Description

Texan rancher Bick Benedict visits a Maryland farm to buy a prize horse. Whilst there he meets and falls in love with the owner's daughter Leslie, they are married immediately and return to his ranch. The story of their family and its rivalry with cowboy and (later oil tycoon) Jett Rink unfolds across two generations. ... Read more

Reviews (62)

The quintessential Texas epic loaded with stars!
This 202-minute slow-paced drama exemplifies the lives of three generations of cattlemen on a grandiose west Texas cattle ranch at the onset of the oil boom. Being a native Texan with relatives living close to the area near Marfa, Tx where GIANT was filmed, I LOVE this movie for the sheer drama and myth of our state. (and yes, there ARE some exaggerations) But it's also a well-crafted movie with exemplary performances by Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, James Dean, and a very young Dennis Hopper! Viewers seeking a fast-action adrenaline-pumping film probably will be bored by GIANT, but viewers who enjoy classical performances, historical sagas, (and old movies) will cherish this movie. It's sort of like a western "GWTW"! They don't make 'em like this anymore!

A gigantic screen presence
What about this movie isn't big? Big stars (Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson); big state (Texas); big ranch (2 million acres of prime cattle land), and big length; at 202 minutes, this film runs about 45 minutes too long. The story is the familiar one about grandiosity run amok; the moral, which has been done to death, is that the simple life is the one best worth living. We've seen it all before. So why see this movie? In two words: James Dean. In his last film before his tragic death on the Freeway at the age of 24, Dean showed that he was what his legion of fans always claimed: a true genius. Try to imagine anyone else in the role of Jett Rink , and the character remains a cipher - lifeless, dull, nothing. It took Dean to bring it to life and make it his own. In this movie, James Dean and Jett Rink become indistinguishable from each other. And perhaps only an actor as brilliant as Dean could turn Rink from a character we love in the first half of the film, to a character we hate at the end. His drunken tirade near the movie's end is a tour de force. Dean's magnificent performance doesn't take away from the very creditable acting by Rock Hudson as the millionaire rancher Bick Benedict, Elizabeth Taylor as his wife Leslie, the young Sal Mineo, and especially Mercedes McCambridge as Bick's bitter, sexually frustrated sister with an unrequited passion for Jett Rink; but next to Dean's knockout performance, they pale into mere adequacy. Forget everything else; this is Dean's movie.

This is Texas?
I recently decided to view this film. Let's see - a reference to Neiman-Marcus - some wide open spaces, some cattle and oil wells. O.K. - but this film does not really tell about Texas and Texans. Thankfully, Chill Wills (from Seagoville, TX) was in it. He was the most Texan thing about this film. I wish I had something more positive to say - but I don't.

Giant Is Not A Widescreen Film
The product information here should be carefully read, as it reveals that this edition of Giant has been transferred in a 1:1.66 letterbox transfer. This is a travesty. Giant was filmed and released in the classic 1:1.33 "Academy" aspect ratio, which also happens to be the aspect ratio for NTSC analog television. George Stevens disliked widescreen processes, although he was forced to use them by studios on later films.
The time has come to put a stop to these unnecessary, phoney "restored" versions of classics. It's just a marketing ploy to squeeze more money out of old warhorses. Going back to the good old days of the laserdisc, I never much cared about the extras that were first introduced by Criterion and later imitated by the major studios. I've always responded to a high quality video transfer taken from the best film elements available. Getting the aspect ratio wrong and mutilating the images of Steven's classic film makes everything else irrelevant.
Thank goodness I still have my laserdiscs. Failing that, grab a copy on VHS.

FANTASTIC!
The DVD is superb -- I do not know what all the complaints about sound, etc. are all about! My goodness, this film is almost 50 years old -- and I think it is in wonderful shape!

I purchased this video because I have become a big James Dean film, but the acting of Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, Carol Baker, and Dennis Hopper were splendid.

To think that Hudson was a mere 29, Taylor 23, and Dean 23 and could play characters who age 30 years with such reality is a true testament to their genius! Of course, the makeup artists must also receive recognition.

The most disturbing portion of the film to me is when Hudson confronts "Sarge" the restaurant owner in a fist fight and when "Sarge" lands into the juke box, "The Yellow Rose of Texas" begins to play. However, this epic film is full of irony and subtle twists and nuances -- to really grasp the entire message this film needs to be viewed more than one time.

The irony of the Mexican children singing The National Anthem during the funeral of Angel (played by a very young Sal Mineo) touched me. Little Angel was a person who died for the United States and yet was the focus of bigotry from his impoverished birth until his death.

Or course, in my opinion, there was and never will be another James Dean -- it is heartbreaking to watch this dramatic genius in the final film performance before his untimely demise. Like Buddy Holly, I will always wonder where Dean's career would have gone.

Carol Baker is fantastic in her first film role and the very young Dennis Hopper's performance is equally memorable.

This film speaks to the injustices of racial bigotry that unfortunately will always exist except in a utopian world.

The additions to this DVD make it a must-buy!

Please don't hesitate to purchase -- this DVD is worth every penny -- and then some!

Oh, the editorial review refers to Elizabeth Taylor as a Southern Belle and this is incorrect. Leslie Benedict is from Maryland and even makes the comment to Hudson and his crownies that she was from the "Center of Politics" when Hudson tries to push her aside so the men can talk "Business and Politics". ... Read more

Reviews (403)

Masterful and Commanding
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is the latest attempt by the Hollywood establishment to revive the nautical adventure genre that enjoyed great popularity during Hollywood's "golden age." Based on Patrick O'Brian's phenomenally successful novels about British heroism during the Napoleonic Wars, the film traces the efforts of Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and his loyal crew to intercept and destroy an errant French warship in the Pacific waters near the Galapagos Islands. Although this movie will disappoint any audience member who is expecting a great deal of background information about the historical intricacies and personalities of the Napoleonic Age, it will thrill and entertain all filmgoers who love the kinetic energy and old-fashioned showmanship of a well directed swashbuckler.
Veteran director Peter Weir is entitled to an Oscar nomination simply for staging some of the most dazzling and exhilarating naval battle sequences of all-time. The violent encounters between Aubrey's HMS Surprise and its French counterpart the Acheron were so gripping and realistic that several audience members at the showing I attended were literally gasping for breath as they left the theater (the sound of cannon fire and rushing water no doubt reverberating in their ears). However, Weir deserves the most credit for his detailed and provocative portrayal of every aspect of life aboard a British warship, circa 1805. Audiences get to see the chief lieutenants create strategies and chart courses, the midshipman cope with the responsibilities holding authority over much of the crew while still conforming to the expectations of their superiors, and the common sailors, mates and boatswain confront unbearable weather and inedible food as they prepare to risk their lives for the country they love. Several characters leave an indelible mark on the hearts and minds of viewers, particularly Max Pirkis as a prepubescent crew member who faces the amputation of an arm with unwavering courage and Lee Ingleby as an indecisive midshipman who becomes convinced that his presence is cursing the ship. The battle scenes owe much of their punch and power to Weir's realization that it is far more engaging to watch complex, multifaceted figures battle it out for God and country than it is to watch caricatured personalities scramble through combat without purpose or motivation.
At the center of the fray is Russell Crowe, who thoroughly captures Captain Aubrey's intensity and charisma. It isn't easy to play a character that orders the vicious beating of an unruly sailor in one scene and makes charming toasts to wives and sweethearts ("may they never meet!") in another, but Crowe succeeds brilliantly by imagining Aubrey as an impulsive individualist who stands by his instincts and emotions in any context. When the Captain engages in heated philosophical discussions about loyalty and leadership with his friend Dr. Steven Maturin (Paul Bettany), it is riveting to watch the star's fascinating portrait of a man obsessed with his own righteousness. Crowe will almost certainly reap some significant awards from this impressive performance, and at the very least he has found a profitable new franchise to sail through the rest of the decade with.

The War on the Waters
I came to 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World' with little expectations beyond reasonable entertainment. I was thus surprised that this was a powerful little human drama about a vicious chase in the high seas.

What makes 'Master and Commander' successful is not the plot, which is a straightforward cat and mouse story. Rather, it succeeds because of its gritty sense of realism and the ability to capture the feel of time and place.

While most historical movies feature ordinary, contemporary people in period dress (see 'Gangs of New York'), Master and Commander does feel like it takes place in the early 19th century. It is little things, like Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) motivating his troops by demanding "Do you want your children to sing 'La Marseillaise'?", or the real excitement the characters display in discussing Nelson.

Also powerful is the film's feel for the hardships of warfare on the Sea. Early in the film, a child loses his arm, and throughout the movie real characters suffer casual death. At one point Jack Aubrey must choose between saving one man and saving his crew, and he allows the man to drown. This form of realism is so rare in Hollywood films, in makes 'Master and Commander' truly unique.

The great weakness of the film is its episodic nature. There is scarcely a plot - the hunt for the French frigate "Acheron" is merely a framework for the individual happenings, which include a storm, a suicide, and most infamously, a rather overlong subplot about Crowe's sidekick's (Paul Bettany) Darwin-like expedition to Galapagos Islands.

Indeed, the emergence of this subplot makes the second half of the film slow and much less interesting then the first half. Although the scenery is breathtaking, the story just fails to move, until Bettany's accidental discovery of the Acheron, which sets the stage for the climatic battle.

Director Peter Weir and his crew should be commanded for a great adaptation of Patrick O'Brien's seafaring adventure. If there will be a sequel, I will go with high expectations.

EVERYTHING --& more!!
1. this is THE cute guy movie. from 8 to 80, small, tall, thin or round, this movie will have someone for you. i can only imagine my sister, who once had a list of 254 men she Truly Cared About that included people like the guy 3d from the left in the second scene of Star Trek 2, drooling like a pet of pavlov w/in the first 3 minutes.

2. & speaking of star trek-----

russell crow _IS_ Captain James T. Kirk.

this is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen!!

here is an actor playing a captain playing an actor playing a captain!!

i think captainhood has been forever embedded in the mind of anyone young or old & privileged enough to see the _real_ & _only_ Star Trek as meaning one thing: William Shatner. watch the timing!! watch the _gestures_!! watch the way he looks at the camera. the likeness is uncanny!!

my partner watched this movie a couple of days before i did & when i said to him, "you know who that is--" he said he had thought the same thing.

amazing!!

dont worry, i LOVE Captain James T. Kirk. when i was a very little kid, even younger than any of the little kids in this movie, my parents & i saw him (the actor, not the captain) screaming at his girlfriend at a folk dance festival. that image is embedded in my brain as well!!

anyway.

Captain Kirk, in order to be Captain Kirk, MUST have his Spock. & here, of course, he does. but oddly his Spock is only the entrée into........

3. the Monty Python element. think John Cleese, younger (much much younger), w/ a lot of freckles & a slightly skinnier jawline. think his uppercrust gestures & the way he often looks up at you (thru the camera) w/ those eyes..... right here. Mr. Spock as a naturalist-warrior-sailor-doctor who also, on the side, runs the Ministry of Silly Walks.

but thats not all!!

you also get, in this movie that was modeled on "Star Trek transports itself into Monty Python & the Holy Grail on the High Seas" --the old guy. you remember the Old Guy. he is embedded in yr brain too. i know he is. & it will be very very hard for you to watch a scene wherein he appears w/o thinking of eric idle, hanging on a dungeon wall & singing. every single time.

but nobody is singing "la marseillaise" b/c when you finally do meet those french types, they are too busy yelling things like:

"oh you english pig-dogs!!" --you get that too!! i almost expected a bunch of fruit & a cow to come flying over the side of the boat.

& theres more-- so much more-- it makes ones brain itch trying to remember it all.....

4. &, speaking of an itchy brain, in addition to heroic self-surgery, one also gets: trepanning. woohoo!! personally, i recommend amanda fielding's video (worth looking up) as she is doing real-life, real-time self-trepanning, but this one works as a little preview. & besides, she doesnt stick a quarter into her skull.

5. &, wait, there is so much more!! poop on the poopdeck (rewind or you will miss it. my partner, who worked on lots of boats made us rewind so i wouldnt miss it)-- & LOTS & LOTS of animals. i LOVE this movie!!

but probably not in the way that peter weir intended. which is why i gave it 4 stars. it is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen. the whole thing seems plotted, directed & acted as if it were a bunch of archetypal television programs strung together or laid on top of one another (lets not forget marlon brando (rip) in "mutiny on the bounty," although that might just have been inspiration for the costumes) (& do remember "the poseiden adventure" & undoubtedly "titanic" (i havent seen it)) w/ unbelievably fabulous images of oceans, islands, ground & ships-- just gorgeous stuff from the director of "the last wave."

& yes, it is a roiling barrel of entertainment.

Cat and Mouse on the high seas
Set in the Napoleonic Wars of the early nineteeth century, Master and Commander is based on the Patrick O'Brian's historical novels. The essence of the story is a chase starting off the coast of Brazil and ending up off the Galapogos islands, between a French ship with its clever commander and the HMS Surprise- the ship at the center of the story.

The movie itself is richly laid out in genuine props of the era, which succeeds in giving it an air of realism. Russell Crowe does a fine job as Captain 'Lucky Jack' Aubrey, a man with a history of experience and well respected by his sometimes grumbling men. The supporting cast is excellent with a list of characters that adds to the richness of life on a seafaring ship of that era.

Crowe doesn't grandstand and take over the movie allowing the story, other characters and action to speak for themselves. A lot of credit should of course go to Peter Weir for his direction and his adaption of O'Brian's novel.

Master and Commander is very reminiscent of old Hollywood epics and a quite enjoyable movie. I honestly didn't expect much and came away very satisfied and entertained.

Highly entertaining and recommended.

Well acted action-adventure film
A definite surprise - I enjoyed this movie much more than I thought I would. Very well acted, especially Paul Bettany as Dr. Stephen Maturin and Max Pirkis as the very young midshipman who loses his arm in the opening battle scene. While the special effects of the movie are amazing, they didn't overshadow the depth of the characters protrayed. Unless you are a reader of the O'Brian novels (which I recommend even more highly than the movie), you wouldn't notice one major change. The Acheron was really the USS Norfolk - an AMERICAN ship - not French. I guess the producers figured we wouldn't put down our dollars to see a movie where we were the losers. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

A true Disney classic.
HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS is one of the better Disney, live-action films out there. It's original and unique - followed by two [HONEY, I BLEW UP THE KID and HONEY, WE SHRUNK OURSELVES] just as good sequels. This film is about a wacky scientist named Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) who knows all about science and nothing about family or the "real world". When Wayne creates a shrinking machine, in hopes that it will shrink matter, it actually ends up shrinking his kids, Amy and Nicky (Amy O'Neill and Robert Oliveri), and his next door neighbor's kids, Russell and Ron Thompson (Thomas Wilson Brown and Jared Rushton). They escape from the trash bag and end up entering what appears to be a jungle but is actually the Szalinskis' own backyard! Now, just a few inches tall, the kids must find a way to get to the house and get their parents' attention so they can deshrink them and turn them back to their normal sizes.

This is a very funny comedy, and there are some excellent visual effects, too. Everything from the shrunk kids to riding on a flying bee - there is some truly amazing special effects. The plot is solid and so is the acting. This is one Disney comedy I recommend for every family!

Great, Great, Great!
The story is about an inventor Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) who is trying to perfect his machine which, when working, will shrink matter. The problem is, nothing he does seems to make it work. But somehow, his kids Amy and Nicky (Amy O'Neill and Robert Oliveri), and his next door neighbor's kids, Russell and Ron Thompson (Thomas Wilson Brown and Jared Rushton) are shrunk! Being only a few inches tall, they end up in the garbage bag and are taken outside. They get out but the only way back to the house is through the Szalinski's front yard. They meet up with a friendly ant, a killer scorpion, the danger of being chopped up by a lawnmower, and being drowned by a water sprinkler. Will they make it home so they can be made back to their normal size?

This movie is just GREAT! Even though it's a kids movie, it's great for adults, too. I love to watch this movie with my parents. I especially love Robert Oliveri and Jared Rushton. They did a very good job acting in it. Anybody who wants to enjoy a good movie with the family, watch "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." You won't regret it!

where did the widscreen for honey i shrunk the kids go
i whould have liked it better if it were widescreen i think fullscreen movies are a thing of the past please do away with full screen if possible but if the movie was only filmed in full screen then i dont mind but if the movie can be made for full screen then it should thank you yours truely a disturbed fan of disney movies.

Fun and full of adventure
Who knew cheerios in milk could be so dangerous? This is a fun adventure of a film. I still enjoy watching this film. Rick Moranis plays the bungalking inventor who shrinks his children. The special effects in this film were good.

Okay...but emphasizes special effects
This is a nice kids movie...but pretty stereotypical story line. Clearly devised to show off the Disney special effects. Can be scary for a 5 year old. Kids characters are stereotypes. And of course, it is the one girl who needs rescuing! ... Read more

Reviews (86)

So-so action film...
I've never watched the original Shaft, so I have nothing to base this remake on. It's not a very serious action film. Jeffrey Wright and Busta Rhymes providing most of the comic relief. It is interesting to note that Richard Rountree (the original shaft) and Gordon Parks (the original director) played parts in this film.

After watching this film, I can say I don't mind it. I've seen a lot worse, and I've seen better. Atleast with this film, you have Samuel Jackson playing another cool, suave character. It's too bad Venessa William didn't play a more integral part to the story. I would've liked to see a better dynamism between the two. But then again Shaft has always been a lone-ranger of sorts.

This is not a plot-heavy story. It's about a rich kid that murders an African American, but this crime is witnessed by a waitress who goes into hiding after being threatened. Shaft is disheartened by the inadequacy of the system and decides to investigate on his own. Like I said, not plot-heavy.

LEAP rating (each out of 5):
============================
L (Language) - 3 (nothing special, except for Jeff Wright's almost incomprehensible speech)
E (Erotica) - 1 (opening sequence and a good kiss scene)
A (Action) - 3.5 (unapologetic killings)
P (Plot) - 2 (simple plot)

This film should have gotten the "shaft"
"Shaft" (2000)

Shaft's (Richard Roundtree) nephew, also last-named Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson), is the star in this movie. But it is nothing like the original starring Roundtree and directed by Gordon Parks (although both of them make cameos in this film). The first "Shaft" was a blaxploitation flick and is a classic. This movie, directed by John Singleton, seems less black, more made-for-Hollywood. The plot is thin and unlike the original, the only love scene to be found is in pieces during the opening credits. And what was Busta Rhymes' purpose? It added nothing to the movie. Sorry, Sam Jackson is a hell of an actor but his Shaft doesn't make me forget about Roundtree's. -EJR

Singleton ruins yet another legend. somebody stop him.......
Samuel L. Jackson in Shaft could have been a great movie. He has the talent and skill to effectively play the role. Unfortunately, he is prevented from doing a giving a good performance because of the weak direction and script by Hack Extrodinare John Singleton. Someone please stop Mr. Singleton Before he directs again.
Singleton's terrible script and direction turns Shaft into a campy over-the top superhero movie instead of an intruigung murder mystery. Most of the characters come off like cartoonish stereotypes instead of real people the way they did in the 1971 original. Shaft fans know he is smart, smooth and clever; he's subtle about the way he does things. He's not a black batman wannabe as depicted in this film. Perhaps Mr. Singleton dreams of doing a Batman movie and thought he could apply those concepts here. He was sadly mistaken.
In the openeing scene he comes off as menacing and threatening, that he scares the witness even more and puts the white racist (Christian Bale) on the offensive by arresting him. A litle subtlety would have helped the story here and made the character more interesting. In the subplot our menacing shaft threatens a neighborhood drug dealer (Geoffrey Rush) and arrests him on some trumped up charges. While in jail the two consipire to find a witness who can finger Bale's character for the murder he committed. Sounds a lot like Batman Returns doesn't it? Just so he can have something to do, Shaft goes on a macho search to find the witness who can help his case. Personally, I think Singleton wanted to have a ton of frames of Sam Jackson looking cool in Armani leather. This goes on until the last act the movie which turns into a great big comic book action sequence chock full of shootings and mayhem. To conclude the story, the scene where Bale's character is coming to court to finally stand trial for his crimes is ripped straight from Mario Van Peebles ending scene of New Jack City.
Singleton wastes yet another opportunity and fails to utilize his cast of talented actors who do their best with his terrible script. Sadly, Gordon Parks, the man who wrote and directed the original Shaft was on set and Singleton did take the opportunity not pick his brain for ideas or even ask him what he was thinking when he set up certain scenes. This film would have been better if Singleton would have done thatn andjust STUDIED the films of this genere and understood the subtle nuances that make them work before starting this project. Then when he understood what made those films work he could then apply those approaches to his work. John Singleton needs to go back to film school. He still has a lot to learn about the craft of moviemaking.

VERY GOOD REMAKE OF THE 1971 CLASSIC
SHAFT'S SAME-NAMED NEPHEW [SAMUEL L. JACKSON] GOES AFTER A DOMINICAN DRUG LORD AND A RACIST SERIAL KILLER. VERY GOOD REMAKE. IT HAS PLENTY OF GOOD ACTION, AN INTERESTING STORY, AND IT HAS GOOD CHARACTERS. THIS IS ACTUALLY NO BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE ORIGINAL. RICHARD ROUNDTREE [WHO PLAYED THE ORIGINAL SHAFT] AND GORDON PARKS, JR. BOTH MAKE APPEARANCES IN THIS MOVIE.

wonderful remake
a great remake with Jackson being the man Shaft. good action with some unexpected turnabouts. Christian Bale is menacing as the racist who kills Mehki Phifer then has to answer to Shaft and Jeffrey Wright is a spectacular badguy as well. a good ride ... Read more

Description

Four Academy Awards(R) including Best Picture! The funny, tender story of a feisty Southern lady and her chauffeur, fueled by the starpower of Jessica Tandy, Morgan Freeman and Dan Aykroyd. ... Read more

Reviews (48)

An Unlikely Pair
This Academy Award winning drama is a touching story about the coexistence of an aging southern woman and her chauffer. Miss Daisy played by Jessica Tandy (Academy Award for Best Actress) is a feisty Jewish woman forced to endure the tragedy of growing older. Her son played by Dan Aykroyd is faced with the dilemma of playing parent to his parent. Morgan Freeman plays Hoke, the black chauffer hired by her son. Set in Atlanta, GA beginning in the late 1940's this film spans 25 years of an unlikely friendship before and during the fight for Civil Rights. A must see classic, this story keeps the audience wondering what will she think of next, and how will he handle it. Skillfully done with everyday events and situations it is certainly deserving of the Best Picture Academy Award.

A Great Tale of an Unlikely Friendship
"Driving Miss Daisy" is one of the best films released in 1989, rightfully winning four Oscars: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Makeup. This adaptation of the play version is brilliant. It tells the story, set between 1940's-1960's, of a fiesty elderly woman who's unhappy of growing old. As she meets a man who becomes her driver, the story develops into something special. The combination of stories become increasingly interesting as the two develop a close friendship. Their relationship beats the racist society and the painful past that the man has endured. Through everything, their lives change forever. Her son's frequent visits to her house offer the added entertainment value as it adds to the emotional value. Despite the twenty-five year plot span, the storyline flows smoothly. The warm, loving story offers an unforgettable viewing experience.

Jessica Tandy performs her role as the unhappy elderly woman splendidly. Her every expressed emotion is felt upon audiences. She became the oldest person to win an Oscar, at age 80. Morgan Freeman and Dan Ackroyd's Oscar nominated roles (Best Actor/ Best Supporting Actor) offer the added unique theme to this great film. All other actors also performed wonderfully.

The quality of "Driving Miss Daisy" proves that it's destined to become a classic in the following years. It's sure to continue pleasing audiences for many years to come. Most viewers will have to watch it multiple times to fully understand the movie because of its deep storyline. Afterwards, those who do will be glad they did.

Old Friends.
Lovely is such an old fashioned word, I know. But that's the word that describes this film, for me. The story of the developing friendship over many years between the black chaueffeur and the older Jewish woman is very heartwarming in its simplicity. Jessica Tandy is marvelous as "Miss Daisy" the fiercely independant, irascible widow, whose advancing age requires her son to employ, against her wishes, a driver/companion for her. Miss Tandy, who originated the role of Blanche DuBois on Broadway in "A Streetcar Named Desire", was a wonderful actress. This was one of her last films, and all the skill, sublety, and experience of her life-long craft come together to create a living, breathing "Miss Daisy." Morgan Freeman meets her skill in his portrayal of "Hoag", the accomodating chaueffeur. He has the manner of a certain resignation that an older black man may have felt in the turbulent, prejudiced south in which he lived, yet exudes dignity. He has the manner of "Hoag" down pat, right down to the closed mouth laugh that I have seen in the old black men who hang out on the corner. This is not a caricature, he IS "Hoag." His relationship with Miss Daisy starts out very rocky, to say the least, but, as time passes, their places in each others lives develope into almost a "marriage", with a quiet understanding of, and dependence on, each other. And though Miss Daisy insists she was not prejudiced, and inherently wasn't, it is touching to see her slowly let go of her last universally accepted beliefs of peoples place in society, where the "colored" help were always servants of some sort, and the line was just never crossed. Scenes such as the one where she and "Hoag" are both eating their dinner in the house, she in the dining room, he , alone in the kitchen, express this. The very thought of them dining together, it just wasn't done. As time goes on, and she becomes quietly aware of the similarities of the prejudices against her religion and the prejudices and injustice against Hoags race, the differences that seperate them become insignicant. Dan Akroyd and Patti Lupone are fine as Miss Daisy's son and his typically '50s wife, who admonishes her black maid for the unforgivable sin of forgetting to tell her she was out of coconut for the ambrosia she was serving to her guests... a '50s hostess' nightmare. There are a few moments when their performances threaten to lapse into parody, but one is only aware of this because this is basically a two person play, and the skill and realism of Tandys and Freemans performances just eclipse the others, they are basically props compared to the skill and, yes, sublety of the leads . The exception is Esther Rolle as "Idella" , Miss Daisys black maid. Though her part is small, and her lines few, she manages to convey a resigned dignity also, and her dead-pan delivery of several one liners is very humorous. Miss Daisys affection and respect for Idella is clearly etched upon her face, however, at Idella's funeral. This is just a wonderfully simple, beautiful film. It never treads into being overly sentimental, thanks to the casting of two very special stars. This film took many by surprise by winning the Oscar for best film of the year, proving that a movie with no special effects, and, that actually tells a story, can still move audiences. The final scene, where their years-long friendship comes full circle, will have tears in your eyes, as Miss Daisy conveys the sweet sad wisdom of the old, who know that "all shall soon pass...."

Fascinating, Memorable, Perfect
Not much can be added to the praise of others here, or to the film's enthusiastic reception by the public. I feel that this is one of those rare films that is simply perfect from beginning to end. Even if you don't develop an affection for the characters, and even if you don't care for the story line, it's a stretch to fault this movie in any way. The Special Edition DVD is preferred (not many extras, but those included are worth the effort). After watching my copy 7 times and trying to get really picky with it, I juist can't find anything amiss with Beresford's beautiful production. SO why didn't he win a Director Oscar? Must've been the competition that year, but he certainly deserved to win. Only other disappointment: Freeman nominated, but didn't win. And to think this film was made for less than $6 million, and racked in a fortune and a handful of Oscars!

Freeman and Tandy What a Combo!!
Freeman and Tandy are quite a combo!!

This is a sensitive film that says a lot about humanity.
Compassionate humanism oozes from this movie.
It certainly deserved the Picture of the Year in 1989. ... Read more

Reviews (322)

It's been a long time...
This is truly a lovely movie, and it has been a long time since a romantic comedy has been this enjoyable. This movie may remind you of "When Harry Met Sally" or "Sleepless in Seattle", where the couples are clearly meant for each other, yet have obstacles they must overcome. The acting and dialogue are superb! Hugh Grant, a world-famous actor, is completely convincing as an average bloke, while Julia Roberts goes by Anna Scott and plays herself, a "heavenly" movie star.

One review of this movie called it "pure fairy tale." As long as you can believe that it is possible for an actress to truly be a "good person," that she may actually want to live a relatively "normal" life outside of her acting career and may want to start a family of her own, then this statement is false. One specific scene mentioned as difficult to believe was the initial kiss that takes place quite soon after they meet. However, there are two reasons why this scene is believable. First, it is quite obvious that she is impressed from the start with his wit, sensitivity, and honesty, especially compared to the other men who are falling over themselves when they meet her. Secondly, this kiss may be a sort of test. In a city filled with reporters trying to get a story and her pictures plastered everywhere, her life has to be secretive as much as possible. Perhaps she wanted to see if she would be reading about the incident in the next day's paper before she allowed herself to get too close. She gave him quite the opportunity to brag to his friends or family, but he does not.

This movie is quite entertaining to watch the first, second and even fifth time.

Quirky, funny and totally sentimental...what more is there?
This is a feel good movie for everyone who has ever loved or been loved. Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts are great as the mismatched couple who meet one day and strike up the most unlikeliest of friendships. Julia Roberts plays "the most famous film star in the world", whilst Hugh Grant is a bumbling bookstore owner with a failing business. Their love affair is a fairy tale come true, but like most fairy tales there are a few hurdles to overcome before true love and happiness can finally be theirs. Grant and Roberts are ably supported by an excellent cast, including the Emma Chambers better known as Alice Tinker from "The Vicar of Dibley", and Rhys Ifans who brilliantly portrays Grant's nutty Welsh flatmate. Notting Hill doesn't tax the brain cells. There are many hilarious moments, one of the funniest being the car scene when Grant tries to get to Robert's press evening, it's a laugh a minute and the same can be said for the rest of the film. So if you want a gentle love story, a surprisingly good comedy combined with witty dialogue and a cast of great actors then rent or buy this movie. You won't regret it.

zzzzzzzz Oh Okay I'm awake.......zzzzzzzzzzz Yeah Ok...zzz
I would like to say that I agree with some of the previous reviewers on this forum that Julia Roberts is not much of an actress. Just a pretty face. I rented this and went into it with a open mind. I haven't seen Julia Roberts in any other movies. This is the first. Julia Roberts did not add anything to the part. Hugh Grant was okay. I haven't seen him in any other movies either. So this was a first for me to see him. Now, as for the film. The story was pretty much bland and it was difficult to hold my interest. The film is very much a boy meets girl/ boy loses girl etc.... and you're basic light, fluff love story. The only humorous portion was Hugh Grant's slob/eccentric roommate and even that was only mildly funny. From what I understand, this is the formula film that Roberts generally is in and she does not change much from that formula. There is not any pretty scenery, vistas or even witty/clever dialogue. I think women would enjoy this film more than men. After watching it, you come away from it feeling like you haven't watched anything of substance. The film does touch on the difficulties that Roberts (who plays a famous movie star) has being famous and contending with the press and gossip in the London newspapers. I think most people would be satisfied to watch this film once and leave it at that. Others might really find it a waste of their time, while I know some people will turn it off after 15 minutes. It's not the worst film I have seen, but it is far, far below the standards of a really good film. I wouldn't recommend this as a film to keep in your DVD library. It is a toss away film. Not bad, just sub-standard all the way around. (I don't see what all the fuss is about regarding Julia Roberts as an actress. I see just a pretty face. There's a lot of prettier women out there in the real world). Two stars folks.

dissapointed
The movie is ok for watching once.. so rent if you want to see it first.. but not one i'd watch again. nothing really captivating in this movie. why julia in this movie was interested in grants character is beyond me... she barely knew the guy except for a few things... his apartment is a mess and he has some freaky roomate that would have scared me off.. i can sympathize with her situation and sort of see movie stars life in a new light.. but then again being rich and famous has a lot of other pleasures i'm sure! and this movie makes it seem like shes plain miserable. anyway, this movie was slightly boring. i like roberts and grant as actors.. i just didnt see the real attraction between them no matter how hard they tried... there was no moments in this movie that would have made them very close therefore not moving to me.. this one isnt a keeper in my opinion.

Well- at least this time she's in the right role
I've been waiting forever for a critic or reviewer to expose Julia Roberts for what she is- a talentless, over-estimated, freak of nature--- but the culture is so heady with celebrity buzz that it will never happen. So I'll have to take matters into my own hands:

Roberts has been getting away with simply playing variations of herself since the days of Mystic Pizza. Her same shrill laugh (it's actually a barking shout- look for it) can be heard in any one of those forgettable roles from Flatliners to the Pelican Brief, and the academy-award-winning Brokovich character was Roberts again, only this time dressed like a trailer park refugee and spouting a little more anger and sarcasm than she normally does. God help us- Pretty Woman was such a smash that we'll never be rid of her. Unfortunately, when not playing one of those personal variations, she's lost because she honestly can't act. Take a look at her poor attempt in Michael Collins and there you'll find someone out of their depth. The role was not difficult, just not a variation of herself (am I getting redundant?)

Now for the review of Nottinghill: The script is witty at points, and the story is at times charming with some entertaining moments. According to a professional reviewer, "True, Roberts doesn't really have to stretch very far to play a big-time actress who makes $15 million per movie . . ." Well, that nails it, doesn't it? For once, Roberts can be forgiven for being herself, because that's what the role calls for: a famous, over-paid, self-consumed, Hollywood celebrity. But as well-cast as Julia is here, even she can't resist going over the top on occasion, as in the scene where one of Grant's friends, who meets her for the first time, discovers she's an actress and comments that it's a tough occupation in which to make a living. Our girl enjoys her response entirely too much when he asks what she got paid for her last work. Then again--- I guess I can see her gloating in the same self-satisfied manner in real life, so it's probably appropriate. In contrast to this kind of affirmation, however, notice how Alec Baldwin's cameo portrayl of the male star counterpart later in the film is more tongue in cheek; Julia, on the other hand, is far too relaxed (and serious) playing the pompous, condescending star. Gee, by Jove, it's her!

As enjoyable as this film can be at times despite the romantic comedy formula which has been so overdone, the real killer is the fairy tale ending. It just wouldn't have happened this way, no matter what we want to believe. If by some strange quirk of fate, Roberts' character was somehow faintly drawn to this guy and married him, it would have been only as a passing diversion, and annulled 2 weeks later (any real life analogies?). Good performances by Grant and most of the supporting cast, and Roberts doing herself (there it is again), but it's not enough. Even though the film is not a disaster, it just doesn't work. Spend your money on the popcorn for another video.

By the way, will someone also please finally admit that Julia Roberts is not attractive? With that mouth, she looks like she could consume a '56 Buick whole in one bite. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Philadelphia Experiment takes as its jumping-off point an incident that is now paranormal legend, the U.S. Navy's supposed 1943 inductionof an extremely powerful electromagnetic field around a destroyer in Philadelphia, causing its crew to become transparent, go insane, burst into flames, and so forth. The movie takes the tack that this was to render the ship invisible to radar, because of the war that was on. The test goes awry, however, and two of the crew leap forward in time to the filmmakers' present tense, 1984, where a similar experiment has caused a vortex that has trapped the 1943 ship and its crew along with a small Nevada town. The key to unbollixing this sad time-fracture lies in our heroes, the two time-travelling crew members, David Herdeg (MichaelParé) and Jim Parker (Bobby Di Cicco), whose electromagnetic instabilitykeeps drawing them painfully back to the vortex to set things straight. This is silly stuff, but it's very fun silly stuff. One might cavil at gaps in plot logic, such as when Michael Paré seeks out the '80s version of his partner and finds more or less a trauma patient, while subsequent action contradicts this characterization. Still, there are plenty of still-worthy special effects, creating the requisite sense of awe and wonder. And for romantic interest, there's Nancy Allen's '80s girl paired with Michael Paré, affording plenty of amusing occasions for culture comparisons, most notably when Paré sees Ronald Reagan on TV, says, "Hey,I know that guy!" and refuses to believe he's president. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Exciting !
The Philadelphia Experiment, based on a true story, was a military experiment in WWII. The idea was to make a battle ship, stationed in Philadelphia, invisible for the enemies and radars. But the mission failed and two sailers make a time travel in our present.

I like time travel science fiction movies. The movie has very good actors (Michael Pare and Nancy Allen), an exciting plot and an interesting soundtrack.

The executive producer was John Carpenter and you will remark his present in the movie making.

SHIP AHOY
When it comes to time travel on the screen, there have been many, many attempts. My favorite is the STAR TREK episode in which Shatner travels back in time, falls in love with Joan Collins, and she gets killed, and he has to leave her behind. In THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT, things turn out a little better for the timecrossed lovers. Based on what was supposedly a real experiment in 1943, the movie chronicles the fate of Michael Pare and Bobby DiCicco, who during the experiment in Philadelphia find themselves in 1984 Nevada. Somehow the same scientist who did the 1943 experiment is still at it, trying to make a town invisible. In doing so, he opens a vortex that brings the two 40s soldiers to modern times. Pare falls in love with the wonderful Nancy Allen (CARRIE, BLOWOUT, DRESSED TO KILL), and their romance is a key element in the eventual climax.
The special effects are commendable for a 1984 movie; the direction is adequate, and most of the performances very good. Nancy combines her naivete with those lovely eyes to make a wonderful heroine, and Michael Pare shows a good range of emotion in trying to decide where he truly belongs.
This is one of the better time travel movies, and inspired a sequel with Brad Johnson.

A nice little twisted time travel tale (that is not true)
"The Philadelphia Experiment" is supposedly the about an experiment the U.S. Navy conducted in 1943 to make the U.S.S. "Eldridge" invisible to radar. However, the experiment goes (surprise) horribly wrong and the ship is contaminated with a deadly dose of radiation. Two of the sailors, David Herdeg (Michael Paré) and Jim Parker (Bobby Di Cicco), jump overboard as their crewmates are catching on fire and getting trapped in bulkheads and end up traveling through a rift in time to 1984 (i.e., the present in terms of that being the year this movie was made). One of them gets sent back but the other does not and not only are the authorities after him but it seems that pesky hole in time is wrecking havoc with the climate (not as bad as "The Day After Tomorrow," but serious enough).

This is a fun little B-movie that most science fiction fans can enjoy as long as they do not take it too seriously. The reason it is considered to be based on a "true" story is that it is based on a 1979 "non-fiction" book that claimed the Navy was fooling around with Einstein's Unified Field Theory and sent the "Eldridge" from Philadelphia to the harbor in Norfolk, Virginia, and then back again. The story is based on some dubious evidence and apparently since the U.S.S. "Eldridge" never ever docked at the Philadelphia Naval Yard the title appears to be suspect as well. The Navy has offered an official explanation that what happened was a routine degaussing of the ship, which meant it was surrounded with electrical cables to negate the magnetic field (the idea is that it would render the ship invisible to radar but not to human eyes). Of course to some people this explanation just screams cover up.

Ultimately this film is not concerned with the "science" of the so-called experiment because that is all just an excuse for a more traditional time travel story and within that genre there are few interesting things going on here. There are some fun moments as Herdeg encounters the brave new world (Orwell's "1984" did not come out until 1948, so he does not know that the future is brighter than people had thought in the 1940s). Herdeg hooks up with an airhead, Allison Hayes (Nancy Allen), who eventually comes to believe that he is not lying about when he is from and tries to help him get back home. It is just as well because there is really no chemistry between these two. After "Eddie & the Cruisers" and "Streets of Fire" we all thought Paré was going to have a career, but this film seems to have derailed it. Come to think of it the same can be said for Allen, outside of the "Robocop" movies.

The special effects are rather simplistic, but quite effective for the time. They were certainly good enough to lure more than a few people into seeing this film from director Stewart Raffill ("The Ice Pirates," "Mac and Me"). Plus you have the standard lesson than there are some things scientists should not be messing around with otherwise a wormhole will destroy the world as we know it, which was not really an omnipresent science fiction plot line at that point (CGI made destroying the planet much more fun). There is a 1993 sequel to this film, but try to forget about it because it belongs on everyone's short list of worst science fiction sequels ever. This one at least gives you some things to think about, not all of which are about how to poke holes in the story.

good movie - BAD DVD
I am a 29 year old man who remebered this movie fondly from my childhood. So i pointed, clicked and oredered it up. I was horrified the instant the menu came up on screen and the option to start the movie was spelled wrong, it read "STRAT MOVIE". This should give you some idea as to the level of care and attention that went into the production of this inferior product.
The picture quality was unforgivable. Usually a bad transfer doesnt bother me that much as long as I can see whats going on, but this movie transfer is pathetic. I am not kidding when I say that you are better off ordering a clean VHS copy than wasting your time and money on this DVD. It was absolutely unwatchable on my widescreen TV, I eventually had to put it in my computer to watch it as the "pixelization" was so bad ... consider youself warned.....

Excellent B Movie
I remember seeing this movie for the first time when I was about 9. It certainly piqued my interest in the paranormal, but at the time, I was unaware that the movie was based on alleged experiments by the US Navy. It's a B-sci fi movie complete with silly exaggerations, decent special effects, general cheesiness and the inevitable romance that ensues - in this case between a skeptical Nancy Allen and a confused Michael Pare. This movie is not to be taken very seriously.

If you are looking for mindless entertaiment, this is an excellent movie to satisfy your craving. It may even spark an interest in reading further about the allegedly real Philadelphia Experiment. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Spencer Tracy's last performance was in this well-meaning, handsome film by Stanley Kramer about a pair of white parents (Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) trying to make sense of their daughter's impending marriage to an African American doctor (Sidney Poitier). The film has been knocked over the years for padding conflict and stoking easy liberalism by making Poitier's character in every socioeconomic sense a good catch: But what if Kramer had made this stranger a factory worker? Would the audience still find it as easy to accept a mixed-race relationship? But there's no denying the drawing power of this movie, which gets most of its integrity from the stirring performances of Tracy and Hepburn. When the former (who had been so ill that the production could not get completion insurance) gives a speech toward the end about race, love, and much else, it's impossible not to be affected by the last great moment in a great actor's life and career. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (64)

An All-time Classic
Aside from calmly, reasonably confronting a social taboo of the '60s -- racially mixed marriages -- in a thoughtful, touching manner, this film features career-high performances from several of Hollywood's finest. Spencer Tracy is absolutely brilliant in his final screen appearance as the avowed liberal newspaper publisher Matt Drayton, who, along with his idealistic wife (a role that earned Katherine Hepburn her second Best Actress Oscar) learns that their barely-20-year-old daughter is planning to elope with a black physician (played with cool passion by Sidney Poitier). The story evolves from Poitier's confidence in the two shocked parents that, without their full approval, the marriage will not go on -- and there are only hours to decide. Add his parents to the mix, and as the list of dinner guests grows so does the tension. Aside from the marvelous script, memorable performances and outstanding direction, photography and music there is a chemistry in the mix that truly creates an energy greater than the sum of its parts -- and when the parts are this good, the result is a film for the ages that goes straight to the heart of themes like love, passion, prejudice and family conflict. In the end love does conquor all in Tracey's powerful final speech, made more poignant by a visibly moved and misty Hepburn -- perhaps cognizant that she was witnessing the final curtain call of a great actor. This is the magic Hollywood is capable of, a movie that re-affirms one's faith in the ideals of love and equality, and certainly belongs in every collection.

4.5 Stars; Needs Historical/Cultural Context Remembered
The Story: Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn play the parents of young Katharine Houghton, who brings home her well-educated fiancee to meet the parents. The parents are not expecting their daughter's fiancee, a physician, to be African-American, but Sidney Poitier certainly is. The film focuses on the parents' discomfort over the biracial marriage.

When the story begins, it's easy to think that the movie studios were aiming to do two things: make one more movie with Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy (this was his last film, and he was quite ill during its making); and make a simple statement about racial tolerance. This film could easily have ended up with a very contrived, forced air to it. But, that doesn't happen when you put Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier together in a film. The cast rises above the simplicity of the premise. Some have said that making Poitier's character a well-educated doctor weakened the racial conflict potential, but I lived just outside of Detroit in 1967, and ANY biracial marriage was a controversial idea to base a film upon. It also put the race issue right on the table, as the parents had no basis upon which to object to their daughter's marriage, except for their discomfort over the race issue.

Overall, if the viewer remembers when this film was made, the quality of the cast makes it a real winner.

Bit Prepackaged for My Taste
More like 3.5 stars. There's nothing particularly wrong with this movie but it's not the genius its been made out to be either. It's not nearly as daring as it likes to think it is. He's a wealthy, smart, sophisticated mature professional. She's an airhead. He's black and she's white. He's a catch and a half and she's a twit. The real question should not be why does she want to marry a black man but rather what he sees in her. Of course they will have problems with the intolerant aspects of society. Of course their children will be teased and mistreated by racist adults and ignorant children. But this film was made in the late 60's, not the late 30's. It's also set in San Francisco (Liberal Heaven) and not in rural Mississippi. The white girl's parents are liberals through and through. Poitier's character's parents are a working man & his wife from Los Angeles. Notice how Tracy's character does not object to his daughter marrying a black man but is deeply concerned by how a mixed couple & their children will be received in society. This movie gives itself every break it possibly can to ease its way down a receptive audience's throat.

Boring...
This movie has been hailed as being a great piece of work; I tried to watch it. I really did and I could not do it. Portier plays his role well; but then again it is not like he has to act; he just has to be himself. Stay away from this miserable piece(...).

Landmark film about racial prejudice
Considered a landmark film, it addresses racial prejudice and interracial marriage in a time when sixteen states in America still upheld laws that made miscegenation a crime. It is important to pay attention to past racial and ethnic issues, in order to understand those today and to see whether any 'progress' towards a more 'tolerant' society has been made. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is an entertaining, straightforward and well-meant film that will hopefully make students aware of the controversy of interracial relationships throughout the decades and centuries even. Being a child of mixed race parents, I find the film meaningful in showing two people of different races, being very much in love and very willing to face all the social obstacles their interracial relationship is bound to encounter.
Summary
In Guess Who's Coming to Dinner the 23-year-old, white, upper class Joanna "Joey" Drayton (Katharine Houghton) brings home her fiancé John Wade Prentice (Sidney Poitier) to meet her parents. When he turns out to be a distinguished 37-year-old black doctor, the "liberal" progressive parents (Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy) are forced to re-examine their beliefs regarding interracial marriage and are given one single day to do so. Before the parents can get all of their objections sorted out, they have John's parents coming to dinner as well. Both sets of parents have reservations about this union, but try to come to terms with the interracial marriage.
Discussion
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner? raises several questions or issues that might be interesting to discuss after viewing it. The film's main themes are interracial relationships and prejudice, and it advocates a mixed race marriage, which makes it a very progressive movie for the 1960s. Considered progressive as well are Joey's 'liberal' parents who have raised their daughter not to be prejudiced and they have done this successfully, with her 'lack of' prejudice extending to her being able to fall in love with an African American. The parents are then left to consider whether they really believe in their acclaimed 'liberal thinking' and this may raise important questions with the viewing audience. Are human beings really as liberal or conservative as they think they are when it comes to practicing what they preach?
If it is not race that prevents the parents (the fathers in particular), both Joanna's and John's, from approving the marriage, what is?
The only objection to the interracial marriage vocalized in the film is the harsh treatment they will most likely receive from society. Although this is a valid and probably accurate objection, it is debatable on whether the fathers do not have more personal objections. The movie glosses over the subject of interracial marriage without getting too detailed, but the concern on whether the couple understands the adversity they will face if they go ahead with their interracial marriage is very clear.
The themes addressed in the film were still much of a taboo in the 1960s, so in order to merely create a 'mild controversy', the director seems to have made the relationship between John and Joey as 'acceptable' as possible. Infallible and with impeccable credentials as a prize-winning doctor and working for the World Health Organization, John is portrayed as an in-laws dream. The character is in every socioeconomic sense a 'good catch': What parent would not want him as a son-in-law? But what if the director had made the fiancé a factory worker? Would the audience still find it as easy to accept a mixed-race relationship?
Also, to reduce the seriousness of the racial themes, the film is presented as a comedy. This means that conservative viewers can laugh about it while telling themselves that these events would never really happen. Finally, Joey and John avoid their biggest challenge by intending to live abroad for John's work. Therefore, they will not have to cope with the racial tensions in the country and they will not have to combine two communities and identities or have to pick one over the other.
When it was released it 1967, Guess Who`s Coming to Dinner reflected upon the changing race relation in America. Interracial intimacy and marriage in particular were delicate themes to discuss, which makes this film so important, both at that time as well as today. The individual right to choose a sexual partner, select a spouse and raise a family could not be fully exercised in all of the United States up until the Loving decision in 1967, which banned anti-miscegenation laws. Although these laws disappeared, the prejudices that had always accompanied them, could not be banned so easily. They persisted, despite the colour blind ideal.
The fact that the Joey's father is an intellectual liberal forced to face his own buried prejudices gives the film an important message that should still be considered today. On some deeply personal level many people are still prejudiced, no matter how hard they try to tell themselves otherwise. In Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Spencer Tracy's character comes to this realization, but is able to put his objections for his daughter's happiness. The film chooses to be colour blind like Joey's father and lets pure and simple love instead of race be the basis for a successful marriage. Or as Matt Drayton argues in his 'final analysis' in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner:
"[...] in the final analysis it doesn't matter a damn what we think. The only thing that matters is what they feel, and how much they feel for each other. And if it's half of what we felt ... that's everything". ... Read more

Reviews (95)

Superb chick flick!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to admit that I was initially attracted to this movie because of the Enya music--there is no more romantic music to listen to when you are in love or to make love to than Enya's music. James Cameron realized that and tried to get Enya to write songs for "Titanic"--but it turned out that she did not have time to do so.

Regardless, this movie is a definite top rate, excellent chick-flick tear-jerker if there ever was one. Of course, what better city in which to set a romantic movie than San Francisco, which is where this movie occurs. Sara Deever, a quirky 90's style woman chases after Nelson Moss, a hard driven ad designer. After she sends him a cute little dog, he immediately returns the dog to her and, as she is cleaning up his left hand (that he had cut earlier in the day), he tells her about his day: "I got fired. They took the company car. And my GIRLFRIEND left me" "Perfect!", she says. "Define 'perfect'", he says angrily. Perfect in this case is the lead in to the rest of the movie, a series of romantic crises, wonderful love scenes, ultimately leading to a two boxes of Kleenex ending. This is my number 9 chick flick of all time (see my list of all time chick flicks). And if you end up liking this movie, you will love the soundtrack!!!

Charming, moving, uplifting, and surprisingly good!
Charlize Theron brings on her charm, and Keanu Reeves turns in a surprisingly worthy performance in "Sweet November," a movie that's as light as a fall breeze. Slammed by most critics as a soggy romance with no star chemistry, the movie's premise centers around two people who, through an unlikely series of events, fall in love, though not without hardship.

Let it be known, the movie is not that bad. In fact, when put in comparison with movies like "Bounce" and "The Wedding Planner," "Sweet November" is actually kind of refreshing in it's own little way. Yes, the way in which the two develop their romance is a bit tough to swallow at first, but if you can ignore that and allow their growing relationship to touch your heart, then the movie succeeds on those terms.

Keanu Reeves plays Nelson Moss, a man who is all work and no play (when leaving for work one morning, he tells his girlfriend, "I have a life, and I'm late for it") as a big ad executive. While taking a test at the DMV, he runs into Sara Deever, played by Charlize Theron, who gives him an answer and gets caught cheating. What does Sara do? She milks the situation for everything she can in order to get Nelson to her home.

Her offer? To allow him to live in her house for a month, no more, no less, in order to help him get rid of all of his life's stresses and restrictions. She takes it to the extreme, too, giving his clothes to a homeless man, telling him he cannot go to work (he got fired, anyway), and taking him out into the town to show him the ways in which life can be fun.

Like any movie relationship, there are complications. Sara is reluctant to reveal anything about her past or her family, or her reasons for taking in a new man each month. All she will reveal is what she does to help each one of them. Near the end, there will come a revelation that will put the stability of their bond in jeopardy.

It seems preposterous, but with a movie like this, the events come in such an order that you can forgive these little pitfalls. Their budding romance really does have a kick to it, and despite the outside criticism, Theron and Reeves do have some good onscreen chemistry that lights up the screen in moments and provides for some very touching moments.

The film also has a lot of warm-hearted laughs. A scene in which Sara stands outside Nelson's apartment and begins shouting risque comments at people in order to gain his attention will have you chuckling, while her neighbors, two homosexuals who host a dinner party for the four of them in drag, are a riot. And the overall sweet nature of the relationship between the two is something to smile about, as well as shed a few tears over.

In one of his better roles, Keanu Reeves is convincingly emotional as Nelson. In the beginning, her perfectly portrays the egotistical attitude and outlook of his character, and then makes a very believable segue to someone who is so in love he is willing to change his whole life. Charlize Theron is, as always, a gem, bringing a touch of warmth and cheerfulness to her role as Sara. Her acting embodies her character with the zest for life needed to sell us on Sara's motives, and Theron captures that completely.

While it's not on par with many other romances on the market, "Sweet November" is nowhere near as bad as critics have made it out to be. In fact, it's a charming movie that is very uplifting, due in part to the moving relationship that Reeves and Theron bring to their characters. It met all of my expectations, which were few, but the fact that it met them is enough to recommend the film.

the best movie ever
I have to say this is the greatest romance moive. It has it all; love, drama, and comedy. I dont want to give away the details but I cant help but love this move. She is beautiful and hes so lost. Everyone needs balance in there life and she gives it to him. Although the ending is sad i have to watch it until its over. I dont see anyone not loving this movie. In final words this is a great movie and everyone should own it!

Sweet sleep throughout this movie
The best thing about this movie is that it finally got me out of my insomnia spell. It was stupid and boring at the begining and so it didn't hold my interest enough to stay awake through the rest of it. Don't rush out to watch this - that's for sure.

Sweet November okay movie
I saw this movie and to be honest .To like the movie you are going to have to watch it over and over again. to like the movie its not a bad movie overall but , they tried and the effort was good enough for me. I liked it. ... Read more

Reviews (195)

An all-around superb film
For some reason, people who see this movie either completely adore it or completely despise it. I will never understand those who despise it, because Emma is one of the most well-made movies I have seen. The entire cast is wonderful, with almost all of the actors accurately portraying the characters from Jane Austen's novel (which I believe everyone must read before they can fairly judge this movie). The score was excellent (apparently the Academy agreed) and the costumes were beautiful. Considering that Austen's novel is more than 400 pages long, I would have to say that the director did a fabulous job of turning it into a two hour movie. Gwyneth Paltrow is the exact Emma I envisioned when I read the novel for the first time, and Jeremy Northam is absolutely adorable as Mr. Knightley. The humor is subtle, but that is characteristic of most of Austen's novels. Despite the quality of this film, it's probably not for everyone. The language may be hard for some to take for two hours, and it is a period piece, which not everyone enjoys. However, I would still recommend this movie to anyone.

Brilliant in so many ways
Being a die-hard Austen fan, I couldn't resist watching this movie. Emma Woodhouse's story has always been my favorite of
Austen's efforts, and I am always glad to see her work brought to the screen. I was VERY pleased with this film.

Casting was well done. Northam provides a sturdy, but not overly-stern, Knightley, and Paltrow does an amazing job of convincing us that she is, indeed, British in her portrayal of Emma. Her accent is nearly flawless, and I felt that she truly captured the personality of Austen's most spoiled heroine. The sets and lighting are bright, airy, and perfectly suited to the comedic approach taken by this particular director. The scenes are edited just brilliantly. Each scene flows seamlessly from one to another, and the pace of the plot runs along just perfectly. It moves fast enough to keep everyone interested and slowly enough to make sure that everyone has enough time to absorb what's going on.

The criticism I've heard most often is that the film really only touches on the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill subplot for the briefest of moments. I did not find that to be injurious to the film. It's plain, while watching this version, that the director wanted to keep the story light and funny. Adding Jane and Frank's saga would have done two things: First, it would have seriously darkened and dramatized the bouncy and bright atmosphere of the entire film. Second, it would have taken the spotlight off of Emma Woodhouse as the focus of the story. I felt that, given the abbreviated length of time that a movie has in which to communicate a story...the omission of Frank & Jane's affair was a wise choice.

The second criticism I've heard of the film is that it's just too clean and "pretty" to be accurately representative of Regency England. Again...this didn't bother me. The focus of this film is NOT to be true to history. It is not a Regency documentary. It is a fun and aesthetically pleasing depiction of Emma Woodhouse and her friends. It's romantic, funny, charming, and very very pretty to look at.

I loved it.

Misguided, but somehow pleasing.
There's no reason this should work as well as it does. This is a very broad adaptation and the performances in general are unsubtle and broad as well. Ms. Paltrow's accent is heinous, and Ms. Collette's work is frankly annoying (though that is in part as written.) As the movie moves from set piece to set piece, lingering endlessly on the beautiful design, one can't help but think that if Ms. Austen's Emma had actually had so much to do, she'd have been little bored enough to spend so much time meddling in her friends' affairs. But in the end, the good will evinced by all involved somehow makes a film that charms very much in spite of several and severe flaws. The BBC version of Emma is much superior in adherence to the Austen story, and Clueless certainly has the edge for humor, but this is a fair adaptation that ultimately is more success than failure.

Love this movie!
Beautiful people, clothes, quirky characters and a flawed Emma make this movie enjoyable time after time. There aren't a lot of movies I can watch multiple times, but this is one I always enjoy!

Paltrow and Northam light up the screen!
Whether you've read the novel or not, this movie adaptation is enjoyable to watch. The characters are so vividly brought to life that it's impossible not to feel their joys and their sorrows. Paltrow is adorable as the young Emma and her scenes with Mr. Knightly (Jeremy Northam) spark with romantic chemistry. Mr. Knightly comes off as charming and very handsome thanks to Northam's own charm and classy good looks. Miss Bates makes you laugh but at the same time, she breaks your heart. Great sets, scenery, and acting by entire cast. Highly recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (96)

Predictable, but hilarious
Eurotrip is brought to us by the same people who brought us Road Trip and Old School, and it's not hard to tell. Loaded with some predictable gags, ethnic stereotypes, and situations that could never ever happen in the real world; Eurotrip still manages to be the funniest film to be released yet this year. High school graduate Scotty (Scott Mechlowicz) takes off to Europe after being dumped by his girlfriend in search of an obscenely hot German girl who he thought was a guy. Along with him are three of his friends: Cooper (Jacob Pitts, who closey emulates a young David Spade, both physically and comically), Jamie (Travis Wester), and Jenny (Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Michelle Trachtenberg); all of whom travel from France to Amsterdam (naturally) and all over Europe getting into all kinds of mishaps. While Eurotrip occasionally borderlines on stupidity, you won't be able to help yourself from laughing. Featuring hilarious cameos from Matt Damon, Smallville's Kristin Kreuk, Lucy Lawless, and the always great Vinnie Jones.

Predictable, but hilarious
Eurotrip is brought to us by the same people who brought us Road Trip and Old School, and it's not hard to tell. Loaded with some predictable gags, ethnic stereotypes, and situations that could never ever happen in the real world; Eurotrip still manages to be the funniest film to be released yet this year. High school graduate Scotty (Scott Mechlowicz) takes off to Europe after being dumped by his girlfriend in search of an obscenely hot German girl who he thought was a guy. Along with him are three of his friends: Cooper (Jacob Pitts, who closey emulates a young David Spade, both physically and comically), Jamie (Travis Wester), and Jenny (Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Michelle Trachtenberg); all of whom travel from France to Amsterdam (naturally) and all over Europe getting into all kinds of mishaps. While Eurotrip occasionally borderlines on stupidity, you won't be able to help yourself from laughing. Featuring hilarious cameos from Matt Damon, Smallville's Kristin Kreuk, Lucy Lawless, and the always great Vinnie Jones.

crazy hot european fun
That was the tightest movie ever. crazy hilarious

keeps ya laughing
i seen this movie on dvd, and wish i had seen it in the theatre,
everything that may go wrong, does go wrong and the hilarious mishaps..keeps ya laughin , with adult humour.

FUNNY *BLEEPING* MOVIE
I don't know what is wrong with other people but the "Scotty Don't Know" bit was hysterical as was the rest of the movie. ... 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