Reviews (286)

Hilarious!
The first American Pie started the trend, but American Pie 2 has even more laughs. And it has retained and amplified one important aspect of the original, a somewhat cornball sentimentality that offers a nice counterbalance to the gross sight gags and pervasive atmosphere of salaciousness.

Jason Biggs continues to throw himself into the most embarrassing of situations with admirable gusto, and the movie hinges on his ability to play Jim's most humiliating shenanigans with an odd but appealing, dogged dignity...even when wearing only his drawers. His comic timing is even better than last time, and the movie's best moments come of his straight-faced delivery. And in this sequel you can see how Alyson Hannigan managed to walk off with the most famous line in the original: Given much more weight in American Pie 2, Hannigan is a delight, playing Michelle's offbeat geekiness but hidden warmth to perfection. And her deadpan delivery (the "trumpet" line is bound to become another classic) is beautiful as always. Shannon Elizabeth is surprisingly lacklustre, and Tara Reid is still stuck with the most boring character of the bunch, but otherwise the rest of the supporting cast (Seann William Scott is especially good, reprising uber-jock Stifler) is great, and the sight and verbal gags come faster and tighter than in the original, with the benefit of familiar characters. The famous central gag (won't give it away) had me belly-laughing for a solid minute, something I haven't done since the first time I saw Clerks.

No, it's not cerebral, nor is it an unprecedented classic. But for a good rowdy night of teen comedy, American Pie 2 hits the spot.

Go see this! Best sequel of the summer!
I've seen many movies this summer. As many of you know, there has been many dissapointing movies out there this summer.(Tomb Raider, A.I.,Scary Movie 2,and Planet of the Apes to name a few.) Sequels have been horrible lately, like Scary Movie 2 and Jurassic Park 3. Rush hour 2 was one of the better sequels this summer. When I went to see AP2 with my friends yesterday, I was expecting another sequel that was put together way too fast and didn't have any thought in it. I loved the first one, and I probably have watched the American Pie DVD about 100 times! I bought my popcorn and my drink and was ready for another bad sequel. Man, was I so wrong. AP2 was probably my favorite movie of the summer. I barely ate any of my popcorn or drank any of my drink I was laughing so hard. I thank Universal Studios for giving Eugene Levy a bigger part in this movie. Seann William Scott is extremely funny in this movie, with all his comments. I don't want to spoil it for all you people who haven't seen this movie, but there will be lesbians, some phone sex between Mena Suvari(Heather), and Chris Klein(Oz), a "champagne" bath for Seann William Scott(Stifler), an accident with superglue for Jason Biggs(Jim), the rule of three, and more of Eddie Kaye Thomas and Stifler's mom(What a MILF!just kiddin!) Go see this movie, You will not be dissapointed. It is the funniest, crudest movie of the summer. NOT for Kids!

Awful
Maybe the worst movie i've ever seen. Boring, very TALENTLESS actors, and bad jokes. Primitive film for primitive people.

Wow....what a great sequel!
I loved the first American Pie movie; I would watch it almost weekly with friends. I didn't think any movie could top it, but American Pie 2 comes very close, and at times, is better than the original. I also wanted to start off by saying, to the viewers who complain about such movies having too much raunchy humor, and therefore rating it low, you have to know going into these movies that they will be like this. Some people need to seriously lighten up, quit being a stiff, and have a good laugh every now and then. Also, to the last 1 star guy on here, you need a reality check. I'm not saying that the military is a bad thing, but you can't underrate the value of a college education/experience. It gives people who aren't born for the military (which is most of us) a chance to get a career and contribute to society, and it's also a social experience (the social experience aspect of college is probably more beneficial in the long run than even the educational aspect). And Road Trip was a great movie as well; LIGHTEN UP! (or quit your complaining). The only people that make your generation look bad are people like you!!

Anyway, Jason Biggs is in his usual role as Jim, despite getting laid last movie by a band geek, of having zero confidence in his ability to score (or do much else, for that matter). I disliked the opening scene, especially with that cheesy line "this is my first time......since my.....first time....so....technically, it's my second time," which made me weary about this movie. However, when Jim's dad (Eugene Levy) enters the room, the scene became hilarious, as Eugene perfectly plays the nimwitted father who is completely inept to the fact that no kid wants his/her father to see him/her naked. The movie continues as Stifler (Sean William Scott) and Oz (Chris Klien) discuss how many girls a man is supposed to have sex with during one year at college. This scene could have been a waste of a few minutes, but Scott, being the acting prodigy that he is, knows how to play the cocky card while not coming off as a complete a$$hole. When the four boys Oz, Jim, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), and Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) later meet at their local diner, Finch comes off as this sex god, having gotten laid with a Japanese girl in an art museum, his psychology professor, and of course, Stifler's mom. Finch and Stifler steal the show this time around, as the two have amazing chemistry as enemies. Stifler constantly makes fun of Finch's practice of tantric sex, and Finch constantly practices his tantra in various places just to piss off Stifler (like the plant in the house that the boys rent for the summer), as well as.......well, I won't reveal the ending. They rent this house to throw monster parties, and to help Jim have amazing sex with Nadia when she plans to visit him at the summer. Jim also gets practice from the nerd he "scored" with last time around, and when she told him that he sucked, I laughed my ass off! (not only at how she said it, but Jason Biggs needs to be told he sucks, and I relished that moment). Also, the scene where Jim is mistaken for a trombone king Petey is very poorly done (what a surprise, since Biggs is a the forefront of the whole scene). He isn't as bad in this sequel as he was in the first one, but overall, Biggs isn't even close to the talent of the others (which is how he usually is). However, I do have to admit that the superglue scene was quite funny, mostly because we expect lousy things to happen to Jim, though I have to give him credit for putting effort into at least that scene. Despite any other minor flaws this movie may have, it overall comes across as a strong comedy that often goes for the gut, and succeeds about 98% of the time, with viewers in constant pursuit of fresh air after laughing so hard.

The Best Part of the Pie
American Pie 2 is a sequel that is better than the original and better than the 3rd one.No denying that this one is the best one of the series. FAMOUS SCENES

1)Lesbian Scene 10/10
2)Super Glue 10/10
3) Trumpet Scene 9.2/10
4) Jim on Stage 8.5/10
5) Phone Sex 8.7/10
MORE!!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A big-budget summer epic with money to burn and a scale worthy of its golden Hollywood predecessors, Ridley Scott's Gladiator is a rousing, grisly, action-packed epic that takes moviemaking back to the Roman Empire via computer-generated visual effects. While not as fluid as the computer work done for, say, Titanic, it's an impressive achievement that will leave you marveling at the glory that was Rome, when you're not marveling at the glory that is Russell Crowe. Starring as the heroic general Maximus, Crowe firmly cements his star status both in terms of screen presence and acting chops, carrying the film on his decidedly non-computer-generated shoulders as he goes from brave general to wounded fugitive to stoic slave to gladiator hero. Gladiator's plot is a whirlwind of faux-Shakespearean machinations of death, betrayal, power plays, and secret identities (with lots of faux-Shakespearean dialogue ladled on to keep the proceedings appropriately "classical"), but it's all briskly shot, edited, and paced with a contemporary sensibility. Even the action scenes, somewhat muted but graphic in terms of implied violence and liberal bloodletting, are shot with a veracity that brings to mind--believe it or not--Saving Private Ryan, even if everyone is wearing a toga. As Crowe's nemesis, the evil emperor Commodus, Joaquin Phoenix chews scenery with authority, whether he's damning Maximus's popularity with the Roman mobs or lusting after his sister Lucilla (beautiful but distant Connie Nielsen); Oliver Reed, in his last role, hits the perfect notes of camp and gravitas as the slave owner who rescues Maximus from death and turns him into a coliseum star. Director Scott's visual flair is abundantly in evidence, with breathtaking shots and beautiful (albeit digital) landscapes, but it's Crowe's star power that will keep you in thrall--he's a true gladiator, worthy of his legendary status. Hail the conquering hero! --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (1484)

Great Action Film
"Gladiator" is a film that should suit all tastes. It is an expertly mounted and eye-filling event; the blood and gore, delivered in split-second imagery (allowing your head to fill in the rest) should satisfy the most blood-thirsty movie goer; and the story is a superb tale of good vs. evil, power vs. honor, and "Might for Right". I was reminded of "Camelot" many times during this film, especially by the almost unrecognizable appearance of Richard Harris as the wise and noble Marcus Aurelis. Joaquin Phoenix gives a bone-chilling performance as the evil and cowardly Commodus, who inherits the title of emperor upon his father's death. But the sole weight of this overwhelming piece rests on the shoulders of the magnificent Russell Crowe. If one doesn't believe in him, then one doesn't believe in this epic costume drama. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well, and hand over heart for the late Oliver Reed. But back to Crowe--he is an actor to contend with. His work in "Gladiator" is a tour de force performance; he very nearly sprays testosterone from the screen. It's what was exactly demanded from him in this role, and he exceeds expectations in that regard.

Gladiator ROCKS!!!
I completely dug this film from beginning to end,and every aspect of it,from the breathtaking cinamatography,the expertly staged battle sequences,and exqusite set-design,to the stellar performances of a top-notch cast,rang true.The film starts with a stunning battle and doesen't let up from the time Maximus says"on my mark,unleash Hell". Do they ever.Russell Crowe is perfect in the lead role,as an expert warrior with a grieving soul and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.It's a true star-making turn,and he oozes rugged charisma from every pore.Equally impressive,but in the exact opposite way,is Juaquin Phoenix as the conniving,decadent,deeply evil Emperor.Also great support from Richard Harris and the late,great Oliver Reed.Director Ridley Scott uses his gift for composition and visual flair to great effect,giving each scene a painterly burnish and unforgettable depth,whether it's the after-life of Maximus' dreams,the bustling,grand sprawl of Rome,the rip-roaring battles of the Coluseum,or the sinister twinkle in the Emporer's eyes.At one point Maximus admonishes the bloodthirsty crowd:"Is this not what you wanted? Are you not entertained?" Indeed we are Russell,very much so.What a great film.

okay
this is a three star movie with a five star dvd. one of the biggest problems with the movie was the first battle. i was expecting braveheart quality but ended with a battle less entertaining than the one in dragonheart. the blurry camera and closeups made it impossible to tell what was happening. if you want to see a movie like this but better, see the last samurai or braveheart.

A Modern Classic of an Old Age
I seldom write reviews for anything, but for a movie like 'Gladiator' I'm willing to make an exception, and gosh if it's worth doing it!!
The movie, by far the best of the year 2000, is not only an award-winning production, but it is also one of the few that I personally enjoy watching again and again and again. Not because it is flawless (at times the storyline is quite predictable) but because it portrays life and death in the Roman Empire in such a way that it really bring those old buildings we all know since childhood (the Coliseum, the Forum, Via Appia, etc) back to life.
And yet it does so not at the expense of the story but through it, from the characters, to the script (they're so many quotables lines from Maximus and Commudus alone to make a CD)...in fact everything in the movie, from the battle in Germanica to the last fight at the Coliseum, is portrayed with realism plus an amazing score lacking in so many movies these days.
The movie of course is not to be seen as "history" in the academic sense but rather as an historical exercise, Holywood style, of one of the most facinating and complex periods of Western History. The attention to the detail is amazing, especially in the opening scene (the battle in Germanica) and the gladiatorial fights. Even most deleted scenes are great in the sense that they allow us to understand the characters a little bit more (Commudus' sword smashing of his father's marble bust is a most see), although they neither add nor take of the story. The casting is superb, with Russell Crow in the main role, Joaquin Phoenix as the Emperor Commudus, along with such legends as Oliver Reed as the freedman slaveholder and Richard Harris as the great Marcus Aurelius.
I'll recomend strongly that anyone who sees this movie shoudl do his/her homework and do a little of reading about Rome, both as a Republic and after, and the huge importance of the entertaining business in her late everyday life (an importance unreached until recent times).
Overall, a classic epic of an scope and ambition not seen since 'Ben Hur'; full of action, drama... and yes, more action.
As the Romans themselves said, Faber est quisque fortunae suae... each one is the architect of his own fortune. Feliciter!

Decent story, captivating effect
Ridley Scott's movie, "Gladiator" is one based on fiction of a General in the times of Marcus Aurelius. It tracks the life of a general who is effective in battle and is to rewarded by the emperor with the crown of Rome until it can be handed back to the senate. The movie won 5 oscars and is compared to Ben-Hur, which is ludicrous. For starters, Ben-Hur had William Wyler as the director who went to Gore Vidal to fix the screenplay. This movie will imaginative has so many historical inaccuracies, it is funny that it can be even thought to be in the same league.

Some of the actors did a decent job, these include Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and his daughter, Lucilla. I had problems with Russell Crowe's acting. He is unmistakably patrician, however, and physically very like Richard Burton, with Burton's battered face and gravel-voiced machismo. But Crowe's Maximus is no Mark Antony; there is no destructive love interest in the picture. Maximus is sweetly devoted to his late wife; though it turns out he once had a bit of an unbuckling thing going in his backstory for Commodus's lovely sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). I did not think that he deserved the best actor oscar. He has a very limited repertoire of actions and emotions. Crowe is no Tom Hanks or Geoffrey Rush in acting, he does not have depth and breadth of acting.

This movie cannot stand the test of time, it does not have great screenplay and historical integrity. It will gradually ebb away from the minds of the people. To stand out from the other movies, it has to have a new paradigm, either in acting or story or screenplay, none of which are depicted. Another one of those movies that do not deserve the best picture oscars. It is OK to watch this once. If you compare this director with Ang Lee, who did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Sense and Sensibility" you can see the difference in directing talent. See them and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

All films take a certain suspension of disbelief. Fight Club takes perhaps more than others, but if you're willing to let yourself get caught up in the anarchy, this film, based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, isa modern-day morality play warning ofthe decay of society. Edward Norton is the unnamed protagonist, a man going through life on cruise control, feeling nothing. To fill his hours, he begins attending support groups and 12-step meetings. True, he isn't actually afflicted with the problems, but he finds solace in the groups. This is destroyed, however, when he meets Marla (Helena Bonham Carter), also faking her way through groups. Spiraling back into insomnia, Norton finds his life is changed once again, by a chance encounter with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), whose forthright style and no-nonsense way of taking what he wants appeal to our narrator. Tyler and the protagonist find a new way to feel release: they fight. They fight each other, and then as others are attracted to their ways, they fight the men who come to join their newly formed Fight Club. Marla begins a destructive affair with Tyler, and things fly out of control, as Fight Club grows into a nationwide fascist group that escapes the protagonist's control.

Fight Club, directed by David Fincher (Seven), is notfor the faint of heart; the violence is no holds barred. But the film is captivating and beautifully shot, with some thought-provoking ideas. Pitt and Norton are an unbeatable duo, and the film has some surprisingly humorous moments. The film leaves you with a sense of profound discomfort and a desire to see it again, if for no other reason than to just to take it all in. --Jenny Brown ... Read more

Reviews (1184)

This Movie is Why "Professional" Critics Must Go
I didn't see this movie in the theaters because it had gotten very mixed reviews from the so-called professional movie reviewers. But, when it hit the local vidoe store, I thought I would give it a try. WOW, what a kick in the teeth, interesting, and fast moving journey into one man's mind. The path this movie takes is fantastic.

Norton and Pitt are perfectly cast, and supported by a crew of fight club members that make for a well-acted show. Meatloaf, Ed Gil, Jared Leto, et. al. are great in support as the members/followers of the leads. Helena Bonham Carter has the only real female role in this film and is perfectly cast. But as much as the acting, this movie is made by the story. Unconventional, with a great twist at the end, the whole movie kept me on the edge of my seat. As with many great movies, it is hard to classify the genre (action, comedy, drama), as there is a sampling of all in this film. In the end, I would just classify this as a great film.

Much was made of the violence of this movie when it first hit the theaters. Those critics overstated the case. There is blood and violence in the movie, but it is not excessive and it serves the plot well.

If you missed this in the theater, see it now. If you saw it once, see it again. I will.

Fight Club-another reason to own a DVD player.
If any DVD was produced on the same level as the Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition and the Toy Story 3-Disc box set, it is this DVD. Fight Club is not only a VERY well produced DVD, but the supplemental material will keep you busy for LITERALLY hours. You will finally have a reason to 'break in' that angle button on your remote. As a story, Fight Club takes a more cerebral approach to ones thought processes. Containing many cool effects, Fight Club may make the average movie viewer pop a few Excedrins while trying to figure out the point of the film. While many may finish the movie in total confusion, mostly everyone will agree that Fight Club is a unique movie experience. When I received the DVD package, I was instantly impressed with the graphic design of the outer package, the discs themselves and the booklet that is included. Initially, this DVD comes off as a "special edition" rather then a simple "movie release on DVD". Whoever created the graphics on the cover and throughout the booklet has a very active imagination. Disc one has the film, disc two has the supplemental material. ** Pause the third FBI WARNING at the beginning of the disc....it is quite funny** Disc one offers you your usual "chapters" choices with 'moving' scenes (like The Matrix), audio setup for Dolby surround for both a 2 speaker setups and 5.1 setups in English and Spanish. This is also a THX certified DVD, so it includes a THX setup screen. Disc one also gives you the choice of several audio commentaries to listen to throughout the film, including David Fincher, Bradd Pitt, Ed Norton, Helena Bonham Carter, the novelist and the screenwriter, the Director of Photography, Visual Effects Supervisor and a couple of others. In a nutshell, you have a choice to listen to A LOT of people, a great addition to this DVD. Picture quality of Fight Club was incredible. Overall, the picture is moody and dark with beautiful blacks and wonderful color detail. It is beautifully photographed with incredible shadow detail and crystal clear highlights. Sound quality was equally impressive. Being THX certified, you can expect nothing less then awesome. Edward Nortons voice-over sounds very live, as though he's sitting right in front of you. The sound has beautiful detail, with stereo separation being impressively realistic and the music and dialogue recorded incredibly well. Surround detail is amazing with some scenes having deep bass that will make the neighbors call the cops. Disc two will stay in your DVD player for a long time. The supplemental material includes crew and cast information. behind the scenes of the production, the visual effects and on-location footage with commentaires and multiple angles.......WOW! Disc two also contains seven deleted scenes as well as trailers, TV spots, music videos, an interview with Edward Norton and a bunch of storyboards, visual effects stills, paintings and many other additions to keep your fingers happy on that remote. The Producers of this DVD should be applauded....not only is the picture and sound quality top-notch, but the graphical elements and the supplemental materials included are fantastic and incredibly entertaining. I highly recommend this DVD for those who enjoyed this movie in the theatre, who are curious about the film, or those simply interested in seeing what a superb DVD release is all about. Enjoy!

Not bad, but...
OK, blend Matrix, Guy Richi, and Osama Bin Laden and you get a masterpiece? A funny comedy, not more. Fight Club is brilliant in the beginning with all that satire, but when it gets philosophical, I felt like I have seen this before.

Famous Fight Club quote.
"F*** Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic; it's all going down, man."

-- She just 5 months in prison and 5 months of home confinement. Isn't it wierd how much of this film has been almost prophetic?

Outstanding commentaries
All the commentaries you could want, and they're all great. The actor's commentary is at least as entertaining as the film. ... Read more

Reviews (410)

3
An astonishing film, often unfairly compared to David Lynch's 'Eraserhead' by people who have only seen stills. Uniquely, it's an intelligent taught thriller about number theory, with a gritty visual style, accomplished with a tiny budget and lots of dedication. The stark, black-and-white footage and apocalyptic plot (with a nod to Arthur C. Clarke's 'The Nine Billion Names of God') seem to set the film in a strange otherworld in which big business and religion combine to drive a mathematician to the brink of insanity. The acting is fine - naturalistic, with no scenery-chewing (and any bad performances can be written off as the warped perceptions of the lead character), and the script, whilst being very functional, nonetheless conveys an impression of a mental world ruled by numbers. The soundtrack is fantastic, too - lots of edgy 'braindance' from Warp-esque artists, available on a great CD. On DVD you get two commentaries, a music video, some trailers, some cut bits (although they are nothing special) and a preview of the graphic novel - a 'Matrix-esque multimedia blitz. It sticks in the mind and you won't forget it - try not to watch whilst suffering from a toothache, either.

Too detailed and open-ended
Being a mathematical person myself (I have a Masters degree in Statistics) I was intrigued by the premise of the movie but in the end I was left with more questions than answers and was left dangling. The plot includes too much of the mathematical detail (and medical detail, listing all the drugs Cohen was taking!), often coming across as nurdy.

The solution seemed too straightforward and practical, with many details lacking here (unlike in the build-up). I thought the final mix might include emotions, basically a more relationship-centric argument, especially as the plot did allude to the potential for something to happen between Cohen and his neighbour, but this didn't come up at all.

This all said, Darren Aronofsky is clearly a very talented director. His use of the black&white medium and close-up camera shots in Pi were a stroke of genius - it certainly helped one get into Cohen's mind. Requiem for a Dream is an outstanding movie but Pi fails to deliver because he took on a very weighty and complex subject in his first attempt at a motion picture. The problem lies in the screenplay (which he co-wrote), and not his direction, however.

It is interesting to note Aronofsky's use of some of the effects that he would later use in Requiem for a Dream, especially the fast-forward pill-popping sequence which was always worth a chuckle in both movies (in a dark sort of way).

paranoia and math a winning combination? ....who knew
This movie is excellent. The direction is phenomenal. In all honesty this movie actually has the ability to drive a sane person out of their mind. It's creative and takes math to a whole new level...and i hate math, but i did love this movie, mainly because i like chaos theory and other interesting philosophical viewpoints. It's always interesting to explore these ideas. I watched this movie once, and then watched it close to three more times before i finally understood everything that was going on, but honestly i think it was well worth it. The acting is top notch, and on top of all that, the direction is superb. Incredible film, but not everyone's cup of tea. If this review has sparked your interest...don't miss it.

No middle ground
on this one. You either love it or you hate it. I loved it, so did one of the two friends I watched it with, but the other hated it, and my parents hated it. RENT IT FIRST and see if you like it before buying it! There is nothing worse than buying a movie and finding out you hate it. I have not watched this movie in quite some time, so I will not attempt to post a real review of it, but at least get this from my post:

DO NOT BUY THIS UNTIL YOU HAVE WATCHED IT!

Stop giving away the ending
The two worst things you can do in a review are over-hype and give away the ending (especially for movies that build to the end) - here's looking at you 'The Aphasic Android' (other reviewers gave away the ending too). This movie is somewhat pretentious and suffers from some neo-classical art-house direction tricks; however these flaws fail to take much away from a truely intersting storyline. I guess this movie isn't for everyone - sort of the equivalent to listening to the Jesus and Mary Chain. ... Read more

Reviews (67)

HENRILU
Based on the true story of the Beardsley family who lived in Monterey County, California, this is one of Lucy's finer latter-day performances (her drunk scene is a delight). Essentially, the story is a movie version of how the Brady Bunch got together and although a little dated it's a most enjoyable family film (for some reason, entertainment from the period 1967-1972 dates badly (especially TV shows, i.e. "Room 222", "Courtship of Eddie's Father", "That Girl", "Mod Squad", "Family Affair" and the like.) As a footnote: In 1942, Lucy had her great chance at a meaty dramatic role in "The Big Street" in which she starred with 37 year-old Fonda. Lucille played Gloria, selfish and rather bitchy showgirl who essentially becomes a cripple; Hank played Little Pinks a devoted admirer. Ball was mostly praised by the critics, but, alas, the picture didn't make a dime.

Great for the Entire Family
This movie brings together two Hollywood legends. Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball play widows who fall in love and bring their families together totalling an amazing 18 children! This star-studded classic includes Van Johnson and a very young and handsome Tim Matherson. The film is full of laughter and brings the viewers into the lives of the North/Beasley family and shares their adventures and growing love for one another. I truly appreciate the release of this wonderful film on DVD, but widescreen would have greatly been appreciated. With 18 children, widescreen is a must! Also a few more extra features would have been nice, such as commentary, photos, etc.. but beggers can't be choosers.
The picture is crisp on the DVD and the sound is quite clear. I highly recommend this movie for the whole family. It's got some lessons of love and life that all can learn from.

A Wonderful Movie That Deserves a Better DVD!
I agree. I love this movie too but I will not buy an edited pan and scan DVD and that is why I opted instead to pop a video into my VCR and tape this movie when TCM was showing it in widescreen and wait and hope that MGM/UA will release a widescreen DVD because when it comes down to it I would much rather have this wonderful movie on a DVD then video but that will only happen if it's widescreen!

Not "mine" - as long as it's in stupid standard screen!
This is a 4 star film reduced to 1 star because it's been butchered down from widescreen to standard screen for no reason whatsoever.

Heck, you NEED the vast viewing range of wonderful widescreen in this flick just to keep track of all those dang kids!

It was shot in widescreen in 1968, as were about 95% of all films made after 1953, so there's no excuse for chopping it down to this putrid pan-and-scan nightmare. Another Amazon reviewer (from Derby, CT) said it all about this ridiculous ripoff of an otherwise very cute movie:

"Great film but who wants to watch a film like this in pan and scan format. Listen up studios, WIDESCREEN, WIDESCREEN, WIDESCREEN!!!!"

Children and children and attitudes, oh my
Wouldn't I love to find jam all over this DVD. Then I could throw it away (which is all it really deserves anyway). Although we won't throw ours away - we'll donate it to the library. perhaps somebody will like it.

This was really pathetic 1960's cinema: Gone is the class and glamour of 1930's MGM. No taste in clothes, no taste in home decor (much), no taste in raising children. I couldn't believe that Mother didn't even reprimand the son for having the Playboy magazine? Family film? Not a chance in my house.

I have to confess I was laughing sometimes during this film, but not because it was funny. It was incredibly UN-funny. I don't find rude children and parents sort of lost out there somewhere amusing. I would never watch it again, and certainly advise anyone else never to watch it in the first place. ... Read more

Description

Award winning movie about a snobby phonetics professor who agrees to a bet that he can take a flower girl and turn her into a high society women. ... Read more

Reviews (156)

An Excellent Adaption of One of Broadway's Best
One of the classics of the American musical theater, "My Fair Lady" is brought to us with amazing grace and sensitivity by legendary dirctor George Cukor. This musical has it all: a classic score by Lerner and Loewe (including "I Could have Danced All Night," "The Rain in Spain," and "Get me to the Church on Time"), an interesting story, and great characters. Rex Harrison proves to be nothing less then supurb as Henry Higgens, the speach teacher who vows to "never let a woman in my life," but finds himself falling for flower girl Eliza Dolittle. The supporting cast is in top form, with special mention going to the hysterical Stanley Halloway as Alfred P. Dolittle, the charming Wilfred Hyde-White as Pickering, and Jeremy Brett as Freddie. My on real complaint is Audrey Hepburn, who plays Eliza. While she is far from bad, Miss Hepburn has no voice, and I can't stand it when they use another actress to dub the voice of a star. Why can't they just hire a singer in the first place? The part should have gone to Julie Andrews (who originated it on Broadway). All in all, agreat film for the whole family. Check it out!

For the most part, excellent.
First, the wonderful score. Frederic Loewe's glorious music is perfectly complimented by Alan Jay Lerner's lyrics, as on the Broadway and London stages, and almost every song is memorable and great. Second, the gloriously witty script, filled with great lines, many taken directly from Shaw, on whose play "Pygmalion" this was based, and sharp commentary on Britain's class system. Third, the all-around wonderful performances, from Rex Harrison's arch, arrogant, gleeful Henry Higgins to Audrey Hepburn's charming but unrefined flower girl who becomes a sophisticated (and stunning-looking) lady, to Stanley Holloway's lovable amoral father of Hepburn, to Wilfred Hyde-White's Colonel Pickering, to Gladys Cooper's Mrs. Higgins, just as acerbic as her son. Fourth, the much-lauded stunning look of the film, with gorgeously stylized costumes by Cecil Beaton and fine sets by Beaton. All the ingredients are there for a great film, and under George Cukor's direction, that's pretty much what you get.

And yet, the film is noticably flawed. Hepburn, while charming and, of course, stunningly dressed, does not give a bad performance by any means; it's just that she's not overwhemingly sympathetic. And her voice double, Marni Nixon, has a lovely voice, but doesn't really put any emotion into her songs, forcing that ever-present question to re-emerge: Would Julie Andrews, the Broadway and London Eliza, have been a better choice? Also, Nixon and Hepburn really do not sound alike, which is slightly annoying. (Nevertheless, most of Nixon's songs, especially "I Could Have Danced All Night," do come off well, and if Andrews had been cast, there'd be no "Mary Poppins") "On The Street Where You Live," which I consider the best and most beautiful song in the score, is given a rather flat reading by Bill Shirley, the voice double for actor Jeremy Brett; it is the only song in the movie that is truly forgettable, but that is Shirley's fault entirely, NOT Lerner or Loewe's. Too bad. And yes, the movie is a bit long. But overall, it's a vastly entertaining, enjoyable, romantic, and great experience, just not without flaw. But, oh, well.

How do you do? And which DVD version to buy ...
MFL is a marvellous film about a professor who turns a common flower girl into a lady. It is full of sing-a-long songs and funny moments. It is basically a classic for all the right reasons! Plenty of re-watch factor makes it a film to own.

In 1994, the film was restored and thank the lord they did! The film's negative was almost lost forever. In fact, the film hade had become yellow-tinged and full of scratches, blotches and all the rest! It would have been a very sad day for the movie industry if a flim like this had been lost.

The original DVD that featured this new restoration was released in the late 90's. This DVD included a 9 minute featurette, actor profiles, audio commentary, and Audrey Hepburn singing in 2 scenes.

This original 1-disc DVD has since been updated to a special 2-Disc Edition. Which one to get? I have both so I feel qualified to answer this. The new DVD includes all the features found on the original DVD, except the actor profiles. The new DVD once again includes the restored print but is apparently a new transfer from the restored print. However, according to a report that I have read, the new transfer is not perfect and has aliasing problems throughout. However, the average watcher won't pick up on this detail. If this is an issue to you, purchase the original edition DVD where the transfer has been given two thumbs up! One has to wonder why they bothered transferring a second time.

The advantage of the special 2-Disc Edition DVD is that it includes a 58 minute 1994 documentary hosted by Jeremy Brett (Audrey's love interest in the film). Jeremy is no longer with us, so it's nice to have this as a piece of nostalgia. ON top of this, there are many more features on this disc that aren't included on the original DVD such as footage from the film's premiere, production dinner, as well as discussions with Rex and Audrey.

The choice is easy. If you're a fan of the film and don't care for all the extras, buy the original DVD. You at least get the best transfer. If you do care about having all the extras, buy both!

It's Loverly
The music from "My Fair Lady" makes it easily one of my favorite musicals with "I could have danced all night", "Wouldn't it be Loverly?", "The Street Where you Live", and Stanley Holloway's rousing showstoppers "With a Little Bit of Bloomin' Luck" and "Get me to the Church on Time".

It's well chronicled how much gnashing of teeth surrounded the Hollywood decision to leave out the then-unknown Julie Andrews, who was the new toast of the stage as Eliza Doolittle, and instead cast the more bankable Audrey Hepburn. Hollywood rewarded Ms. Andrews with "Mary Poppins" and an Oscar, and although I'd love to have seen Julie Andrews in this role, 4 decades later I can't complain about Audrey Hepburn.

Rex Harrison's reprises Henry Higgins from the stage, and I frankly can't think of another actor who would bring the same English Arrogance and tongue-in-cheekiness to the role. The interactions between Harrison, Hepburn and Wilfred Hyde-White as Colonel Pickering, especially in the early part of the film, are witty, entertaining, and move the narrative right along without pausing for exposition. The Higgins character is a cad, very full of himself, and he makes the mistake of treating those he feels are socially inferior poorly. The Colonel Pickering character acts as a surrogate for the audience, observing the educated but pompous Professor Higgins and allowing us to feel not TOO badly that poor Eliza has come under the influences of Higgins.

Stanley Holloway recreates Alfred P. Doolittle, Eliza's father, from the stage, and although his character has as many moral deficiencies as Professor Higgins (at one point he shows up at Higgins doorstep hoping to extort money from Professor Higgins for "shacking up" with Eliza) and is much less educated and with a much lower social standing, he is nonetheless a "good ol' bloke" and his moments in the film are among the most memorable, especially the previously mentioned show-stopping musical numbers.

The final act feels a little soap-opera-ish between Jeremy Brett as Freddy fawning over Eliza and Professor Higgins beginning to appreciate her fine qualities at the same time. This portion produces two of the finer musical moments as Freddy sings "On The Street Where You Live" and Higgins croons "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face".

Since George Bernard Shaw died in 1950 it's purely speculative to wonder what he'd have thought about the production of his Pygmalion story. I'm guessing he'd have liked it. If you like musicals, I'm guessing you will too. Enjoy.

2-disc or not two discs
WARNING: All the five stars refer to the movie itself, and does not address the issue of whether paying for the second disc is a rip-off. Five stars for the single disc version was richly deserved. I had half expected the 2 disc version to have DTS since they shifted virtually all the extra features from disc 1 to disc two. The only thing left on disc 1 was the movie, same commentary, same subtitles and audio track. For some inexplicable reason, the single disc version was among the Amazon top 100 discs in 2002 for some time, although it has been
out since the mid-1990s. Amazon's editor was correct when he said the main attraction of the 2nd disc was the 58 minute Documentary hosted by Jeremy Brett. That is about all, folks, and it was a pretty boring documentary. A concise version of this documentary would be "The Fairest Fair Lady" which is already in the single disc version.
You already have the AUDREY HEPBURN VOCALS in the single disc version. The rest of the stuff in disc 2 is usually given away FREE, like in Gladiator, Last Samurai, Master and Commander, where one viewing of the stills is more than enough.
Now, the sellers of disc 2 have actually REMOVED the CAST AND CREW section from the one disc version. This Cast and Crew with filmographies and biographies contain a huge chunk of valuable information including the fact that Audrey's given name was Edda, not Audrey. Do not throw away your one disc version. If you bought the 2 disc version, you might want to buy the single- disc version to find out where Audrey Hepburn was born, won the Oscar and got nominated. What were the other actors like Wilfred Hyde-White doing other than My Fair Lady.
I tell you what I like about the 2 Disc version:
1. the interviews with Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison at the 1963 production Kickoff Dinner, with a couple of jokes from Mr Warner.
2. George Cukor directing Baroness Rothschild: a Henry Higgins coaching Eliza Doolitle parody. The audio track ran for only a few minutes, and I had a new found respect for Directors. Even a Baroness needs lessons in elocution. When I watch the movie again, I will imagine George Cukor speaking using the actors and actresses as his instrument. So that is how Cukor's actresses got their Oscars.
3. The Los Angeles Premiere in B&W is a few minutes of interesting distraction.

The rest of Disc 2 is really scraping the floor of the store-room. For those who already own the single disc edition, and do not have disposable income to burn, get the 2 disc edition of the TEN COMMANDMENTS instead. For the price of 5 commandments (about half the price of the 2 disc My Fair Lady), you will get more than double the info, making it look like "the TWENTY COMMANDMENTS". That is where a second disc is not a money making exercise: thou shalt not steal from gullible dvd buyers.

Rex Harrison Golden Globe Acceptance is a clip from the Andy William's show, where he apologised for not being at the real event, so he accepted it on AW's show. Shame.

Academy Awards Cermony Highlights: just one minute or less of Mr Warner accepting the oscar for best picture.

So two stars for the additional info on disc two. I would buy anything remotely related to my favourite musical, but if I were to search my heart for value added, I would say two extra stars is very very generous. Now, if ever they come out with a DTS version, we will have to throw the whole TWENTY COMMANDMENTS at this bunch of crooks.
Do you really need Martin Scorsese and Andrew Lloyd Weber's comments to supplement your own? ... Read more

Reviews (189)

As memorable as the book
As a lifelong fan of the works of Austen I am always leary of film adaptations, for fear they are glorified costume pieces. This film was so remarkably well done, the characterizations complete and fleshed out, it was as "clinging" as the book. It truly stays with you. Cirian Hinds and Amanda Root are wonderful of course, but the rest of the cast is just as ideal. I would recommend it to all but the most cynical non romantics.

A Worthy Adaptation of a Favorite Book
I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation of Jane Austen's "Persuasion." Unlike some other reviewers on this site, I found Amanda Root to be a perfect choice for the role of Anne Elliott, who had "lost her bloom" at age 27. At the beginning of the movie, Root's Anne is timid, often self-effacing, and her physical appearance is, frankly, plain. Thoroughout the course of the film, as she rediscovers her feelings for Captain Wentworth (Ciaran Hinds)she becomes more animated and self-assured, and by the end of the movie, sure of the captain's love, she positively blooms again. I liked the cast in general, although I thought that Hinds may have been an older Captain Wentworth than Austen envisioned. Corin Redgrave gave his usual excellent performance as the vain and foppish father of Anne and Elizabeth. I did not care for Phoebe Nicholls interpretation of Elizabeth Elliott, however. Ms Nicholls, who was so brilliant in "Brideshead Revisited," played Elizabeth (who is in her late 20s) as a spoiled teenager who would have been more at home in the Los Angeles of the 1990s than early 19th century England. Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma) and Fiona Shaw were outstanding as Mary Musgrove and Mrs. Croft, respectively.

The film makers did take some liberties with the story....it has been commented on several times by critics that Anne and the Captain never kissed in Austen's novel. While this is true, most of the film adaptations of Austen's works that I have seen include scenes of kissing between men and women who have come to an understanding of their love for each other. "Persuasion" is certainly a more faithful adaptation of Austen than is "Mansfield Park," which was released about the same time, probably because it does not have a political ax to grind.

Sweet Persuasion
What a wonderful adaptation of Jane Austen's fine novel. The performances bring to life the characters that Jane Austen's words inspired. Amanda Root's performance as the long-suffering Anne Elliott is perfectly understated. Her transformation from 'one who has lost her bloom' into one who is able to love again is wonderful to observe. Who cannot fall in love with Ciaran Hinds portrayal of the dashing Captain Wentworth? It is perfection itself. Supporting actor Corin Redgrave obviously relished his role as the ridiculously vain Sir Elliot, and most impressive was Sophie Thompson as Mary Musgrove. After watching her performance as the old maid Miss Bates in the 1996 version of Emma, I appreciate her portrayal of the jealous hypochondriac Mary Musgrove even more. Fiona Shaw & John Woodvine as Sophie and Admiral Croft were a breath of fresh air. Susan Fleetwood is convincing as Lady Russell and honorable mention should go to the actors who portrayed Captain's Harville & Benwick and of course those who portrayed the Musgroves. My only complaint as a Jane Austen purist: I loathe convenient deviations from her original novel and this version fails the novel through it's portrayal and storyline involving Mr. Elliot and Mrs. Smith. I was most particularly grieved by the insertion of an unnecessary scene involving Captain Wentworth offering to quit Kellynch on behalf of Admiral and Mrs. Croft. Despite these two atrocities, I find that the performances make this a must see adaptation.

A gem
This movie is not only the best film adaptation of a Jane Austen novel, it's also a wonderful film in its own right. What did I love about it?

1) It isn't stuffy and unnatural. The characters sound human when they speak; you can imagine that this is how people spoke in the 19th century - not like pompous orators, but like real people. The world surrounding the characters isn't overly polished or brightly lit; again, there's a natural, "lived-in" feeling to all the buildings and landscapes; they do not look like they came out of a glossy postcard.

2) The performances. I don't have enough praise for Amanda Root, who plays Anne Elliot, a woman whose marriage prospects are slim to nil, and who has just been thrown into the company of a man whom she rejected years ago. Root can speak volumes just with her eyes, and everything about her fits perfectly with the gentle, wry and intelligent Anne Elliot. As Captain Wentworth, Ciaran Hinds is also great; he disappears into the character. Both actors aren't conventionally beautiful or handsome either; Root in particular blossoms before the viewers eyes - at first she's very faded and quiet, and then we (like Wentworth) see her spirit shine out. In addition to Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, the rest of the cast also do a wonderful job. Perhaps because there aren't any big name actors, we can get totally immersed in the film.

3) It's true to Austen. There's subtle humor, real human feeling, and a keen understanding of human nature. It's an unforgettable love story.

4) The kiss. One kiss - perfectly timed, perfectly executed... you will melt.

5) The soundtrack. This holds true particularly for the assembly at Bath, and the Italian vocal pieces.

The DVD made me buy the book
I have always been a Jane Austen fan, but never read this particular book. Very well acted, and contains the sentiments of the book. Would definately recommend ... Read more

Reviews (206)

Enjoyable!
Don't listen to all the bashers of this film who criticize it because it isn't 100% accurate to the book. This is an elitist view from a bunch of purists who don't have a grasp of what film making is supposed to be about. In the beggining titles the movie blatantly states that the movie is based on the book "Mansfield Park" by Jane Austen as well as her own life.

Mansfield Park is a story about a young girl Fanny Price who goes to live with her rich relatives. But instead of being accepted by her relatives as one of their own. She is mostly used as domestic help especially by her Aunt Norris (a character which JK Rowling borrowed in Harry Potter)whose only esteem in the entire movie comes from bullying poor Fanny. The only person who is kind to Fanny is her cousin Edmund. Fanny grows actually to fall in love with Edmond but can do nothing about it because they are out of each others social circle. During the course of the movie a diletante brother and sister moves into the neighborhood and have wide spread reprocussions on Fanny and Edmond. There is also a bit of social commentary on slavery and how the family supports iself. Tom's drawing of the treatment of the slaves are horrifying, but true to form. African slaves who were brought to the Americas were treated worse than animals, and it is remarkable how this has not been addressed yet.

I really enjoyed this movie very much. Not so much from the story itself but from the solid acting and the feelings that are shown. I especially loved Francis O'Connor (Fanny) and Alexandro Nivola (Henry) I think that they had very strong chemistry and played well to each other. The only problem I had was tha the ending was way too contrived, The makers seemed to give Henry a blatant flaw simply to throw Fanny and Edmond together.

If are looking for a dissertation on Mansfield Park then perhaps this movie is not for you. You might do much better taking an English Litterature class. But on the other hand if you are looking for a good costume Drama with solid acting, then don't miss Mansfield Park.

Dare I say better than the book?
When I first saw this film, it bothered me a bit that it wasn't faithful to Jane Austen's original. But upon reflection and a few more viewings, I fell completely in love with it. Rozema has made a remarkable achievement, seamlessly blending Austen's novel, letters and journals into a more compelling story, while also adapting it for modern sensibilities. While I love the novel, the film Mansfield Park tackles so much more than the "manuevering business" of marriage and societal mores that Austen's novels are singularly concerned with. It harshly examines the strict limitations that women, especially poor women must endure and takes a rare look at how slavery benefitted the British Empire. All this serious stuff aside, the film also has plenty of comedic moments. The dim Mr. Rushworth and his bouffant provide some laughs, as does Fanny's attitude toward courtship, balls and her money-grubbing cousins. And don't miss the doped-up Lady Bertram. The entire cast is excellent, and Frances O'Connor and Jonny Lee Miller make a sweet and aesthetically pleasing couple. For all us girls, Miller and Alessandro Nivola make an already great film even more of a pleasure to watch. The only Austen film to which this measures up is Sense and Sensibility (though I adore all the films, of course, being an Austen buff). The costumes, the cinematography, the breathtaking shots of the English countryside and of course the beautiful soundtrack round out this rich confection of a movie. Watch it now!

Emotion in Neon, Austen style
I just saw Mansfield Park on DVD (which is average in terms of DVDs. Not extensive at all, but does really well with what it gives you). I think it's becoming my favorite Jane Austen movie, even over the beloved Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice. It's not as finely crafted as others, but I think what I love so much about it is how VIVID it is, emotionally, visually, thematically. It's very passionate and alive. It's more colorful, darker, deeper than most period films, just because it takes off a top layer of gloss and polish, and it doesn't lose that definite delightful Austen humor and bite. It's more at ease with itself, lacks some reverence, and even brings some techniques more associated with modern movies, and all this, although used carefully and even minimally, serves the film well.

I love how they tell a lot of it visually, I just fell into the film during some scenes, it's mezmerizing; and some shots and scenes are just bursting off the screen. But this is one of those movies where the cinematography really works for the story as opposed to being something to stare at as a separate entity. The film being a character drama, over and over in scene after scene it works to enhance the story of these characters.

And the best thing is how you FEEL these characters, the tension and heartache etc. is so palpable, more than most period films, probably because this strips away a very fine layer of "preciousness" and lets the characters really breath and be realistic people, in fact there are points where the film tries to show us some of the grittier realities of the time, but all this done without ever losing the FAMILIAR historical context and setting. Now, some films go hog wild in the other direction, which can also be alienating if not done correctly because it makes it feel too much like we are watching a modern people in old clothes and that doesn't do justice to the people of the period. We have to understand them at their own level, but often the expanse of time can cause a communication gap, if you will. In this film, the vividness of the inner world of these characters is what counters the "period" setting of the film. It's a perfect balance. We are always firmly within the era, the historical setting, but completely taken with these characters and their feelings and the sparks in the air, we are all on a level where we can relate to each other clearly. This is thanks to fine, emotionally lucid acting from the cast (Frances O'Connor, gasp! I bow down to thee m'lady) an amazing writing and directing job by Patricia Rozema, and I have to say the brilliant, brilliant cinematography by Michael Coulter. Wow. And I have to rave about the gorgeous score which I didn't actually realize how great it was until the end credits.

The only problems I think there are in this is that it could have done to have been longer in order to flesh out some parts and to just use the great vehicle they created to carry the story even further. And I think it would have done to have slight fine tuning in terms of some of the writing and some specific shots (some of which kind of earmark it as "Indie! Indie!"). And I'm no expert on regency, but I don't think the costumes looked entirely right. But all in all, undoubtedly one of the best movies I've seen.

I guess I'm no Austin purist.
Besides the heavy splits from Jane Austin's novel, I think this movie is absolutely wonderful. The characters are some of my favorites. I love Jane Austin novels, but I also believe that some license can be taken without offending anyone. I really don't think Alexandre Dumas would sue the recent movie portrayal of THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO (starring Jim Caviezel) which was almost completely opposite of his novel. If movies were exactly like books, then I wouldn't really have a desire to see them. It's much more fun for me when I've read the book and I sit down to watch the movie and it throws me a curveball. It puts the book in a different light and I see things from a different perspective. THEN I choose which one I like. It was the same for GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING and I like both versions of the story. Life's too short to nit-pick about this kind of stuff. Live it up! Love the book AND the movie!

Mansfield Park (1999)
This was not my favorite Austen book. Fanny Price is a
pretty dull, overly moralistic character. The movie jazzes up
up this little family scene with issues like the dubious
origins of the family fortune but takes away from Austen's
story. ... Read more

Description

One of the most celebrated screen adaptations of Shakespeare into film, Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood re-imagines Macbeth in feudal Japan. Starring Kurosawa’s longtime collaborator Toshiro Mifune and the legendary Isuzu Yamada as his ruthless wife, the film tells of a valiant warrior’s savage rise to power and his ignominious fall. With Throne of Blood, Kurosawa fuses one of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies with the formal elements of Japanese Noh theater to make a Macbeth that is all his own—a classic tale of ambition and duplicity set against a ghostly landscape of fog and inescapable doom. ... Read more

Reviews (83)

Akira Kurosawa's Japanese version of Macbeth
I'm a student from Nagoya International School and have just seen the movie "Throne of Blood" in our unit in Shakespeare's Macbeth. By watching the movie, I saw how Kurosawa has adapted Shakespeare's Macbeth to a setting in the Japanese feudal time period. As a person who reads and speaks Japanese, I felt the Japanese title "Kumonosu jou", meaning Spider-web castle had a strong impact on the film. One of the most interesting characters in both Throne of Blood and Macbeth was the witch. The witch took a big part in the story where he/she tells Macbeth his destiny. This drives Macbeth to his tragic end. In the original version of Macbeth, there were 3 witches telling Macbeth his future which motivated Macbeth to his murders. But in Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood, when Washizu was lost in the woods, he meets an old man spinning a wheel and making thread. By seeing that, I thought Kurosawa recognized that the witches controlled the story in the original version of Macbeth. So the old man spinning symbolized that the witch had everything in control. I think that is another reason that Kurosawa named his film Spider-web Castle, with the idea of spider-web suggesting the witch was in control of everything. I recommend this film to students who have read Macbeth and studied the play carefully, as they will be are able to compare this film to the original version of the play and enjoy the differences between the two.

witches counts as 'mononokes'?
I am a student at Nagoya International School, and have recently studied Shakespeare's Macbeth in my English class. After reading the original Macbeth, we watched several versions (Polanski, BBC, and RSC) which included Kurosawa's version of Macbeth, "Throne of Blood". Each of Polanski, BBC, and RSC version reflected Shakespeare's original version of Macbeth, its rich and fluent language, and its fabulously distributed plot. Because of language difference, and difficulty to transfer Shakespearian language directly into Japanese, it seemed as though the value has been lost, but as a Japanese citizen, I was eager to understand that Kurosawa had used old fashioned Japanese language in his film, which created an harmony which can be compared to or to support the lackness of Shakespeare's language. I also enjoyed the way how Kurosawa transferred the witches of the original version, into 'evil spirits' or what is called 'mononoke' in Japanese. Kurosawa probably named the forest and the castle to match the evil spirit , or Macbeth's (Washizu) fate. The evil spirit appeared in white robe, with white messy hair, spinning a wheel in its hand, a stereotype of what a Japanese would imagine as a 'mononoke'. Cobweb or 'spider' was such a great aspect to extract the evilness of the original witches of Macbeth, because of the replacement of the witches to a 'mononoke'. The black and white film also contributed to express the 'spookiness' in the evil spirit. With some of these changes, Kurosawa perfectly fitted Macbeth itself from an English story into a brand new Japanese film, using ancient Japanese culture (ex. feudal systems, japanese chivalry). He was successful in translating the original Macbeth for the Japanese, to spread the wonderfulness of the Shakespearian plays to a new and wide ranged people.

I just read Macbeth in British Lit class
After reading Macbeth in Lit class, I wanted to watch a movie adaptation and I happened to run into this one, I had heard on amazon.com that this was a Japanese adaptation of Macbeth and I picked it up, I really enjoyed it, much more than I expected to. Akira Kurosawa did a great job in this, it is old and the technology is limited but I loved it, I showed it to my friends who had not read the book but they loved the film as well, especially the ending, if you have seen it, you'll know what I mean, I do not wish to ruin it for anyone, anyway, the DVD price is quite high but if you are thinking of buying it, I suggest trying to rent it somewhere or obtain it temporarily from somewhere or someone and then decide to buy it or not, good movie, enjoy.

Akira Kurosawa just knew how to make great movies.....
Akira Kurosawa's Throne Of Blood may very well be his best, ranking up there with Seven Samurai, Ran, Yojimbo, Rashomon, and The Hidden Fortess.
A telling of Macbeth the film takes place in the time of the samurai. Tashiro Mifune plays Washizu a worrior who betrays his master and friend on his climb to the ultimite of power.
After encountering a witch in the woods who tells Washizu that he will take the place of his master Washizu, with the not so suddle proding of his wicked wife, dose everything in his power to gain, the lose control, of everything.
Kurosawa had done Shakespear before, quite possably the best telling of King Lear was Ran, but this time he strips everything down to the bear bone and unlike some films from Japan, the acting, manic and frantic, seeems only to enhance the film. Mifune is fantastic as Washizu, the ill fated worrior.
The movie grabs you right from the beggining and never lets go. It's a very violent film for it's time but if you ever want to see a master at his craft look no further than Akira Kurosawa'a Throne Of Blood.

Macbeth around the globe
Throne of Blood is an Akira Kurosawa's rendition Shakespeare's Macbeth. The story pretty much is the same with a few minor character changes, one sprit instead of three witches for example, and some obviously included contextual changes, set in pre-modern Samurai Japan. I understand that it has historical relevance and all, but really the movie itself is nothing too special. It is just an ok movie.
Now that I have said that, I feel I need to warn the viewers out there who do not usually watch foreign films. These people must be wary of, if it bothers them, the fact that the film in black and white. I understand that some people cannot sit through black and white films. There is also lack of ongoing action, typical Shakespeare, that we are used to, and that puts some people to sleep, so be warned about that too. I feel that you should watch it for your own cultural and mental advancement, but unless you like the genres of Japanese/Samurai films or Shakespeare adaptations then you probably will not like it. In addition, it is in Japanese, so if you do not like subtitles then you should be warned once again. I recommend you watch it, but at the same time I feel that once is enough. ... Read more

Reviews (101)

A Heartbreaking and Powerful Testament to the Human Spirit
"The Joy Luck Club" is a ground-breaking film with universal themes that anyone can relate to regardless of age, gender or nationality. Truly epic in its scope and haunting vision, the movie is also deeply heartfelt and familial, enhancing its ability to speak to the audience in myriad, boundless ways. This is an intimate portrait of two generations of Asian women - the mothers who risked everything to create a better life for their daughters in the United States. At this juncture in American history, the movie resonates more than ever by reminding the viewer of our fore-mother's immigrant experience. In doing so, "The Joy Luck Club" serves as a vibrant contemporary document on freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Ming-Na Wen (now known to millions as Ming-Na or Deb Chen on NBC's top rated drama "ER") is superb in the central role of June, greiving for her recently deceased mother with the 3 "aunties" who miantain her place at the mah-jon table. Their gatherings continue, with June's presence, and in the process form the backdrop from which these women's personal stories and life-journies are shared. Each auntie - and their now-adult Americanized daughters - explain their often-harrowing attempt to escape Communist China and their difficult transition to an American way of life in the U.S. Tears flow in both generations, not only for what has been lost, but also for what has been found here - a society with different values that challenges these women in unexpected but nearly universal ways. As both generations - and all eight women eventually - share their stories, the viewer literaly steps into each life, aware of where the characters end up, yet fully experiencing the challenges each of them faces. Set against the backdrop of June's trip to China to find her long-lost sisters (whom her mother was forced to leave behind in one of the film's most powerful sub-plots) "The JOy Luck Club" can be ANY family's story, regardless of how long they or their ancestors have lived in this country. In doing so, it succeeds at building bridges to the past, while staunchly looking ahead to the future. This is the sort of film that embraces real life and human themes, but also puts a face on what it means to be a zero-generation immigrant, or an exile in a land far from one's home and culture. Like the current spate of Latin and Soviet block immigrants and the last century's explosion of new Americans from Europe and Africa, we recognize through the characters the meaning and value of freedom, family and peace as well as the unimaginable challenges our elders faced in coming to this land of opportunity.

The cast of Asian-American actresses is uniformly superb, straddling a delicate balance for the viewer that requires they be both accessible AND remote at once. Although long seen as a "woman's movie" the film deserves to be widely experienced by all people, including men, who might otherwise reject the film as nothing more than handkerchief fluff. In fact, since few similar films exist with central male characters, "The Joy Luck Club" stands as a film I believe many men would embrace if they give it a chance. The film speaks for our fathers and brothers, not just our sisters, mothers or wives. This is grand, epic storytelling with a heart, beautifully directed by Wayne Wang and amazingly accessible in every way, due to its stellar cast. Had there been a Best Ensemble Oscar designed to honor the contribution of a group of actors at the top of their form, "The Joy Luck Club" cast would have surely been honored.

A magnificent film that fully captures what it means to be an American of any descent.

One of the great overlooked gems! Deserves a DVD release!
This and the Ang Lee film "Eat Drink Man Woman" were both released at about the same time. And I think they may have cancelled out each other. Both are great but like any wonderful film, if another equally great film with a similar theme is released at the same time it can cause an overload. People won't go see either.

So why should you see the Joy Luck Club? Because the acting is wonderful. Really top notch. If the current affection for having asian women in films lasts then maybe we could see more of these fine actresses. Too bad that so many wonderful actors can get typecast because of race but there is hope. I'd absolutely love some more films like this.

Wayne Wang's direction is great. This story goes from funny to sad to touching without being cliche. This movie might be marketed more toward women, and it does hit on great female relationships, but it's not to sappy the boyfriend will cry from boredom.

This is not only about being Chinese
Plenty of people have pointed out the movie's good points but beyond the mother - daughter theme that is so wonderfully dealt with, this movie is also about the immigrant experience. In this world today, so many people immigrate and must contend with the difficult process of watching their children grow up in another culture - wonderful, different, distant, restive - and they have to figure out how to connect with their children. "Joy Luck Club" portrays this poignantly. How many children of refugees really have any idea what their parents went through? Many people from a variety of cultures will appreciate the film for that reason alone.
As for those who say Tan is "male-bashing", keep in mind the very loving character of June's father. Also, if you've read Tan's other books, (The Kitchen God's Wife, for example), there are both good and bad men with great depth of character.
Let's remember, too, that history is not exactly littered with the stories of women, and Tan is just trying to rectify that imbalance. Having lived in Asia for 8 years, I'd say that male privilege is still alive and well...and in support of Tan's story, the (lack of) legal rights of women alone in pre-war China should illustrate the possiblity that four women might have had such experiences.

A great movie from a story by a wonderful writer

Having spent a year in China (1948), I admit to a soft spot for the Chinese people and their stories, and especially for Amy Tan, whose books I have read and loved. This superlative movie was based on her book of the same name.

In this story (the script was written by Tan and Ronald Bass) the tension between four Chinese women, who were born in China and later came to the United States, and their Americanized daughters, is the foundation of the story, and is the theme that epitomizes Amy Tan's stories. She has noted in an interview that such tension existed in her own life between her and her own mother.

Much of the tension is due to the cultural clash. Times in China were hard a few short decades ago, and life was harsh. Starvation and disease was rife even in later years, when I was there in the late 'forties. When Americans today refer to poverty or hunger in this country, they have no conception of the real poverty and hunger that existed in China in the 'thirties and 'forties, or customs like the very painful historical binding of women's feet, which in effect crippled them for life, in the name of beauty, or the custom of wealthy Chinese men often having multiple wives and concubines, or the total degradation of women which existed and was totally accepted throughout the culture. Not to mention the impact of continuing warfare between warlords, the nationalists (Kuomintang) and communists, and the Japanese occupation all of which lasted for generations.

This is an emotion evoking story. It is more than simply entertainment; it is a story with which you will identify, with characters with which you will empathize.

Amy Tan knows whereof she writes, and her stories are compelling and sympathy evoking. Another Chinese woman who wrote her autobiography which touched on some of the same themes, who was in Tsingtao when I was, and whose tale enchanted me, was Dr. H. Mei Lu, who now lives in Honolulu, and whose book was titled, "Grandfather's Microscope" q.v. Coming from a humble background, in China, she became an esteemed pathologist in the United States. I heartily recommend her book as well as Amy Tan's, for any Sinophile. These ladies both write extremely well, and have immensely interesting things to say.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre, USN (Ret)

author of The Road to Damascus
and other books

Not Very Impressed with EITHER the Book or the Movie
I had to read the Book and watch the movie in school and I did not like either of them. I had to also write a movie review for it so im gunna publish it to the whole world to see. Hope this helps anyone who is thinking about watching this movie or buying the book. Also there are a few spoilers in this review so be forwarned but their isnt anything that really ruins the story, wait what am i saying the story is to mixed up to really understand in the first place that it shouldnt make much of a difference. O well here goes nothing:

The "Joy Luck Club" was just an average film due to its soap opera-like quality and random flashbacks. This made me confused by sending the plot into all different tangents and directions. When a book changes time frames, the reader can go back and re-read sections if need be. In a movie setting, however, the viewer cannot turn back and rewind the lost moments and the time frames quickly occur. The movie features only fine looking Chinese daughters who are part of this "Joy Luck Club." I felt that this was an unrealistic portrayal, as in the real world; there are many types of people. The "Joy Luck Club" is not explained to the audience and assumes that all have read the book prior to this movie. This movie was directed by Wayne Wang and the screen play was written by Amy Tan, who also wrote the book.

This movie begins in San Francisco where a party is being held for Jing-Mei "June Woo". She has been given money to go to China to see her two lost sisters. Jing-Mei June Woo is played by Ming-Na. The movie followed closely to the book in some respects by not others. For instance, during the red candle scene in the movie, there was no mention of the importance of the candle. The chapters in the book were scrambled when they appeared in the movie.

The acting was inconsistent. At the end of the film when she meets her sisters for the first time they do not seem to be reacting to each other. One of the women who is supposed to be the sister, also played the mother of June in a flashback. Andrew McCarthy who played Ted Jordan did a good acting performance and sold the scenes he was in, such as the scene where he told his mother off. Some of the mothers, such as Ying Ying and Lena Saint Clair who were played by France Nuyen and Lauren Tom respectively, made me want to laugh because of some of their unrealistic portrayals of overly broken Chinese accented English.

The plot was sporadic at times and seemed to take away from the original story line to the point that was irritating. The whole movie was a series of flashbacks that each person lived through. There was originally a party at the beginning of the movie, but then the scenes would quickly shift backwards in time to each person's life. I liked the transition that the director made when June's father talked about her mother's past because he explained what the mother had experienced. The flashback of best quality, however, didn't quite fit into the movie where it had been placed. It seemed to throw the viewer into the scene without hesitation. This movie was also quite choppy with too many events occurring in rapid sequence which began to lose steam while becoming dull and redundant. Three out of the four mothers seem to have lived the same story comprised of a bad marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage with many trials and tribulations along the way.

The themes were spelled out much more in the movie than in the book. The feather that was given to June was explained to her by her father without subtlety. The mother who sacrificed her life for her daughter was also played out and the reasons for it were amply described by the daughter. There was one theme that was explained in the end of "Best Quality". The scene was not portrayed or shown in the beginning of the flash back scene.

This book, turned movie, would be better for an older audience, such as 40 and up. It is more of a "woman's movie" with a sappy ending that most men probably wouldn't like, me included. I give this movie a C, but would probably receive a B from a more mature viewer who may be more interested in true life situations as opposed to comedy or action movies that a younger viewer might enjoy.

I would give this 2 1/2 stars but I could only select either 2 or 3 which is why I selected 2. Hope this helps! ... Read more

Reviews (114)

I can dig it!
I am 21 years old. My mother raised me with the monkees music and tv shows. I did not see this movie until 2 years ago. I was impressed. And so should everyone else be that called them a "fake" band and so on. The talent is remarkable, as well as the direction and the writing. This film involves all of the angst and emotion of their personal lives as well as the sign of the times. They were trying to find love and peace in a world ridden with war. At the time they were so passionate about their beliefs, as well as with trying to strip off the stereotypes that people put on them by thinking that they weren't original or by comparing them to the Beatles (with whom they were friends with and hung out with on a regular basis). Everyone will have a different opinion after watching this movie. My opinion is that it is thoroughly enjoyable and an absolute shame to never see. There are so many different scenes and wonderful actors and great music! I think I am going to watch it again right now. Oh, and remember:Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

The Ultimate Acid Trip
Bob Rafaelson and Jack Nicholson were at a party with the monkees while all of them were stoned and asked them questions about their fame, their desires, and their fantasies and the result was Head, a psychodelic, plotless mindtrip which flows like a good Monty Python Episode.

Those tuning in to see the rapid-fire improv-filled laughtrack which was the TV series are in for a shock as this has none of their ultrasticom comedy, but hey! Hey! it's still the monkees....everything is just a bit more abstract and surreal :) And let's not forget the music! Wow! The monkees have never sounded so good, writing nearly all of their material. Mickey shines on Psychodelic "Porpoise Song" (while we see him jump off a bridge into a mermaid-filled sea) and the sweet ballad "aas We go Along. Mike Nesmith really rocks on "Circle Sky" and Peter Tork gives us more songwriting weirdness with his rapid fire "Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again?"

This is a good movie to sit back with your friends and watch entranced at its path. Lots of fun cameos by the likes of Teri Garr, Frank Zappa, and of course Victor Mature and his hair!

Groovy!