name of a new dinosaur-based theme park that is sabotaged while a few scientists and kids are on a pre-opening tour. It becomes an adventure to see who will escape alive.

The movie is best when there are dinosaurs on screen.

Mostly good acting by Laura Dern and Sam Neill as dino experts, Jeff Goldblum as the chaos theory mathematician, and Richard Attenborough as the park designer. The kids, played competently by Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello had some of the best lines.

An entertaining adventure, but no big concept. Not quite the same level as Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Jaws.

The only nit-picks include wondering why Jeff Goldblum wears black leather to the tropics, and why a pre-teen girl can save the day on a complex computer (again - see S1m0ne) with her knowledge of UNIX.

DVD has wide-screen movie, a behind the scenes documentary, and a few other minimal goodies.

More Than Just A Movie...
Jurassic Park was more than just a movie. More than an event. It was a full blown phenomenon! Steven Spielberg is the unrivalled king of such films. Every few years he puts out another spectacular that sweeps the world and sets a new standard (like Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, E.T., Raiders Of The Lost Ark, etc.). This time out, we've got resurrected dinosaurs running amok! The basic plot has stranded people on dino-island trying to keep from becoming dino-chow. You've got your scientists (Sam Neil, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum), your crazy zillionaire (Richard Attenborough), a greedy, lecherous computer geek (Wayne Knight), a sleazy lawyer, and two cute kids to round out the cast. You even get Samuel L. Jackson as a chain-smoking computer tech guy! Throw in an approaching hurricane, and you've got the perfect monster movie! It's usually not the "deep" storyline (except in the cases of Spielberg epics like Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, The Color Purple, etc.) that causes the phenomenon. It's his way of thrilling us and breaking new cinematic ground that we love. I knew when I first saw JP that I was in for a blast. At the same time, I also knew that I wasn't going to see Hamlet or Macbeth! Jurassic Park blew my mind with it's realistic T-rex, Raptors, Triceratops, and the rest. We saw dinosaurs that were not rubber, clay, or robots (well, at least not robots that looked like robots)! We got CGI that put flesh on 65 million year old bones! The team that made this movie are legendary, and have pushed special effects to stratospheric heights. JP is a true milestone that stands the test of time. Belongs in every DVD collection... ... Read more

Amazon.com

A milestone of cinematic eroticism, The Story of O was an art house sensation in 1975, and it's still worthy of intelligent discussion. As with the controversial French novella by Pauline Réage, reactions to Just Jaeckin's sumptuous adaptation range from moral outrage to masturbatory indulgence, yet this remains one of the few sex films that stand the test of time (and a lot of academic study). Championed by practitioners of bondage and discipline and vilified by feminists, this metaphorical "love dream" (as Jaeckin has called it) follows the beautiful fashion photographer "O" (Corrine Clery) as she, like many gorgeously naked women before her, is "trained" for a seemingly satisfying life of love and discipline, her freedom sacrificed to the man (Anthony Steel) whom she willingly obeys. The debate whether Jaeckin's feminine-empowerment ending, which differs from that of the novella, justifies a story of humiliating submission is just one more reason why The Story of O endures. (Note: This DVD presents the 97-minute version of the film, edited by the director to improve pacing and not for purposes of censorship.) --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

A Masterwork of Erotic Fiction
I was prompted to write this review after seeing some of the tripe written about the film. Most so-called adult films are mindless, empty, clinical depictions of rutting and most "erotica" is childish and bland. The Story of O is different: it is literature and the film is an excellent adaptation of the novel. I read the novel first and felt nothing but satisfation on viewing the film. The director and cast bring the novel alive as it is meant to be.

This story, written by a woman I might add, is not about the exploitation of women or a woman. It is not about submission to anything other than one's own love and sexuality. It is symbolic, so profoundly so, that it must touch upon our archetypes.

Many might miss that through submission, O conquers her lover--totally. There is an irony here in that her lover ends up the submissive one. She taps into the infinite power of her femininity and becomes a goddess. I am not into bondage and discipline personally, yet this movie is a favorite of my wife and me. O haunts, she is supernally erotic, and profoundly feminine.

The quality of the film is first class, it is well acted, and is a classic. IMO, it is a must have film. It is the only erotic film in our house--the rest just are so bland.

A Masterwork of Erotic Fiction
I was prompted to write this review after seeing some of the tripe written about the film. Most so-called adult films are mindless, empty, clinical depictions of rutting and most "erotica" is childish and bland. The Story of O is different: it is literature and the film is an excellent adaptation of the novel. I read the novel first and felt nothing but satisfation on viewing the film. The director and cast bring the novel alive as it is meant to be.

This story, written by a woman I might add, is not about the exploitation of women or a woman. It is not about submission to anything other than one's own love and sexuality. It is symbolic, so profoundly so, that it must touch upon our archetypes.

Many might miss that through submission, O conquers her lover--totally. There is an irony here in that her lover ends up the submissive one. She taps into the infinite power of her femininity and becomes a goddess. I am not into bondage and discipline personally, yet this movie is a favorite of my wife and me. O haunts, she is supernally erotic, and profoundly feminine.

The quality of the film is first class, it is well acted, and is a classic. IMO, it is a must have film. It is the only erotic film in our house--the rest just are so bland.

Classic Soft Core
The Story of O doesn't stand much as a story at all on the surface. It
really is just a film that dared to be original for it's time and probably
succeeded only because of it's massive amounts of nudity. I for one (of many
it's assumed) absolutely adore nudity. The Story of O is actually deeper
than I give it credit for and that is actually something I can appreciate.
I enjoy being convinced that these characters are real and caring about them
and so forth and then seeing the best looking ones rip off there clothes and
prance about in nothing but their epitdermis. That's my absolute favorite
part of cinema actually. Call me primal, shallow and a glutton but it's
among my favorite things.

Corinne Clery is a model turned actress who had a good string of
exploitation-like films going there for quite some time. She is my
definition of perfect in terms of thin brunettes with beautiful faces. Her
body is indeed nice to look at and here we see her more naked than quite
possibly anyone had ever been in film. We don't see anything too graphic
unfortunately but she is nude for about 80% of the film. One more comment
on this dimension, this film does contain my all-time favorite female full
frontal nude scene ever. Toward the end we see Cori in all in glory
standing up, tied to two posts covered in sweat and some nice whiplash marks
as she shakes about with semi-wet hair. Very nice indeed.

O.K., enough on the shameless aspects. The Story of O is a standout
landmark in this genre directed by softcore staple Just Jaekin (Emmanuelle).
He gives an element to softcore that only Andrew Blake can give to hardcore
and what really should be the goal of this now dying genre. This work is far
more intimate and at first seemingly less gratuitous but lets face it, the
end result is really no different to the majority of viewers anyway. The
crowd that is just happy to get Cori Clery paused or looped on their DVDs (I
consider part of myself among them to some degree). However, in the vain of
films that push mainstream and well directed projects to the limits, The
Story of O will always be remembered.

I've heard comparison's to the Image. If you liked the Image, keep in mind
that The Story of O doesn't go that far. Metzger's work is always somewhat
gratuitous and pornagraphic, this film is not. All situations are
stimulated and played down. Nice displays of the female body but also not
an anatomy lesson either. Jaekin actually despises pornography probably
because it mostly misguides the motivations for creating intelligent
pictures about this kind of subject matter.

One of the best and most erotic films ever made.
"The Story of O" is a masterpiece. I wish I would have seen it in its original language (French), but it's dubbed in English pretty good. Do you remember that famous orgy scene from Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut? Well, this entire film feels like that scene and that's very cool. It creates a mysterious and dreamy atmosphere, it has good acting and it's beautifully photographed and edited. You don't get to see a movie like this everyday.

Was this film really made in 1975? If I didn't know I would have sweared it was a new release. As jacked as it may sound "The Story of O" deserves to be such a classic -- it stands with brio the test of time and after "Nine 1/2 Weeks" it could very well may be the best erotic film ever made. As jacked as it may sound, I was intrigued by it from the beginning to the end.

Coulda, Shoulda
This one could have been a lot better and should have been a lot sexier. It kinda misses the mark in all areas, except for the fact that if you can get a girl to watc it with you she'll probably be up for some sweating later on -- due to the erotic nature of the film. I'd like to contrast this with the "New Sex Now" video, which, while it is very low in production values, delivers a major payload in the content and expertise that it bestows upon lucky viewers. O, I wish this "O" had been something near as good as the book "Story of O" which was PHENOMENAL -- but alas, it woulda been nice. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Son of the Mask is a frantic sequel tailor-made for short attention spans. For 86 manic minutes, this belated follow-up to 1994's Jim Carrey hit The Mask compensates for Carrey's absence by casting Jamie Kennedy as a cut-rate animator who becomes heavily animated himself (courtesy of non-stop computer-animated effects) when he dons the ancient mask that belongs to Loki (Alan Cumming, nicely cast), the Norse god of mischief. As in the Carrey film, the mask turns its wearers into cartoonish whirlwinds of confident bluster, and that includes a little dog named Otis, and especially Kennedy's mask-induced offspring, a frenetic shape-shifting baby that's more creepy than comedic, like Ally McBeal's dancing infant on steroids and speed. This woebegone sequel quickly vanished from theaters, but it's a harmless babysitter that kids will enjoy, from the director of the similarly effects-driven Cats & Dogs. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (48)

Hilarious!!
This movie is GREAT. Personally I like it better than "The Mask". It is a fun movie for the whole family to enjoy!

Good and STOOPID
Son of the Mask RULZ and I am the master film CRETON.
You all with no imagination - check it out.
This film ROCKZ.
If you can't laugh at STOOPID- you can't laugh. Stoopid is genius. Bugs Bunny was Stoopid. Bush is STUPID.
If you aren't down with Son of the Mask you're just plain STUPID.

Great Sequel
Not your typical boring sequel. Maybe it's because the Mask was so many years ago and maybe it's because Jim Carrey's not in it, but this film is an original.
I really enjoyed it.

Silly and predictable
This movie entertained the heck out of our 2 year old godson, that's all I was hoping for.

Saw It Last Night, Talk About Boring
This movie flat out SUCKED.Why in the world did they make this? and Judging by the ending of the movie, they'll prob. make a third.PLEASE DON'TStay away from this piece of crap movie people, get the first mask movie. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

Have you noticed that no one ever gives this film 3 stars...
It's always 1 or 5 (the occasional 2 or 4 are just cowards...). This is a film you either adore or detest. Those who adore it (moi, for instance, as the 5 star rating clearly indicates) are usually very patient movie watchers who like to watch a film unfold at its own pace. How many films can you name that are still going through exposition an hour and half into the film?

David Bern once said that movies are nothing but pictures and images; stories are just a trick to get you to watch them. You could turn off the sound and mix up the reels (some probably think that happened when they saw it in the theatre), and this would still be a feast for the eyes. Cimino's lush vision of Montana is overwhelming. It's like a stroll through a moving Bierstadt exhibition. It contains pieces that are almost perfect acts of filmmaking - such as the skating sequence, which could stand alone as a short (the 1 star folks just stopped reading, muttering the word "dilatant" under their collective breaths).

But despite its cinematic saturation, Heaven's Gate has a powerful, complex story. It's a story about class barbarism, and how the American Aristocracy of the last century committed mass murder in the West, with the help of the Government and the Military. It has a love story between two people who wouldn't have touched each other in the "civilized" East. It has intense performances by Isabella Hupert, Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, Sam Waterston, et al.

Yes, this is clearly not a film for everyone - in fact, if it was made for anyone, it was for Michael Cimino - but it is a film that some of us are glad was made. If you like LONG, CHALLANGING films by self-indulgent artists, rent it - and if you love it, you'll have to buy it; and if you hate it, well, you probably wasted five bucks and couldn't even get to the second tape...

How the West was Won
Cimino may not have made a blockbuster, but he did make one of the best Westerns in cinematic history. Unfortunately, most people can't sit through a 4-hour movie. If you are one of those persons who can appreciate a complex narrative, delivered by a stunning cast, that tells a more candid tale of the West, then "Heaven's Gate" is a real treat.

Cimino has collected a set of compelling stories that swirl around the range wars of the Montana. He relates these stories through his protaganist, a federal marshall played by Kris Kristofferson. His thoughts drift back to Harvard Yard in the opening sequence, where he reveled in the commencement ceremonies with his old schoolmate, John Hurt. Much of this scene was chopped out in the theatrical release, undermining the content of the film. It is this Eastern view, which Cimino wants you to take note of. How one can meld into the West as Kristofferson does, and how one can become part and parcel of the cattle syndicate as Hurt did.

The stories mainly focus around the Eastern European immigrants who attempted to carve out a life in late 19th-century Montana. They came up against the great cattle syndicates, who owned much of the range, leaving little for the immigrants to settle on. Cimino gives you a very intimate view of the events. His camera angles take you right into the action. This is a very visceral movie.

Eventually these immigrants come up against the cattle barons, who had formed their own vigilante gangs in an attempt to combat the encroachment of the new settlers on their land. Kristofferson has grown close to the immigrants and eventually chooses to support their claims, leading to a final gut-wrenching confrontation, which includes his old schoolmate, John Hurt.

The cast is first rate. Walken, Bridges, Huppert, Watterston all give excellent performances. Cimino has inverted many of the myths that surround the Old West, and provided a living history. The film almost has the quality of a sepia tone, as he has muted his colors to give the sense of age. The [fourty]... million budget seems paltry by toda's standards, but at the time it was one of the most expensive films ever made. Unfortunately, not everyone was ready for it.

Quite Possibly the Most Maligned Picture Ever Made
When self-appointed film experts talk about the worst movies of all time, Heaven's Gate invariably enters the conversation. Until the release of Ishtar, this depiction of the Johnson County War in the late 19th Century enjoyed the dubious distinction of being the biggest box office flop of all time. In my view, however, a box office flop doesn't necessarily denote a bad movie. A bad movie is one with low production values, bad effects, and/or muddled script, like Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos: The Hands of Fate. Heaven's Gate, though it may have been a box office flop, is actually a very good movie that got it's undeserved reputation due to director Michael Cimino's obsession with perfection. This resulted in multiple takes of scenes that most directors could have shot in one or two. Ultimately, the picture cost three or four times its original budget to make. Negative pre-release publicity from a reporter who managed to get into the film as an extra after Cimino refused to grant him an interview, and the critical shellacking that it received from the critics when released, conspired with the well reported cost overruns to doom Heaven's Gate before it was even out of the starting gate.

Personally, I like this movie. And while I appreciate Cimino's insistence on period authenticity in such things as trains, costuming and sets but I have a problem reconciling it to a script that takes such artistic liberties with recorded history. The real Jim Averill was a cattle ruster who along with his wife was hanged. He was not the noble sheriff with an Ivy League background as portrayed in the film by Kris Kristofferson. Nevertheless, Heaven's Gate is a superb motion picture in many respects. The cinematography by Villnos Zsigmond is nothing short of magnificent, and the acting performances are all good, especially those of Kristofferson, John Hurt, and Christopher Walken. Although many previous reviewers have criticized the sound quality, I found nothing wrong with it. I also didn't find the plot all that hard to follow, as others claim. Perhaps they expected the movie to give them a clue without any sort of thinking on their own. Of all the complaints that have been levelled against Heaven's Gate, the only one I think that has any merit to it is that the pacing is painfully slow. That said, I don't believe it distracts significantly from the enjoyment of the movie. Incidentally, have I mentioned that David Mansfield's score (sadly, not in print) is beautiful?

Sure, Heaven's Gate is considered to be a flop. But I would suggest to anyone reading this review that you watch it for yourself and decide. It's really not as bad a movie as others have led you to believe it is.

Check it out for the camerawork; there's nothing else there
"Heaven's Gate" is one of the most beautifully photographed films ever made. Every frame seems almost antique, a dazzling combination of sunlit exteriors and naturally lit interiors with candles and oil lamps that give the film a burnish unlike any other.

And there's several brillantly directed sequences that are unlike anything in any other film. A hyper-active rollerskating dance that transforms into a waltz between the romantic leads. A massive graduation dance on the lawn of Harvard (actually shot at Oxford) that is breathtaking in its scope.

However, all this camerawork and virtuoso editing is wrapped around one of the dullest screenplays ever written. The story is so simple, it could have been covered in 90 minutes instead of 3 hours and 40 minutes, and most of the movie consists of long pensive silences between the actors that lack any kind of dramatic interest or narrative thrust. The movie meanders, wanders, stops dead in its tracks, only occasionally remembering to pick up the storyline and go somewhere with it.

Kristofferson is utterly passive and uninteresting.

The film spends its first half-hour setting up a friendship between Kristofferson and John Hurt that has no bearing or meaning to to the storyline.

The love triangle aspect is contrived and dull.

And the victimized immigrants in the film are so shrill, panicky, and annoying that you almost wish they'd get killed.

Pictorially, the film is a masterpiece. But as a narrative film, it utterly fails on every level.....never before has so much care gone into making a film with so little substance.

As you can tell, this is a very ambivelent review. I think "Heaven's Gate" is worth a viewing just for those lovely images and sequences.....pure eye candy. Just don't expect to be entertained past that level.

Cimino's Hellish Disaster
I was one of the people who went to see this movie when it first came out in New York City - if you blinked, you missed it because it was pulled after one week! That's an indication of how bad this movie really is.

While I was watching the movie, I started trying to read lips because the sound was just so horrendous, you could barely hear or understand what was being said - I'm not kidding. I could hear wagon wheels turn and horses trot better than I could the actor's voices. By the end of the movie my glutimus maximus was numb - along with the expressions on the audience's faces. You could hear a pin drop in the place - then the avalanche of boos and scathing reviews started pouring down. I've never experienced anything like it before or since.

The scenery and music is fantastic, everything else is truly horrendous. Cimino had over 200 hours of film which needed to be cut down to between 2 and 3 hours - it's impossible to make a cohesive, intelligent movie from such a huge amount of film - storylines get trimmed or cut completely leaving you to wonder what the heck is going on or why certain things seemed disjointed and/or untold.

You're left wondering how someone who created a spectacular movie like The Deer Hunter could have become so self-absorbed that he created a disaster of enormous proportions. $40 million might not seem like much nowawdays, but in 1980, it was a heckuva lot of money. (It's equivalent to $100,000,000 today!)

Such a shame that Cimino threw his career down the toilet with this movie. ... Read more

Description

The critically acclaimed PBS series that weaves mystery with real historical events returns with four stories set in September and October 1940. Winner of the Audience Award at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts in 2003, the series stars Michael Kitchen (Proof of Life) as quietly enigmatic detective Christopher Foyle whose territory on the south coast of England is rocked by the chaos and danger of World War II.

Also starring Anthony Howell, Honeysuckle Weeks, Julian Ovenden, and featuring Nicholas Farrell, Alan Howard, Corin Redgrave, and Amanda Root.
The Mysteries:
Fifty Ships--Foyle's determined investigation of a body on a deserted beach puts at risk the donation of American Aid and the crucial start of Lend-Lease in the war.
Among the Few--Pilots and their girlfriends live fast and die young in a story of greed and passion where Foyle finds appearances are deceptive.
War Games--Divided loyalties lead to revenge and murder when a businessman puts profits before principles in a secret pact with the Nazis.
The Funk Hole--Foyle finds himself accused of a serious offense, which complicates his hunt for a ruthless murderer at a sinister hotel.

DVD SPECIAL FEATURES INCLUDE an exclusive interview with Anthony Howell and Honeysuckle Weeks, production notes, cast filmographies, and photo gallery.
"Brilliantly explores the moral gray areas of war"—San Francisco Chronicle
"For mystery fans, Foyle is a must-see" —The Houston Chronicle
"A series to be relished" —Radio Times ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Foyle's back and better than ever!
Previous followers will again be captivated by the new adventures of DSC Foyle with his loyal driver Sam Stewart, and faithful sergent Paul Milner. Fans of Foyle's War will be well rewarded for the long awaited continuation of the ITV murder mystery series. (Thank God I already bought my set on ebay two weeks ago) The series again is set against the sleepy town of Hastings in the beginining of WW II and retains the rustic charm and suspense that made the first series a sucess! These four episodes are from a slightly more personal perspective at the lives of the characters while supporting the main plots. The plots are highly orginal and still keep you guessing till the end. A must have for anyone who loves good drama! Just a Note: Series 3 of the series wrapped up filming at the end of June 2004. It will be aired sometime in the autumn reportedly in October or November 2004. This is a series that can never cease to entertin and keep you on the edge of your seat! ... Read more

Description

Comic wizard Bill Murray (CRADLE WILL ROCK, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS) teams up with Academy Award(R)-winner Richard Dreyfuss teams up with (Best Actor, 1978, THE GOODBYE GIRL) in an outrageously wild comedy that's sure to drive you off the deep end! Murray plays Bob Wiley, a troubled but lovable therapy patient who fears everything! After seeking help from noted psychiatrist Dr. Leo Marvin (Dreyfuss), Bob feels revived. But when the good doctor skips town to go on a quiet family vacation, Bob, afraid of being alone, follows -- showing up unexpectedly at the therapist's lakeside retreat. That's when the fun really begins! Bob innocently becomes the houseguest who just won't leave -- endearing himself to the other family members ... and, in the end, driving the stressed-out shrink absolutely crazy! ... Read more

Reviews (103)

Mmmm... Was this movie hand-shucked?
The story is pretty simple. Bill Murray stars as Bob Wiley, a manic who invades the life and family of Dr. Leo Marvin, a psychiatrist played by Richard Dreyfuss. Bob comes to him for guidance but Dr. Leo is in a rush to go on his summer vacation, so he gets brushed off and sent out the door with a copy of the Dr.'s new best-selling book, Baby Steps. Bob can't handle it himself and decides to follow Dr. Leo to his vacation home. Bob's insistent efforts to get to Dr. Leo causes his family to become endeared to him and his child-like qualities, while Dr. Leo sees Bob's efforts so invasive he starts to become unhinged himself.

This movie is a real treat. Great performances all around and one of Bill Murray's funniest roles. From watching the reaction of the family members, one wonders how much of the goofiness was improvised by Murray. Dreyfuss is splendid also as he slowly loses his patience and eventually his sanity. It gets a solid four stars and a buy recommendation. Watch it when you need a lift. But remember--baby steps... baby steps...

Baby Steps!
What About Bob is one of the funniest comedies of the 90's, and one of Bill Murray's best roles as the neurotic Bob Wiley, who seeks help from renowned psychiatrist Dr Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfuss). As Leo's patient, Bob follows Leo to his holiday house at Lake Winnapasokee, where the crazy Bob pesters his exasperated Doc for answers to his problems. The gradually- increasing craziness between Dreyfuss and Murray is fantastic, with an outstanding script and superb comedic timing.

The film also stars Julie Hagerty (Airplane) as Leo's wife and Charlie Korsmo (from Spielberg's Hook) as Sigmund 'Siggy' Marvin. But this movie belongs to Murray. His brilliant comic timing and neuroticism provide some great laughs ("I want, I want, gimme, gimme, gimme, I need I need!"). Which is exactly what people are saying about this DVD. Must-have comedy.

The Greatest Movie of All Time
I seriously think that this is the best movie ever. I haven't seen it in a few months but my stomach still hurts from all the laughing I did (ok, not really but you get the picture). Bill Murray is one of my favorite actors and he made me love him even more in this film. I cannot count how many times I laugh everytime I watch this movie. If you are going to watch this movie, be ready for a stomach ache afterwards because I can guarantee that you will laughing for all eternity after you watch this movie. If you have a pulse, you will enjoy this movie!

Lots of Quotes!
One of the measures of a good movie is if you recite lines from it in normal dialog. My family uses many quotes from this movie and has been doing so for years. Whenever my wife is run down she pulls this one out and immediately starts to laugh. This is one of our favorite wacky comedies.

What About ...Annoying?!
There is no question that Bill Murray has an outstanding body of work, but in WHAT ABOUT BOB? he plays one of the most annoying characters in the history of cinema (even worst than Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace). The audience is supposed to cheer 'Bob' as he battles his way through his neurosis and phobias, at the expense of his psychiatrist, Dr. Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfuss). This reviewer had the opposite effect of what the movie was supposed to project. I felt sympathy for Leo/Dreyfuss and none whatsoever with Bob/Murray who literally invades the life of his doctor. The fact that even Dr. Leo Marvin's family, who find no harm in Bob's innocent stalking througout the course of the film, was even more frustrating. The movie plays like the tv show GREEN ACRES. There is one central character who is supposedly smarter than everyone, but somehow everyone still gets the best of him. The climax in all this was the nail in the coffin. A vacation home is blown-up and 'Bob' ends up marrying Leo's (Drefuss) sister, while Leo is reduced to a dribbling vegetable. This reviewer did not think this film was a comedy, but rather it was fingernails scratching across a chalkboard. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Don't monkey around with religion
This film is based on the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee about the 1925, Scopes Monkey Trial. It is tricky to keep the differences between this play and the real trial apart in one's mind. Spencer Tracy (Henry Drummond) and Fredric March (Matthew Harrison Brady) spar over the legality of teaching of evolution in Tennessee. This combination is guaranteed to keep you glued to your seat. In this movie Scopes, while teaching evolution to a high-school biology class is arrested and placed in jail.

Some time the other characters get lost in the shuffle yet one other will show through. That is Gene Kelley who plays E. K. Hornbeck who reports the trial.

I will not give a blow by blow of the trail but to say it gets rather heated and is broken up with several adjournments with time to reflect on what was said and going to be said.

If you are interested in the real thing then read Scopes Autobiography "Center of the Storm."

Pr 11:29... "HE WHO TROUBLES HIS OWN HOUSE WILL INHERIT THE WIND."

"Sit down, Sampson, you're about to get a haircut"
Although Inherit the Wind was made in 1960 about a trial in 1920, it retains a surprising amount of bite.

In the film, based on the stage play of the same name, in turn based on the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, a biology teacher is jailed for teaching evolution. This sets up the film's centerpiece: a courtroom battle between famed attorneys, portrayed by acting heavyweights Spencer Tracy and Frederic March.

Gene Kelly is surprisingly good in a non-dancing role, and gets the best lines as the cynical journalist from Baltimore ("Sit down, Sampson, you're about to get a haircut," he says to the teacher when his girlfriend is called to testify).

Directed by the great Stanley Kramer, the film works well on a number of levels: comedy, courtroom drama, and commentary on religion's place in society.

A unforgettable tour de force and superb script!
This film is a triumph against the intolerance and the dark sides of the reason. The dreams of the reason produce monsters.
The generated legal battle between a Mathew Brady the hard fan religious and politician and Henry Drummond an opened mind lawyer about the Darwin ideas , keep full intensity all the film.
This historical process lets you thinking about the imaginary circunstance about what would the destiny of USA if Brady would have been President?
Spencer Tracy and Frederic March are like the alpha and the omega in this match . One timeless classic film in any age.
Don't even doubt it. This film is for you and for a wide target in the social spectre.
A must and a winner movie!

Incredibly Boring at Best
This movie is terrible. When people make a movie, you assume they would try to make it entertaining at the very Least. Don't waste your time viewing this film. It lasts way too long and you'll be happy when its over. Even if you do like the movie, it has a terrible ending. Hardly any of the conflicts are solved, and you're left with a feeling of disgust. That is only if you manage to make it through the entire movie. The songs in it as well are way too long and sound terrible. To sum it up, this movie is terrible.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND
As previous reviewers have noted, _INHERIT THE WIND_ is a work of fiction that is based on what came to be known as "The Scopes Monkey Trial." Also previously noted is the fact that Spencer Tracy, as Henry Drummond, the character adapted from the real life Clarence Darrow, and Frederic March, playing the role of Matthew Harrison Brady, whose character is based on William Jennings Bryan, engage in a carefully choreographed and outstandingly acted "pas de deux" that, to this day, has rarely been matched in any movie.

It should be understood that this is a work of fiction, and is not meant to duplicate the facts of the Scopes trial. That's why the names have been changed -- to allow literary license for dramatic purposes.

With this as background, one needs to understand the political climate that prevailed when the play from which the movie was adapted was written. The play was written in 1950, in the middle of what has come to be known as the "McCarthy Era." The anti-Communist hysteria of the time was seen by many as a threat to intellectual freedom. It was politically dangerous, at that time, to directly take on those threats to freedom of ideas, so the playwrites (Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee) came up with the idea of using the Scopes Trial, which was safely in the past, as a vehicle to express the importance of the constitutional guarantees of such things as freedom of speech. That the play they wrote in 1950, and its 1960 movie version, were of such dramatic intensity was just icing on the cake.

I think that looking at _INHERIT THE WIND_ from the standpoint of historical perspective should do away with some reviewers beliefs that it is some sort of atheistic plot to challenge their belief systems. Also, repeating myself, I believe that it is important to realize that it is a work of fiction and need not accurately reflect the details of the real trial.

It's worth seeing from several perspectives. As a well acted movie; as one that creates an atmosphere that makes the viewer feel that he is in that hot, humid courtroom; and as one that expresses how important our freedoms really are. ... Read more

Reviews (88)

Branagh brings Shakespeare to life!
Kenneth Branagh is, undoubtedly, my favorite Shakespeare actor and director. He casts based on talent rather than popularity and his choices really pay off. His own roles are instilled with a vibrant energy and life not often seen in film.

This screen adaptation of Shakespeare's romantic comedy takes us on a light-hearted adventure of match-making and deceit. Branagh plays Benedick, a soldier in the company of Don Pedro of Aragon and a "professed tyrant" to the female sex who swears he will die a bachelor. Emma Thompson, then Branagh's wife, plays Beatrice, a free-spirited female version of Benedick. The two are engaged in a "merry war" of wits, and constantly offend one another. Their friends, however, see them as the perfect couple and endeavour to bring them together against their own wills.

The second love story is that of Claudio, another favored soldier of prince Don Pedro, played by Robert Sean Leonard, and Hero, a career-starting role for actress Kate Beckinsale. Theirs is a case of love at first sight, and they soon become engaged to be married. Don John, the prince's outcast brother, however, will do anything to destroy the happiness of one of Don Pedro's favored men. He and his henchmen enter into a plot to break up the engagement.

Don Pedro is played by Denzel Washington, and the role highlights his amazing versatility and talent as an actor. This is definitely one of his best performances. It is also refreshing to see a movie where the good brother is played by a person of color and the bad brother, Don John (Keanu Reeves) is white. Branagh made an excellent casting choice and both characters shine.

Comic relief is provided by an outstanding performance of Michael Keaton as Dogberry, the local sheriff who's more than a little off his rocker, but harmlessly entertaining. Delightful performances are also given by Richard Briers as Leonato, Brian Blessed as Antonio, and Richard Clifford as Conrade.

With great acting, verbal and physical comedy, and a wonderful musical score, this film is a definite must-see for any fan of Shakespeare and Kenneth Branagh. A truly delightful movie!

Much Ado About Something...
A warning: watching this film is apt to take away from your pleasure in watching any other film of a Shakespearian play. Simply, it's beautiful. The cast is a surprising ensemble that works incredibly well together (except, alas, for Keanu Reeves, who despite his best efforts, cannot act - luckily, the role doesn't require that he do so), the cinematography is beautiful, and the joy of watching Shakespeare done by good actors is that you actually understand the wordplay and the plot. Furthermore, there is no one star of the show (perhaps two, if Benedict and Beatrice are counted as the leads), so you don't get as sick of Brannaugh as you usually do in his mind-numbing epics (i.e. Hamlet - wherein near the end you feel like screaming, "There's a knife right there! Get it over with!). Finally, Emma Thompson and Denzel Washington are wonderful; Thompson is so consistently exquisite in all of her movies that Britain should put out an insurance policy, and I am very embarrassed to say that, of all of Washington's excellent films, I love this one the best. I have never seen Shakespeare done better in a movie.

Good or not..??
Good or not?? Its a GOOD movie I tell ya. I love it. First time I watched it was in my english class. Though I was quite suprised that we're allowed to watch movies that has nudity in it....don't know why. Yeah, there was a bit nudity and AHEM in here. But it is a HILARIOUS movie!! Theres famous actors today, Emma Thompson, Kenneth Baragnan, Micheal Keaton, Keanu Reeves, Kate Beckinsin, Richard Briers, Denzel Washington...lots more that I can't remember. Lots of comedy and romance. Come on, its a Shakespeare play. Its awesome!! Trust me, watch it or buy it I meant. ^_^

My Favorite Love Story
Many find William Shakespeare's Romeo and Julliet to be their favorite love story, but after seeing this movie it won me over. When you read his work after you see this movie it feels more exciting.
I enjoyed reading A Midsummer Night's Dream, but I haven't seen the motion picture, yet. This was also another great love story with colorful characters.
His colorful characters are one of the reasons why I love his writing so much. They have personalities; they have life. When the protagonists take too much of the story it gets boring, but when you have a rich melting pot of characters in which their lives all meet at some degree its a lot of fun.
In this movie you see song and merriment of the Mediterranean countires. Many courtships arise and the strenght of love, faith and trust are put to the test. See who wins and see who fails and see who gets a second chance.

Very Entertaining
This movie really took me by surprise. I guess I was expecting it to be dated and more serious, but in Shakespeare fashion it was quite entertaining and timeless. It was a brilliant take on a classic. Enjoy! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

By now, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan have amassed such a fund of goodwill with moviegoers that any new onscreen pairing brings nearly reflexive smiles.In You've Got Mail, the quintessential boy and girl next door repeat the tentative romantic crescendo that made Sleepless in Seattle, writer-director Nora Ephron's previous excursion with the duo, a massive hit. The prospective couple do actually meet face to face early on, but Mail otherwise repeats the earlier feature's gentle, extended tease of saving its romantic resolution until the final, gauzy shot.

The underlying narrative is an even more old-fashioned romantic pas de deux that is casually hooked to a newfangled device.The script, cowritten by the director and her sister, Delia Ephron, updates and relocates the Ernst Lubitsch classic, The Shop Around the Corner, to contemporary Manhattan, where Joe Fox (Hanks) is a cheerfully rapacious merchant whose chain of book superstores is gobbling up smaller, more specialized shops such as the children's bookstore owned by Kathleen Kelly (Ryan).Their lives run in close parallel in the same idealized neighborhood, yet they first meet anonymously, online, where they gradually nurture a warm, even intimate correspondence. As they begin to wonder whether this e-mail flirtation might lead them to be soul mates, however, they meet and clash over their colliding business fortunes.

It's no small testament to the two stars that we wind up liking and caring about them despite the inevitable (and highly manipulative) arc of the plot. Although their chemistry transcended the consciously improbable romantic premise of Sleepless, enabling director Ephron to attain a kind of amorous soufflé, this time around there's a slow leak that considerably deflates the affair. Less credulous viewers will challenge Joe's logic in prolonging the concealment of his online identity from Kathleen, and may shake their heads at Ephron's reinvention of Manhattan as a spotless, sun-dappled wonderland where everybody lives in million-dollar apartments and color coordinates their wardrobes for cocktail parties. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (480)

Caviar Garnish
This is the second remake of "The Shop Around the Corner". The first was Technicolor musical called "In the Good Old Summertime" which starred Judy Garland. References to Miss Garland's most famous film "The Wizard of Oz" abound in "You've Got Mail" (Meg Ryan hanging ruby slippers on a Christmas tree and reading the book "The Scarecrow of Oz" while ill, the song "Over the Rainbow" being sampled throughout and sung in its entirety at the end, etc.) In addition to reminding me of the two previous versions, I was also reminded of "Pillow Talk". In "Pillow Talk", Doris Day and Rock Hudson, who hate each other, fall in love over a party line without either realizing who the other is. Here, it's Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks falling in love over the Internet. The plot is lightweight and predictable, but the performances more than make up for that. Dabney Coleman, Jean Stapleton, Greg Kinnear, and indie-queen Parker Posey are all brilliant, and although neither of the leading rolls are much of a stretch for Hanks or Ryan, they are at least likeable and have more than enough star power to make this picture work. The script is light and funny, and this film is sure to please if you don't ask it to be more than it is.

The best romantic flick I've ever experienced.
There are a couple of things this film has going for it. First is the chemistry between the on-screen characters. There's a reason Hanks and Ryan were casted for this flick- it's because audiences (including myself) like to see the sparks between these two people. They were a great team in Sleepless in Seattle, and it's pretty obvious the 'magic' is still there.

The soundtrack to this movie is absolutely incredible. Harry Nilsson is perfect (the puppy song, over the rainbow), and the rest of the songs fit so well with the mood of the movie at all times. Sinead O'Conner's addition (I think it's called the lord must live in NY city) adds to the mood I talk about later, and Carol King's Anyone At All is one of the best romantic songs I've ever heard/played.

The mood to the movie is always incredibly upbeat- which is strange- most movies have their lulls or depressing moments. This movie, however, never gets itself in that rut. It's always very very cheery and bright. Although some may hate that, I can do nothing but appreciate the change of style. Everytime I watch You've Got Mail, I just think, "I WANT TO GO TO NEW YORK!!!"

Overall, the movie just makes you feel good. It's one of my favorite movies, and is certainly my most favorite romantic film. Even techies won't get annoyed, because thank goodness the focus isn't aol or anything of that matter.

Bouquets of sharpened pencils, indeed
Here's the main and completely irrelevant reason to love this movie: New York City in the fall. Honestly, it should have no bearing whatsoever on the plot, but it does -- and it's impossible not to fall in love with the bright, sunshiny, orange-leaved sheer beauty of the city encapsulated in this movie. Without even resorting to shots of Central Park in all its glory (and really, who can resist that?), "You've Got Mail" takes you on a lovely scenic tour of the Upper West Side, Starbucks and all. Who can resist the street fairs, the parks, the stores, the dock? It's picture-perfect, and if it's a bit surreal, I won't admit it: New York really is rather lovely in the fall.

Aside from making me want to run away to the Big Apple and work in the children's section at Fox Books, "You've Got Mail" also features Meg Ryan at her most adorable ("Aren't daisies just the friendliest flower?"), Tom Hanks at his most charming, and a terrific supporting cast (Greg Kinnear and those typewriters!). The story, a modernized little "remake" of "The Shop Around The Corner", is more fairy tale than realism -- two people fall in love over email, in war in real life, and however can such a thing be solved -- but it's an enchanting story nonetheless. In a time when romance on the web seems all-too-seedy and in reality, sometimes frankly dangerous, this little tale of two people sharing their most intimate thoughts long before they share a single glance is like a breath of fresh air. Sure, the technology's a little faded, but the magic's still there.

I know, I know...
I know what you're thinking. Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Greg Kinnear. You think you're too good for this movie, don't you? It's the sappiest, dumpiest little half-a-flick ever reared by Nora Ephron. Romantic comedies suck. Do I paint a correct picture, or do I exagerate? Well I think you're just cinematically jaded.

Yeah, that's right! I said it!

A lifetime of Vietnam movies and tragic love stories has left you too cynical to enjoy a simple romance between two adults. Teenagers getting into car crashes, mothers being diagnosed with breast cancer, murderers who you like despite the fact that they're pure evil. These are the cinematic icons that appeal to you, yes? Well what about hard-edged bookstore manager and idealistic bookshop owner? What about oddly-principled boyfriend who owns two identical typewriters? What about...uh...Jean Stapleton? She was funny, right?

Look, the point is it doesn't suck and don't judge it just because it's a Hanks/Ryan romantic comedy on par with "Sleepless In Seattle" (Which was a