Description

The Academy Award winner for Best Original Screenplay, Gosford Park is a whodunit as only director Robert Altman could do it.As a hunting party gathers at the country estate, no one is aware that before the weekend is over, someone will be murdered - twice!The police are baffled but the all-seeing, all-hearing servants know that almost everyone had a motive.
This critically-acclaimed murder mystery features a who's who of celebrated actors.With a diverse cast of characters - all with something to hide - it'll keep you guessing right to the surprising end.Gosford Park proves that murder can be such an inconvenience. ... Read more

Reviews (343)

Not for 14 year old boys?
While taking all those guided tours through cavernous estate houses in England and Ireland (and even a few on the north shore of Long Island), I always wondered what it was like to live that lifestyle. But of course, walking around those still houses doesn't really tell you about the people who lived there anymore than a stage tells you about its actors. However, Gosford Park was a great way to fill in those blanks. The way it pulls you into the world of 1930's English high society and all its pretense and hypocrisy is great. This movie definitely enlivened my understanding of class in old European societies.

The reason Gosford Park has such great insight is the film's screenwriter, Julian Fellows who himself grew up as part of the English aristocracy. Much of what makes this film fun is the idiosyncrasies of its characters and their world that Fellows has personal experience with. A maid and driver stand in the pouring rain until their mistress gets in the car. Servants only refer to each other by their master's name, and they maintain the same hierarchy as their masters so that a duke's servant is treated better by other servants than a baron's. Only married women are allowed to have breakfast in bed; unmarried women must go to the dining room. What a strange world they lived in, especially to someone like me who grew up in a middle class New York neighborhood.

The spine of Gosford Park is, without question, NOT the murder mystery. In fact, the murder mystery plot is about 5% of the movie-if that. It's what's known in film lingo as a McGuffin, a device that helps propel the plot in a story but is of little importance in itself. If a viewer turns to the murder mystery plot for what this movie is all about, they will most likely be sorely disappointed, seemingly like many of the negative reviewers here were.

The key to enjoying this movie is to think about what it's like to live in a society that is extremely oriented by class. What must it take to keep it going? As I alluded earlier, pretense and hypocrisy grease the gears of high society. From scene to scene, we peep around corners and into bedrooms to see characters trying to hide one secret or another. And in the end, we see the unpleasant consequences of this duplicity.

This is definitely not a film that lays out its purpose before the audience. Since the almost 60 characters (for a chuckle, look under product details above for the colossal cast list) each add something unique to the larger picture, and since the audience is usually only told something once, you definitely have to be your own detective. However, Julian Fellows does a brilliant job interweaving these characters into a solid whole, and he definitely deserves the Oscar he received for the screenplay.

Since this is a complex and subtle film, multiple viewings are helpful, but unlike some other reviewers, this is something I really enjoyed. Like a good album, each time with it reveals another layer and increases your appreciation. Robert Altman, the director, says in his DVD commentary (which was boring except for a few insights, but Julian Fellow's commentary was excellent) that the film is "like looking in through the windows of a house, you only get part of the picture at a time." I think this analogy fits nicely, especially since the film is set in a house. Altman also acknowledges what some of the negative reviewers complain about, saying he meant the audience to be left wondering after the first viewing. He didn't intend this movie for the "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" set. In fact, Altman went out of his way to insert curse words, guaranteeing an R rating so that "14 year old boys couldn't walk off the street and watch it."

And of course, last but not least, the acting was great. Gosford Park has an excellent ensemble cast with not a single weak link. Maggie Smith as the snobbish Aunt makes you smile; Kelly MacDonald as the Aunt's young, innocent maid makes you want to give her a big wet kiss (maybe that's just me); and Clive Owen's cool restraint as a mysterious footman keeps you following him around the screen.

All through, Gosford Park is a movie very well done.

Buy this DVD and watch it again and again....
because you miss most of the film the first time around!

On the surface this appears to be a very formulistic murder mystery. It has the classic setting, 1930's period, an isolated English manor house filled with guests for a weekend shooting party, and all of the servants both resident and visiting. Everybody has secrets, the tension is so thick it could be cut with a knife and there is conveniently one missing from the kitchen. For more than half the film we see motives offered and wait for the murder and yet after it occurs it becomes evident that this is NOT a murder mystery at all!

The film has been compared to Upstairs Downstairs and it does involve the lives of those both above and below stairs, but it is much more than that. The various stories are added layer by layer some, such as the imposter in the servants' hall are obvious while others like the secret abortion are only alluded in a couple of lines. The various stories are, while interesting, not really the point of the film either. This is a beautifully drawn portrait of a way of life that is long gone and will probably never return. Almost everyone has read about or seen depictions of English Country Life in the '20's and '30's. It is a setting that has been used in drama, comedy, romance and of course mystery genres for years but Gosford Park makes it clear that we have only the faintest ideas of what that life was really like. The genius of this film is that it takes all the information that could have been spread out in a PBS documentary series and used fiction to illustrate the same points in a much more effective and enjoyable way.

The cast is huge and filled with actors, both well known and soon to be well known. No one is given such a large role that it becomes their film and yet each performer manages to turn their scenes into a polished little gem.

The extras included in the DVD are wonderful. They include deleted scenes (with commentary), features on the making of, and authenticity of the movies as well as Q & A with cast and filmakers. The best of the extras by far are the commentaries with the director, Robert Altman and screenwriter, Julian Oscar.

I highly recommend the purchase (as opposed to the renting) of this film. It is so packed with detail that it would be impossible to absorb it all in just one or two viewings.

"Nothing's more exhausting than breaking in a lady's maid."
The upperclass friends and relations of Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon) arrive at his country house for a weekend of shooting, accompanied by maids, footmen, and valets, all of whom will be staying under one roof. Sir William is a mean-spirited and self-centered old man, married to a much younger, emotionally distant wife (Kristin Scott Thomas), with many family members dependent upon his continuing largesse. The hilariously waspish Countess of Trentham (Maggie Smith), who believes she has a lifetime stipend, arrives with young Mary Maceachran (Kelly MacDonald), who is trying valiantly to become a good lady's maid. Ivor Novello (Jeremy Northam), a Hollywood star, and Morris Weissman (Bob Balaban), a producer of Charlie Chan movies, are the only guests without aristocratic backgrounds and inherited privilege. The atmosphere of the house, filled with venomous "friends" and relations, soon becomes even more poisonous.

The "below stairs" lives of the servants are also fully revealed, as they share living quarters, eat meals together, tend to the laundry and cooking, and gossip about their employers. The butler Jennings (Alan Bates) and the head housekeeper (Helen Mirren) run the household and try to guarantee that no real-world cares will intrude upon the lives of their employers. Since "upstairs" and "downstairs" occasionally meet very privately at night, secrets abound, many of them secrets of long standing. When Sir William is poisoned and stabbed ("Trust Sir William to be murdered twice"), nearly everyone has a motive for wanting him dead.

For director Robert Altman, the primary focus of the film is on the characters, their way of life, and their values, with the murder mystery secondary. Set in late November, the end of the year 1932, the action takes place when this secure aristocratic lifestyle is also nearing its end, something that the arrival of the newly rich Hollywood characters, Novello and Weissman, illustrates. Dramatic cinematography (by Andrew Dunn) emphasizes the cold and rainy dreariness of the weekend, and suggests parallels with the coldness of the dying aristocracy.

Interior shots reveal the contrasts between the elegant and mannered lives of the "upstairs" characters and the hardworking daily lives of the "downstairs" characters, who adhere to their own rigid social codes. Every detail rings true, and as the characters' lives and interrelationships are revealed obliquely in brief snippets of seemingly unrelated conversations, a broad picture of the upstairs and downstairs lifestyles gradually emerges. Fully developed, many-leveled, wonderfully acted, often funny, and impeccably directed and filmed, this is a film one can watch again and again with delight. Mary Whipple

The Triumph of the Tried and True... a la Robert Altman!
GOSFORD PARK is an enchanting movie on every level and should please even the most discerning audience. Quite unexpectedly, Robert Altman has thoroughly researched the Agatha Christie murder mystery-type stories, the archetypical British mystery/drawing room genre, and (more important) the stuffy and unbelievable class disparities of olde England and has produced a stylish, smart, lushly beautiful recreation of England in the 1930s. The settings are elegant - a mansion/castle where the 'haves' and their lowly servants carry on their lives as though 'to the manner born'. Blessed with a dream cast that includes nearly all of the greats of the British acting school, Altman has given plumb roles to Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren, Eileen Atkins, Emily Watson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Stephen Fry, Michael Gambon, Jeremy Northam, James Wilby, Alan Bates, and Derek Jacobi. The story is an interesting murder mystery but it merely serves as the matrix upon which these fine actors, writer, cinematographer and director capably flaunt their skills. This movie is Delicious! It is so fine that it bears repeated viewings just to make sure you catch all the innuendoes and rapid, superb double entendres encased in this bit of magic. Altman devotees will not be disappointed and those who are not fond of the eccentric director's previous films are bound to be won over to the genius of Robert Altman.

Upstairs, downstairs, cold stares
No matter how many actors, including bankable stars, appear in a Robert Altman movie, it seems to be about Altman. He has an individual, if by now familiar, style of filmmaking that is always calling attention to itself. That style includes very fluid camera movement, quick-cut editing, and a good deal of dialogue that is covered by other dialogue or sounds distant. We are meant to be awed by the spontaneity and naturalism of it all.

Apparently many people are impressed by this mannerism and consider it a sign of artistry. On the whole, I find it pretentious and irritating. In one of the supplementary features on the DVD, Altman, his screenwriter and a handful of the actors from Gosford Park are interviewed in front of a studio audience. Altman and the writer rattle on about how every scene is shot by two cameras that are always in motion, so that the actors are never sure whether they are going to be foreground or atmosphere, or what angle they'll be seen from. Does Altman really think he invented the idea of shooting a scene from multiple angles, and choosing one during editing? And why is a camera that's gliding and panning constantly somehow more "truthful" than one that's framing the character or group that the director believes is most essential to telling the story at that moment?

It can be said in Altman's favor, though, that he never makes a merely conventional or routine film; they are all a bit eccentric (a compliment in my book) and, despite my reservations about the camera and sound-recording style, usually offer a fresh view of the theme or its environment. Gosford Park is your standard Agatha Christie-style murder mystery set among a dinner-jacketed, evening-gowned crowd in an English manor house in 1932 -- except, in this case, the doings of the upper crust are set against the army of servants below stairs who work their tails off to make everything straight, gleaming and smooth for their social betters.

Altman and his screenwriter Julian Fellows do a very creditable and humane job of conveying the personalities and individuality of the servants; they aren't just symbols of The Oppressed. The characters of the gentry, though, while ably portrayed (the acting talent makes sure of that), are almost universally so sour, rude and calculating that it's hard not to feel that there's a touch of old-fashioned, left-wing agit-prop involved. (The one exception is Jeremy Northam, who plays Ivor Novello -- a real singer and film star of the period -- with considerable charm.) I can believe that an assembly of English bluebloods in that era might have carried within themselves much wickedness, but they would have been far too polished to display it as openly and crudely as they do in Gosford Park.

Altman recruited a clutch of A-list British stage and film actors, and they don't fail him. Altman's casual attitude toward the basics of craftsmanship (as opposed to displaying his self-assumed creative genius) ensures that you will be lucky to figure out who half the characters are and their relationships with one another by the time of the denouement, but their cultivated swinishness holds the attention anyway. I think actors love playing obnoxious and unlikeable characters; these seem to be enjoying their roles, and you will, too.

The English have a term, "curate's egg." The meaning is, "parts of it are very good." ... Read more

Amazon.com

In terms of alluring female nudity, Swimming Pool shows a lot, but it's what remains concealed that gives this erotic thriller a potent, voyeuristic charge. With his Hitchcockian handling of secrets and lies, prolific French director François Ozon reunites with his Under the Sand star, Charlotte Rampling, to tell a seductive tale of murder and complicity, beginning when British mystery novelist Sarah Morton (Rampling) seeks peace and relaxation at her publisher's French villa, only to find his brash, sexually liberated daughter Julie (Ludivine Sagnier) arriving shortly thereafter to disrupt her solitary reverie. What begins as mutual annoyance turns into something more sinister and duplicitous, alternating between Julie's predatory sex with men and Sarah's observant, perhaps jealous fascination. These two women, generations apart, share in Ozon's delicate dance of trust, curiosity, and gradual understanding, until a twist ending that forces you to reevaluate everything you've seen. Only then will the mysteries of Swimming Pool be fully and tantalizingly revealed. (Note: The unrated version contains full-frontal nudity that's been edited from the rated version. In both versions, the overall plot is not affected.) --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (191)

A Puzzle for You to Solve.
Sarah Morton (Charlotte Rampling) is a middle-aged British mystery novelist. Burned out on writing and tired of the climate in London, she accepts an invitation from her publisher, John (Charles Dance), to spend some time relaxing at his villa in Southern France. The change of scenery gets her creative juices flowing, but shortly after Sarah has settled in, John's daughter Julie (Ludivine Sagnier) turns up with plans to stay. At first Sarah is annoyed by Julie's daring and promiscuous lifestyle. But gradually Sarah takes an interest in the young woman and allows herself to be sucked into Sarah's emotional intrigues.

There is a lot that I would love to say about this film, but the nature of "Swimming Pool" is such that I can say very little that will not spoil the film for those who have not yet seen it. "Swimming Pool" is an unusual and ingenious variety of mystery. I will say this much: Pay close attention. Things are not as the seem.

François Ozon's screenplay may be the best of 2003. It's certainly the most sinuous. I'm sure that some will say -not without some justification- that it's too clever for its own good. My one reservation about "Swimming Pool" is that it may be too subtle. Too much of the audience is left thinking that the events of the film are to be taken at face value. And the film doesn't begin to make sense if taken at face value. The audience is given enough information to figure out what has transpired. -But just enough. We do have to figure it out for ourselves. Normally, a film of this kind would explain itself a few scenes before the end. But François Ozon has chosen not to spell anything out for his audience. I enjoyed the puzzle. It's gratifying once it clicks and everything makes sense. But I fear "Swimming Pool" is too esoteric for wide audience appeal. I give it an enthusiastic recommendation, though. "Swimming Pool" is one of the most original, clever, and intriguing movies that I've seen.

The DVD: Previews are unfortunately unavoidable. Bonus features include one theatrical trailer and deleted scenes. Most of the deleted scenes are entirely inconsequential, but one actually confuses matters, so I don't recommend them. Dubbing is available in French. Subtitles are available in French, Spanish, and English. I sure wish there were an interview with writer/director François Ozon, but no such luck. There are more bonus features, including a commentary by Ozon (presumably in French), on the French Region 2 DVD 2-disc set for anyone who is interested.

understated psychological thriller
I had seen 8 WOMEN, the previous film by Francois Ozon, but that did not prepare me for SWIMMING POOL. Sarah (Charlotte Rampling) is a mystery writer vacationing at her publishers home in France. She's enjoying the peace and quiet, until the arrival of Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), the publisher's sexy teenage daughter. Where Sarah is repressed, Julie is a free spirit. The personalities of the two women clash at first, but Sarah is subtly inspired by Julie's impulsiveness. Things come to a head when both women develop an attraction to the same man.
The tone of the film is very cool and quiet throughout, and the casual viewer may miss the signs of Sarah's awakening. (Note how what Sarah eats changes throughout the film.) Both central performances are impeccable, and Charles Dance (GOSFORD PARK) lends able support as Sarah's slippery publisher.
The DVD package is disappointingly slim, I would have enjoyed a commentary or two, but the final deleted scene does help explain the film's surprise ending. Recommended for world cinema lovers.

Nudity, yes; get over it!
Wow! Swimming Pool is an intelligent, and fantastic film. Don't expect to be a passive viewer, and wait for everything to be explained to you. There is nudity. Enjoy it. Get over it. This is a film about a writer, who's become locked into a series of books she's sick of. At her publisher's house in France, she spends several days with writer's block. She creates a character, and writes the best book of her career. I recommend Secret Window starring Johnny Depp, to be seen with this movie!

I recommend this film
This film gets your attention from A to Z . Charlotte Rampling's
play is excellent and sustains perfectly an interesting scenario.
Ludivine Sagnier is not masterful but plays well her part.
Although this film has it's nude and erotic moments
you should buy another film if this is only what you are looking for.
The film is not a 'nail biter ' but, always intelligent and
sensitive, it will not let you down. The conclusion of the
film is not perfect, but certainly interesting.

Good,,but,,,what just happened?
This movie was good but what just happened? Why is Julie two different people? One in braces and the one we saw all through the movie. Are they one in the same? Why is she waving at both of them ? ... Read more

Amazon.com

Things started going downhill for Eddie Murphy around the time of this 1986 clunker, in which the comic actor plays a social worker predicted to be the savior of a kidnapped child, who has special powers to heal the Earth. Dennis Feldman's script and director Michael Ritchie (The Candidate), a once-thoughtful satirist, stumble over every link in a chain of fantasy-fueled sequences. Murphy phones it in, and Charles Dance (Pascali's Island) looks foolish in retrospect. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (27)

The Bald Magical Child
Perhaps the success of GHOSTBUSTERS was the inspiration for THE GOLDEN CHILD to mix comedy and horror fantasy. GHOSTBUSTERS had all the elements in perfect sync and THE GOLDEN CHILD is very uneven. Many of reviewers and moviegoers reaction to the movie was basically, to paraphrase many quotes, "Eddie Murphy was great and funny...but the story and plot was stupid!" It was reported that Eddie Murphy hated the out-of-country location shoots and it shows. His character, Chandler Jarrell is the reluctant hero who is a social worker and part time finder of missing children. Chandler is chosen (by divine providence) to find and save a magical child from kidnappers who are in the league with evil. There is an uncomfortable fantasy-supernatural, dream sequence that makes no sense in the context of the story. Also, in the final leg of the film, the stop-motion animated effects of a bat-winged demon and an actual "dragon lady" seems to be out of place and unexpected. The film takes its subject too seriously with Eddie Murphy winking at the audience. With his character's disbelief of the whole absurdity of the situation, maybe it was a tough sell for the audiences. Overall, a movie that showcases the early brilliance of Eddie Murphy but his comedy does not gel wit the rest of the film.

Hmmm
What an odd movie. Its a fantasy children's movie that thinks its a fantasy comedy. Murphy is completely lost at sea in this flick. As if he isn't entirely aware of what's going on or is trying to push the movie in a direction it just won't go in. His character and the movie seem to exist separately of each other. He plays his usual silly harmless likable guy and the rest of the movie is earnest kiddie sci-fi action.

Eddie Murphy shines
When this movie first came out, from what the critics had to say, and the trailors for it, I was not that impressed with the idea of spending money to see it. I was truly surprised when I finally did see it. It is not a visually enhanced movie, but you see a side of Eddie Murphy that is surprising and refreshing, his character is fairly polite, not too much on the 4 letter word band wagon, and actually shows compassion. I would say that he shows these same qualities in the Dr. Dolittle movies, but really... talking animals??? It is a heart warming story, protection of a childs life... see it and judge for yourself. I think you will be surprised and want to add this one to your collection!

for its time
for its time it was a great movie but it was just so cheesy compared to now it sucked.. lol so idk if u can watch the movie realizing they didnt have all the stuff then they do now it was a okay movie

Golden Balls
This film made a lot of money on its release, and i was not surprised: there was action comedy, and Charles Dance not pronouncing his "j"'s coupled with some special effects circa 1978. what more could it need?

And yet...for some reason, after watching this film, i felt somehow unfulfilled. Perhaps it was not explaining who the real bad guy was(i'm sorry, Forces Of Evil is not enough for me). Maybe it was the low low grade action. Maybe it was just the Forces of Evil surrounding me, but the truth is, i just couldn't bring myself to be able to like this film.

It is however not all bad, This is Eddie Murphy on vintage "Trading Places" style form, which is always worth the laugh, and there is one dream sequence which is so surreal its...well, surreal.

Despite this however, my suggestion would be to watch it on TV rather than buy it. it just aint worth the nuggets. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Jack Slater is an action-film hero played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. An old projectionist (Robert Prosky) hands a magic movie ticket to Jack's biggest preteen fan (Austin O'Brien), and the kid steps right inside the latest Jack Slater film, becoming the actor star's sidekick in gunfights and car chases. But when Jack's nemesis (Charles Dance) gets his hands on the ticket, the fight busts out into the real world and Jack (à la Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear) refuses to believe he's a fictional character. Director John McTiernan churns some nifty scenes out of this setup, although the fiction-to-reality shuffle is not as deft as in, say, Woody Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo, and the plot needs the kind of logic and discipline found in that classic when-worlds-collide film Back to the Future. Still, Schwarzenegger has moments of wit and smashing action, and we get a faux-movie trailer advertising an intriguing new shoot-'em-up: "Something's rotten in the State of Denmark--and Hamlet is taking out the trash!" ... Read more

Reviews (81)

Super fun action/fantasy...
If there was ever any movie that celebrated Arnold Schwarzenegger movies it's "Last Action Hero." Actually, this film celebrates action movies in general. Directed by action legend John McTiernan (Hunt for Red October, Die Hard), this fantasy film about a kid named Danny who goes inside a Schwarzenegger film is loaded with nonstop action, some good laughs, and tons of cameo appearences, including: Ian McKellan, Robert Patrick, Tina Turner, Chevy Chase, Jim Belushi, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Little Richard, and Danny DeVito as an animated cat! This film brings in loads of fun, and the casting of Charles Dance as the villain is genius. Sure, this film isn't perfect, but if you're an Arnold fan it's plenty fun. Sometimes, the movie even works as a spoof of action, like in the car chase scene where literally every single car explodes. This film really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It's actually one of my favorite Arnold films. I'd recommend this film to the child-at-heart; to the people who never really grew up. It's fun for the kid in all of us.

Underrated Schwarzenegger romp
After his monumental success with Terminator 2, Arnold Schwarzenegger re-united with his Predator director John McTiernan for this action/fantasy farce. The storyline concerns a young boy (Austin O'Brien) who comes across a magic movie ticket which allows Jack Slater (Schwarzenegger), a movie character who is played by Arnie, to leave his film world and come to the real world. Get all that? Good. Schwarzenegger (who also served as executive producer) is great as he pokes fun at his action roles, his career, and himself. The cast is sharp (including Charles Dance, Mercedes Ruehl, Tom Noonan, Bridgette Wilson, and Ian McKellan) with plenty of cameos (including Jean Claude Van Damme, Sharon Stone, Tina Turner, Robert Patrick, and Arnie's wife Maria Shriver) and the action is nicely directed, but Last Action Hero comes close to wearing out it's welcome thanks to it's overly long running time and anti-climatic ending. Last Action Hero wasn't too well received by critics upon it's release, but it still stands as a fun Arnie romp.

Great under-appreciated movie, but gets a little too absurd.
You've probably read this film's plot description already, but let me sumerize it briefly just to comment on it: Austin O'Brian is a huge Swartzenagger fan. Arnie's latest films (acording to this film,) are the Jack Slater movies, which (presumably) came out right after Terminator 2. Danny idolizes the character Jack Slater, a fictional L.A. cop, in the same way that so many of us idolized Han Solo. Then one day Danny's personal friend Mick, an elderly theater projectionist, gives him a magic ticket that was given to him by Houdini, just before Danny gets to watch the latest Slater film all by himself, before anyone eles does. (Jack Slater 4). Danny watches as the film introduces the two bad guys, who've kidnapped Slaters cousin Frank. The scene shifts to two nameless cops (who of course are sure-fire dead meat) who come to Frank's house after getting a false call about a drug deal. Slater arrives and wonders why they're here, he goes in and finds Frank tied to a chair, Frank gives Slater one last message before dying, Slater sees a note that turns out to be a count down and gets out just before the house blows up, the two red shirt cops...well, need I even say? A car full of dynomite-weilding bad guys drive up, Slater gets in his car and the chase is on! Then something strange happens. A stick of dynomite comes out of the screen and lands in the theater! It blows up, and Danny finds himself in Slater's car, now a character in the film!

I couldn't understand why so many critics and audiences hated this. Naturally I was upset when it bombed in the theatre. It was the most origonal film to come along in quite some time. I mean, really, who hasn't fantasized about being able to actually go into the world of their favorite movie or T.V. show and interact with the characters? Thankfully I see most people on Amazon have given this between four and five stars, so I'm not alone. I loved the action, the humor, (which is basically making fun of typical action films and just how absurd they are, even the ones that are meant to be taken seriously) and the one-liners.

O.K., here's one thing I _didn't_ like: the animated cat. I mean, what the @#&%?! The film works when it spoofs typical action films and ridiculous they are, but not when it goes all the way into the realm of farce and becomes something like Airplane! or Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Everything eles was fine, but the cartoon cat...well, when's the last time you saw a conventional action film with living cartoon characters? Really, what were they thinking?

Also, there was the bit where (POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING) we learn about half way through the film that Slater's son Andy was killed. This presumably happened at the end of Jack Slater 3. So Jack Slater 3, it would seem, ends with Slater shooting the Ripper (the bad guy from the last moive), and then the Ripper pulls Andy over with him. Would a typical Hollywood light-hearted action escapest film really have such a dark ending? Well, then again, I guess Lethal Weapon 2 had a simular ending.

Anyway, don't listen to anyone who's told you not to see this. This is not another dumb action movie, this is a film pokeing fun at dumb action films (including some of the ones Swartzenagger's made). Check it out for yourself.

"I'm the famous comedian Arnold Braunschweiger."
After MUCH deliberation, this was deemed an appropriate DVD to watch - after turning down all my other suggestions. And it turned out to be quite good!

This was filmed before Austin O'Brien became truly cringeworthy, with a god-awful haircut in My Girl 2. He's exactly the same here, and there were times I wanted to take a pair of scissors to his hair! (I've just seen a more recent photo, and he looks totally different!)

Last Action Hero has an almost Willy Wonka quality to it. There was a golden ticket that Charlie Bucket had to find and Danny Mannigan also had to find one - or actually got handed it. I was so waiting for Oompa Loompa's to come out! Now that would have been cool.

The whole story climaxes in Arnie being brought out of the movie, and getting to see the 'real' world, which is a very interesting concept, as it could be seen as we're not the ones in control. (I totally believe that) So his whole life was one big lie, and controlled by someone else - not the big man upstairs, but a film director. Arnie basically takes the p*ss out of his whole on screen persona in this, including lots of his trademark sayings, including: "I'll be back!", "Trust me" and "Do it". There's also a very funny scene where Jack Slater meets Arnold Schwarzeneggar - make sense of that!

Also look out for a whole host of cameos in this movie - ones which are easy, to spot, some which aren't! Some of these include: Chevy Chase, MC Hammer, Sharon Stone, Little Richard, Maria Shriver, Robert Patrick, and Jean-Claude Van Damme!

There are some great lines in this. Some of these are:
Danny Madigan: You think you are funny, don't you?
Jack Slater: I know I am. I'm the famous comedian Arnold Braunschweiger.
Danny Madigan: Schwarzenegger!
Jack Slater: Gesundheit.

Jack Slater: Kid! Who does the doctor treat?
Danny Madigan: Patients?
Jack Slater: Look at the elbow of my jacket. What is it doing?
Danny Madigan: Wearing thin?
Jack Slater: Bingo!

Benedict: Gentlemen. Since you are about to die anyway, I may as well tell you the entire plot. Think of villains Jack. You want Dracula? Dra-cool-la? Hang on
[takes out the ticket]
Benedict: , I'll fetch him. Dracula? Huh. I can get King Kong! We'll have a nightmare with Freddy Krueger, have a surprize party for Adolf Hitler, Hannibal Lecter can do the catering, and then we'll have christening for Rosemary's Baby! All I have to do is snap my fingers and they'll be here. They're lining up to get here, and do you know why Jack? Should I tell you why? Hmm? Because here, in this world, the bad guys can win!

So if you're not keen on Austin O'Brien, see how many celebrities you can spot, and how much Arnie acts up in this movie! It's so funny!

The governator slams congress in this one!
Overall, this movie should've been about 30 minutes shorter. Other than that, in my opinion, it's probably the best Arnold flick made. Two moments in this movie are absolutely hilarious. One being his very burning remark about congress being crooks, and the other is when the 'movie' Arnold meets the 'real-life' Arnold and tells him " I don't really like you, you've caused me too much pain." That is the ultimate in comedic irony. Of course, my delivery is too dry. Arnold carries that one off beautifully. This movie was everything it was meant to be. Fast, fun, and full of dry and dark humor. Very good movie..... ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Dark Blue World and Battle of Britain
I viewed this movie for the first time and was expected more from the movie. In my opinion, The Battle of Britain (BOB) with Michael Caine and Lawrence Oliver from 1967 is still the better film. The Battle of Britain film had the advantage of being made only 20 years after the finish of World War II and the producers had access to genuine German and British planes thanks to the Spanish Air Force which were still using those planes. I thought Dark Blue World captures the feel of England and the English countryside, but so does BOB. Its too bad that the producers couldn't have incorporated the Polish struggle against Hitler's Blitz and showed their struggle and eventual move to the RAF in 1940 to fight in the BOB. The film Dark Blue World is worth watching once, but I can't say that is a film that is worth repeated viewings. The 1967 version of BOB gives you better overall history and feel for the actual BOB in 1940. Dark Blue World is worthy of viewing, but not to own. An Average film. Good camera work and acting, but the story is lacking.

not pearl harbor
If you read lukewarm reviews of this film, ignore them; they were just blowback from Pearl Harbor. Apparently (I've not seen Pearl Harbor), there are some surface similarities between the two movies--the WWII setting; two friends who are a fliers; a shared love interest--and I suppose that scenario could be considered cliched, but it seems as if critics, who uniformly hated Pearl Harbor, were unwilling to judge Dark Blue World on its own merits. Their reviews are mostly petulant complaints about having to sit through a Czech version of the prior Hollywood flop.

The fascinating story here, based on historical events, involves a veteran Czech pilot, Franta (Ondrej Vetchy), and a fresh-scrubbed young farm boy, Karel (Krystof Hádek). >As this too simple description suggests, there's ample ammunition here for critics who wanted to dismiss the film as cliched. But what it's not possible to convey here is how affecting the film is, especially the great love portrayed, which as in all war movies is not the physical love between Franta and Susan but the comradely love of Franta and Karel, who share so much, but ultimately too much. And the point is that their relationship works and it draws us in. They are very likable--the one eager and innocent; the other more experienced and reserved. They're something of an odd match but we can see what they provide to one another, especially in such trying times. We care about them. We ache when they hurt each other. We want them to patch things up. We feel ennobled by the sacrifices they make for one another. We can fathom how beautiful yet painful Franta's memories must be to him and why they would remain so close to the surface of his mind. Indeed, Ondrej Vetchy is especially good as Franta, with his soulful, mournful eyes and the rare gravity he brings to the character. By the end of the film he's experienced so much loss--to the Nazis, to the Communists, of his friends, of lovers--but there's still a calm dignity that compels our attention and earns our respect.

We're a couple years on now and maybe folks have forgotten about Pearl Harbor. Heck, I don't think anyone saw it but the critics anyway. So pick up Dark Blue World and watch it for itself, not in order to compare it to some other film. It is a lovely movie.

GRADE : A

Great film
If this film has nothing else, it has possibly the most realistic flight sequences I have seen...beautiful camera work.

The storyline could be considered a bit predictable but somehow, the ending managed to slip by my 'Got this one figured out' radar (don't know how that happened really...must have gotten distracted by the subtitles)

Overall, It makes my top 5 WWII movie list

Dark Blue Masterpiece
Years ago I collected and read many of the "Bantam War Book" Series. Each was a non-fictional first-hand personal story about "A World On Fire" - World War II.

I was especially fascinated by the RAF pilots and their incredible Battle of Britain stories. They were extraordinary men, like Douglas Bader, Stanford Tuck, and Pierre Clostermann - the brave Frenchman who, like the heroes in "Dark Blue World," fled his occupied homeland to fight for the RAF.

This movie is an undiscovered gem - resurrecting, again, the emotions of authenticity those books once evoked. While many films are ABOUT other times, this one seems like an actual peak into the past.

Dark Blue World
One of the greatest jobs of film directing ever achieved. Watch how many beautifully positioned shots go into each wonderful seen. For simple direction, this film ranks with "Lawerence of Arabia," as one of the greatest film classics of all time. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Not Du Maurier and Not On Par With Hitchcock
When I first heard of this production on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre, I was thrilled with anticipation regarding how it would be played. Would it rival Hitchcock's masterpiece? Would it be marketed as a romantic escape?

Unfortunately, althought this version of Du Maurier's classic follows the book very closely and is over 2 hours longer than the original 1940s film, it just doesn't measure up to either Hitchcock or the book. Hitchcock downplays Du Maurier's portrayal of the strange relationship between men and women. Men are omnipotent---women, merely serve. Rebecca, too strong must go. Hitchcock plays up the Gothic touches with fog, music and a weakly played Max De Winter. The nameless heroine gathers strength as Rebecca is revealed to be intrinsically evil. But this is not Du Maurier's 'Rebecca'. In the book there is no win in the ending---the heroine simply remains a caretaker as she was in the beginning of the novel; her charge has changed from Mrs. Van Hopper to Maxim. The couple drifts like sad wanderers from place to place; as Du Maurier puts it, "There is no resurrection." In this adaptation and in Hitchcock, love seems to conquer all---an idea completely alien and misunderstood by most readers of Du Maurier.

First and foremost, the girl playing the narrator is not gauche or dependent enough--she has too much spunk and sparkle lurking behind the lank hair and the school girl dresses. Fontaine was ever so much more desperate to please as I think Du Maurier's heroine was meant to be. Du Maurier doesn't even give her a name. Dame Diana Rigg is an equally austere Mrs Danvers, but her portrayal is much too sad, not malicious enough and definitely suggests a [physical] attraction to her former mistress which seems mournful rather than simply obsessive like DuMaurier's character in the novel or Dame Anderson's character in Hitchcock's film. Charles Dance is not as taut nerved as Olivier, but he passes as an okay Max DeWinter with perhaps a third of Olivier's charm. Still, he comes off as weak as does Olivier in Hitchcock's version---neither fully portraying the strong silent brooding character of Maxim in the book. Lastly, giving Rebecca a voice and a body, is a mistake. Du Maurier's book is so compelling simply because we don't know anything about Rebecca and hence can envision whatever femme fatale we choose--the real Rebecca is a ghost; she remains a mystery to the very end--we don't know if she is really malevolent---we only have Maxim's word--or excuse for his own violent actions. We don't even understand her motives fully even after the production moves to the final scene at Manderley.

Nevertheless, if you simply love everything 'Rebecca', you will at least like this version, but, I guarantee it will provoke you to find a copy of the Hitchcock version at your local rental store or better yet a worn copy of the book at your library!

Certainly awesome
I watched this movie only after I read the book by Daphe Du Maurier several times at different ages. I am glad to say that it was very close to what I had imagined while I read the book. I certainly feel 3 hours are required for doing justice to the book. Though, it would have been much better had they spent more time showing how Maxim de Winter and the narrator fall in love in Monte Carlo. I feel that was too hurried and several details were left out. The last part where Max de Winter tries to save Danvers from the burning Manderley ought to have been avoided as it wasn't part of the story and only added melodrama.

The cast for this second version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox and Diana Rigg couldn't have been better. The perfect English looking Charles Dance is the only one who could portray the reserved, austre and noble Max de Winter. I feel the difference in age between Max De Winter and the narrator was very accurately portrayed in the film. An older, more mature looking man was very vital for this role. Though the book says that Maxim was about twice the age of the young narrator, around 40, I always imagined Maxim to look older than that with all the fear and suffering he had undergone. Olivier certainly was not cut for this role in Hitchcock's version. I think Emilia Fox was also great with her lost, shy look.

I feel this version is probably the closest it can get to the book and the characters. The cast chosen was the best by far.

great !
A film highly recommended for Diana Rigg friends and fans. I like most. Terrific and great play Dame Diana !!

Love this movie but I too wish Hollywood would do a version
I liked this version of the movie much better than the original 1940's version; and it certainly does justice to the book. But I would love it if Hollywood did a version with Ralph Fiennes as Maxim, Jillian Anderson as Mrs. DeWinter (because she has those big doe eyes), Maggie Smith as Mrs. Danvers, and shown as the ghost of Rebecca, Madoline Stowe. The Rebecca in the current version is not mean and brooding enough.

I wish...
if only holleywood would undertake a newer modern version of this film. I've read the novel, and I like that this movie shows us a bit about rebecca. When reading the book I pictured Hugh Jackman as a wonderful Maximilian and Julie Benz as the ghostlike Rebecca with flashbacks to this mystery woman. I know it sounds strange, but I really feel they should remake this film. Maybe get Tim Burton to do it or something? :)
It was overall dissapointing. I hope they shall redo this someday. My friends agree with me on the casting though if it should ever be made. ... Read more

Reviews (128)

For More Than Just Your eyes
It's nice to know that Roger Moore can act. I personally think that Dalton would have done a better job at this part, but Moore is adequate. The plot is more engaging than the previous ones. A ship with ATAC unit sinks off the coast of Greece and a smuggler plots to sell it to the Russians for a price. Bond is sent to Greece to recover the ATAC. He then works with the two-faced Kristatos, who plans to use 007 to eliminate his competition, his brother Columbo. Columbo makes a fine good guy. The Bond girl is Melina, whose parents were working for the British Government and trying to find the ATAC and were killed by Kristatos. She tries to avenge them throughout the film and finally does. Admiral Gogol makes a nice appearance towards the end. For comic relief we have Bibi Dahl, the skating protege who wants to sleep with Bond. The score by Bill Conti is fantastic. The action is thrilling. A Great Bond.

Roger Moore's best Bond
An intelligent and suspenseful follow-up to the daffy Moonraker. Refreshingly light on gadgets and silly jokes, FYEO is a Bond movie in the grand tradition. More like Goldfinger and FRWL; the only two Bond movies that are better. Its hard to believe John Glen directed his best Bond movie first but there it is. He directed five in all; the last three Moores and both Timothy Daltons. FYEO and The Living Daylights are the only two that should have seen daylight. 007, played excellently by Roger Moore in his 5th Bond movie, finds himself playing cat and mouse with Kristatos, an unsavory Greek smuggler, as they wrestle over a piece of Cold War hardware called the ATAK. Julian Glover does a fine job as the manipulative and sophisticated villian. Carole Bouquet is stunning as well as a competent actress. She is the Bond Girl but, unlike many Bond movies, she is more than window dressing. Her character, Melina Havelock, as her own beef with Kristatos. Beautifully set in Northern Italy and Greece, FYEO features several extremely well-done action scenes everywhere from the ski slopes to a sunken ship to a mountaintop fortress. The interplay between Bond and the young, amorous ice skater (Lynn-Holly Johnson) is clever and humorous in a tongue-in-cheek way that goes over much better than the obvious sight gags and obnoxious comments in Moore's most recent efforts. Alas, Moore's Bond movies never found a consistent happy medium between the silly and the serious. LALD and TMWTGG were both serious and silly in turns. They are both good but uneven 007 movies. TSWLM is pretty silly (but excellent). Moonraker is pretty silly and downright dreadful in parts, especially the ending. Moore's weakest. FYEO is Moore's most serious and best. Octopussy and AVTAK, Moore's last two efforts after FYEO, were both pretty silly and stale. Quite a mixed bag. His two best performances sandwich his worst. Go figure.

Roger Moore's Best Turn as 007
James Bond films can be divided into two camps. Some have over-the-top villains and larger-than-life plots, while others are down to earth, gritty spy adventures. "For Your Eyes Only" falls squarely in the latter camp. This characteristic has earned it praise from those who enjoy Bond movies with a more realistic air, while those who prefer the more fantastic deride it as boring.

For my own part, I find "For Your Eyes Only" to be the best Roger Moore film and indeed better than most of the Connery and Brosnan films as well. That is not to say the movie is without flaws. The "heavy" and the "henchman" are a somewhat underwhelming, the score is a little too pop, and Bond's flirtation with a young skater strains credulity. However, these minor complaints are overcome with thrilling chases, superb action, tight storytelling, beautiful locations, and intense suspense that is sorely lacking in most Bond films.

On the whole, "For Your Eyes Only" may not be what you expect, but it is one of the best of the series.

DVD: Thankfully, MGM gave this one the full 5.1 sound treatment. Unfortunately, the soundtrack has its jarring moments, especially in the rear channels during the pre-title sequence and when Bond gets caught at Gonzales' lair. The extra features are informative and fun, as has been the case with the other Bond films.

A leaner, meaner, Moore, Roger Moore.
In 1979, the James Bond series had officially "jumped the shark (i.e. reached a turning point which signaled a downward spiral.)" with the campy, over-the-top, sci-fi MOONRAKER. Although he had a blockbuster on his hands, producer Cubby Broccoli had the forsight to see that the Bond series would crash under the weight of huge sets and bad puns. Thus, a back- to-basic approach was in order for the harder-edged 1980's with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, from the title of Ian Fleming's collection of Bond short stories, is noted by Bond fans as the first from the "Michael G. Wilson Era" of the series. Wilson, a writer, co-producer, and Broccoli's son-in-law had sighted the darker, more realistic espinage thriller FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE as his personal favorite. Along with first time director John Glen (an editor from the series), FOR YOUR EYES ONLY's recipe of grittier action sequences, amid exotic locations would be a template for the series that would extend into Pierce Brosnan's epics.

Although I don't consider FOR YOUR EYES ONLY in the panthanon of, say, GOLDFINGER, (and despite what you read here, the high adventure plot line is closer to the botboilers of Alistair McClain then it is to Ian Fleming's), the movie is a fun ride. It is also, perhaps the first time many began to stop worrying and like Roger Moore as 007. I don't know if it was Moore's advancing age or his fuller hair style, but here he's clearly not the same twit who waltzed through MOONRAKER. His Bond, for once, has to huff and puff is way out of a situation instead of a raised eyebrow. He still a charmer who rather use his wits than his fists, but when the going gets tough he'll use a full clip of his Walter PPK without hesitation. That's James Bond!

Years ago I was floored by the old CBS-FOX laserdisc version of this movie. Although panned and scanned, the disc's stereo sound mix was thunderous. This new DVD is sharper despite some flaws due to the film stock's age, but retains the surround sound theatrics that keeps 007's 12th outing state of the art in a constantly improving digital landscape.

This could be an opportunity...or a trap!
The 12th James Bond movie. After a science-fiction epic with MOONRAKER, producer Albert R. Broccoli brings 007 back to Earth in a well crafted thriller closely echoing the vein of earlier Bond films as FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. Yet FOR YOUR EYES ONLY would appropriately emphasize such fantasy elements in a more grittier and realistic adventure filled with the usual beautiful women and non-stop action. This time a greater emphasis began with the idea of 007 as a more polished Super Agent who survives off his physical wits and prowess rather than the aide of gadgets. This would be a trademark well established in John Glen's debut as director for this film. Glen would continue to direct from this film all the way to LICENCE TO KILL. Equally credible is a tough, determind Bond girl in Carole Bouquet as revenge obsessed Melina Havelock, and a collection of the usual nasty villains out to silence her. As Bernard Lee who had played M passed away during production, Broccoli in refusal to replace him filled in with the Bill Tanner character. For the next film, OCTOPUSSY, Robert Brown would take over the role.

THE ASSIGNMENT: The ST. GEORGES, a British electronic submarine disguised as a fishing boat, has been blown up in the Ionian Sea. On board is the valuable ATAC machine, which is a coded transmittor using ultra-low frequencies to order British submarines to launch ballistic missiles. If fallen into the wrong hands, submarines could be ordered to attack British cities leaving no chance of being manually countermanded. Bond's only lead: marine biologist Sir Timothy Havelock and his wife Iona were murdered while searching for the ATAC on behalf of the British. His killer, a Cuban hitman Hector Gonzales lives in Madrid. Bond pays his villa a visit, but before he can interrogate, Gonzales himself is killed by a crossbow bolt - from the Havelocks' daughter Milena who is on a revenge vendetta for their deaths. Bond and Milena quickly join forces, but not before Bond noticed Gonzales being paid for the job by a bespectacled man. If Bond can identify the man, he may still have a glimmer of hope.

THE VILLAINS: Julian Glover as Aristotle Kristatos, Michael Gothard as Emile Leopold Locque, John Wyman as muscular Eric Kriegler, (a very young) Charles Dance as Claus, Jack Klaff as Apostis, and Stefan Kalipha as Hector Gonzales.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED! BUY IT! ... Read more

Description

A comic, brutal and passionate take of greed and love in Victorian England. A top-notch cast of veteran actors and rising young newcomers shines in a lavish new British production of the Charles Dickens classic. The hero, a penniless young gentleman, struggles to make his way in the world and protect his mother and sister, meeting up with the worst and best of humanity along the way. Charles Dance (The Jewel in the Crown) stars as Ralph Nickleby, with James D'Arcy (Rebel Heart) as Nicholas and Sophia Myles (Mansfield Park) as his beautiful sister, Kate. Other standouts include Lee Ingleby (Ever After) as Smike, Nicholas' faithful companion, and Dominic West (28 Days) as the lecherous Sir Mulberry Hawk. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

truly entertaining
I've just seen this movie on Bravo. I don't own the dvd but I have every intention of getting it. I've read Nicholas Nickleby at least a dozen times and each time the story is well told. Even while watching it on Bravo, I felt a lump come into my throat for the sister and brother and anger rise up at the uncle and yes, even at the stupidity of the mother. When a movie can still draw you in like that (even when you know what to expect) then it is truly a superb movie with truly excellent acting. This is absolutely a keeper.

Excellent!
As of this writing I do not have the DVD, but I just watched this version on the Canadian Broadcast Company network, and I must say that I was thoroughly impressed. The casting, the costumes, the 'out of the book' quotes. They have truly accurately portrayed the Victorian era in all its splendor and wretchedness. There's not any bad that I can say about this movie. Ok, there IS one thing: the ending is narrated rather than played out. They could have easily made this one more half hour longer to put it over the top. The Scrooge-like uncle is played to perfection, so well, in fact, that one finds they'd probably rather be with old Ebenezer than Uncle Ralph. That's just one of the variety of characters that you would expect to see in a Dickens novel/movie. There are many more, of course (besides Nicholas Nickleby, who is quite the wallflower compared to nearly everyone else in the story).
When this movie is released on DVD shortly (by the time this is being read, it should already be available), you can bet I will spend my hard earned cash to purchase it!

Postscript: I now own the DVD and it is EXCELLENT! The picture quality is so much brighter and clearer than the broadcast version. And best of all, it's in the LETTER BOX format! Truly even better than I thought it would be!

A Degradation to Dickens
By in large, most of Charles Dickens' novels are dark, melancholy, and morbid. But the majority of them have an uplifting ending, and main characters above reproach. "Nicholas Nickleby" is one of his lesser-known volumes, falling to the back of the line in favor of "A Tale of Two Cities" and "David Copperfield." But it's also one of my personal favorites. Thus said, this Bravo adaptation follows it very closely... but I disliked intensely many of the scriptwriter's own "inventions" in dealing with the text. What bleeds through is a strong sexual undercurrent not present in the novel, as well as the defacing of several minor characters who made complete turnarounds in the novel by means of redeeming themselves.

The plot in novel form never comes across as being lecherous, even when dealing with Madeline Bray and the seventy-year-old swindler who wants to marry her for her money. Seeing him ogle her on the screen is much more disconcerting, as are the obvious sexual illusions, innuendo, and activity portrayed. Mr. and Mrs. Mantalini are all over each other, Mr. and Mrs. Squeers are constantly trading innuendo on jumping into bed at the earliest opportunity, and Sir Mulberry Hawke's advances toward Nicholas' sister Kate are much more lurid and offensive than in the book... like when he corners her against the pool table, puts his hand down her blouse, and then tries to force himself on her.

The acting is quite good, but the offensive elements for me weighed out the fact that this adaptation tries to be faithful to the text. It seems very cold and shallow without any great character development and the climax turns out slightly flat. I would encourage viewers to see the excellent 2002 adaptation by Douglas McGrath, which is all around more faithful to the spirit of Dickens, much less visually offensive, and far better produced.

The DVD is fair. The menu is nice, but includes virtually no extras except a photo gallery and menu selection. Since this was produced for TV, there's nothing glowing about the actual production itself. The darkness is slightly grainy, and some closeups seem a bit fuzzy.

Excellent Adaptation of Dicken's Classic
James D'arcy is perfectly cast in the title role as Nicholas Nickleby, a young, well-meaning but penniless gentleman who tries to earn an honest living to support his loving mother and sister who are dependent on him. First, he accepts a position as a teacher at a Yorkshire boarding school, not realising the horror that awaits him at the school run by the cruel Mr Squeers. When he could no longer endure the cruelty and atrocity inflicted by Squeers on the young children, he runs away from the school, followed by a boy (Smike) who has long suffered abuse and gross mistreatment at the hands of Squeers. Both Nicholas and Smike quickly become inseparable, loyal friends. By a strange chance, they go on to become actors at a small theatre run by the Crummles family. After being long separated from his mother and sister, Nicholas later leaves the theatre and makes a hasty return home to save his sister from a sinister plot cooked up by his evil uncle, Ralph Nickleby (played by Charles Dance). Ralph is a rich, old miser with a heart of stone who hates Nicholas intensely (mainly because he is jealous of Nicholas's youth and goodness of heart).

James D'arcy's "Nicholas" is endearing and wonderful to watch. If you are a female viewer, you will be most pleasantly surprised (and awed) by his uncommon good looks. He is so strikingly handsome and will make you swoon! He reminds me of a young Ralph Fiennes (the eyes and upper part of the face) and Ethan Hawke (the lower part of the face).

The beautiful Sophia Myles is also well cast as Nicholas's sister, Kate, a sweet and wholesome-looking girl who has to fend off unwanted male attentions wherever she goes.

The many supporting characters (queer, eccentric folks, all) help spice up the plot and inject much humour into the story. Most notably, the Squeers family (an incredibly obnoxious and hateful family), the Mantalinis (a lovey-dovey couple who runs a fashion house; but they fight a lot too), the Crummles family (who owns the theatre), the generous Cheeryble twin brothers, Newman Noggs (Ralph Nickleby's reluctant assistant) and Arthur Gride (a hideous-looking and repulsive old man who plots to marry the beautiful Madeline Bray who also happens to be the object of Nicholas's affection). My only complaint is that the actress who plays Madeline Bray has too much make-up on (her face is too thickly powdered and it shows because you see that her neck is tan). Also, the scarlet red lipstick is unsuitable for her character who is supposed to be a simple, poor girl who would not have the time, money nor inclination to buy or use make-up!

I feel this adaptation does good to leave out some of the minor characters from Dicken's novel because they do not serve the plot much, such as the large Kenwigs family and the madman who lives next door to Mrs Nickleby (Nicholas's mother). Otherwise, this production would be another hour long, at least.

I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation and would recommend it to all fans of high quality period drama.

Dickensenian Delight!
As this film so wonderfully illustrates, wealth and breeding are not necessarily accompaniments. The production itself, however, is a marvelous composition of both: a classily written rendition of the oft-told Victorian tale, richly replete with an amazing repertoire of actors who utterly pack each portrayal with charm, wit, and panache! The mood ranges from low-key pathos to manic buffoonery, the latter wrought by the gluttony, lust, and greed of what must be among the most scrumptiously scuzzy characters ever seen on the screen! Liz Smith in a familiar old-hag role and George Innes as a grubby lecher are definitely not to be missed! Throughout, Dickens' horrific vision of nineteenth-century poverty and child abuse is never compromised, and a number of the scenes are truly nightmarish in intensity. Particularly poignant is the portrayal of the waif Smike, brilliantly played by Lee Ingleby. Like an accomplished orchestra, the movie strikes the chord of every human emotion and is immensely enjoyable, enlightening, and uplifting! ... Read more

Reviews (56)

Not everyone's (British) cup of tea
When Hilary and Jackie opened, it caused a bit of controversy. Most movies about real life people usually do, unless everyone who knew then is dead. Some rather famous people said the story was not that accurate. I am not knowledgeable enough about the De Pres sisters to know the truth. I only know that what was written was turned into a fine movie.

Hilary and Jacqueline De Pres were too English sisters who were extraordinarily close when they were young. As adults, their lives took very different paths, which is what gives the movie much of its drama and pathos. Raised in a musical household, both showed great promise as children. Hilary learned to play the flute, while Jackie decided on an unlikely instrument, the cello. Both won numerous awards. As often happens, when they matured, only Jackie proved to have that true spark of genius it takes to become a world-class musician. After Jackie began to tour Europe, Hilary, not unhappily, opted for life in the country with her husband, who also loved music.

The film cleverly covers some key events by showing us both sisters' points of view. To Jackie, Hilary has used her gift to become selfish and distant. The love still exists, but barriers get built. What Jackie cannot see is that Hilary sees herself as enslaved to the cello. Anyone who has ever been obsessed with something can relate to this. In her hotel room, Jackie can get no rest useless she puts her cherished instrument in another room. One time she puts it on a balcony in the snow. Another time she leaves it in a taxi. Even with these efforts, it often plays a big role in her nightmares. The isolation Jackie feels on the road causes her to have times when she feels no one loves her. Ultimately, I think she believes that the cello, which she tried so hard to master in order to please her family, ends up causing her to be in some way cast off from her loved ones.

Hilary is jealous of Jackie's talent and fame, while Jackie is envious of her sister's normal, loving life. This is a fairly common theme in sibling rivalries, but it is especially painful when the bond between the sisters is so strong.

Jackie does marry the famous concert pianist Daniel Barenboim, but her insecurities get the best of her. In one pivotal scene in a European hotel suite, she asks Daniel if he would still love her if she lost her talent. He does not know how to respond, and she disappears. She runs to Hilary. Soon she asks for a very unusual favor, which I will not reveal here.

Much of the music in the movie are from works that made Hilary famous, and it is quite effective. As Hilary, Emily Watson was nominated for an Oscar. It is a stunning performance, one of the best of the decade. The entire cast is nearly perfect. Again, I am in awe of English actors as a whole. They don't often get to do it for the money, you know.

The ending is intense. It will remain with the viewer for some time. Hilary and Jackie is a must see for those believe that movies can occasionaly be an art form.

Absorbing, compelling, brilliant
This totally absorbing movie concerning the life of famous cellist Jacqueline duPré and those around her is based on the book written after her death by her siblings. It charts her life right from her very first performance to her untimely death, beginning with her childhood and then moving through to her adult years where Jackie (Watson) and close sister Hilary (Griffiths) head off their separate ways. The movie manages to sidestep Hollywood drama by giving an unbiased view of the troubled lives of the two sisters. For instance, one particularly affecting act by Jackie is backtracked so the audience gets to see what led her to it.

A great deal of its mesmerising quality comes from its two stars. Watson acts her socks off as the world-famous cellist and wisely chooses not to go for the audience's sympathy once her downfall begins. Griffiths is an utter revelation, in a role completely different to that which she played in 'Muriel's Wedding'. She is understated and manages to create a character full with emotional vulnerability but also brimming with fantastic strength. To add to this, the supporting cast don't put a foot wrong.

The cello performances are never less than astounding and really bring to the limelight just how talented Jacqueline duPré was. However, it is its depiction of two sisters side-by-side is beautiful and its message that fame isn't everything is subtly stated. The contrasts between the two women, ironically both searching for the same thing yet finding it in different places, are beautifully done. The same can be said for the film's question of whether life is about settling for the best alternative or whether that elusive dream should always be chased. Without doubt this is not only one of the best British movies in years but also something that redeems the true-life drama.

Standing Ovation
Simply brilliant. The acting is dead-on and the telling of the story is creative and fair. I simply love the way we see the sister relationship from both perspectives. It's a beautiful film and the music has stayed with me for years.

Highest recommendation.

It's a movie, folks
I think that many reviewers are hung up on who the real Jacqueline duPre was and therefore do not appreciate the films numerous redeeming qualities and instead concentrate on Emily Watson's cello-playing. The film is deeply moving, superbly acted, and, more than anything, succeeds as a work of art. I'm sorry I am being so vague about it, but I haven't seen the film in a few years and anyway there are enough plot synopses here to get you through. My recommendation is that you watch this film. (If it means anything, I am a 3rd year male college student, and my musical background is limited to playing the clarinet for only about nine years, so I am no authority on the cello. But this movie really isn't about playing the cello. I wish some people would understand that.)

Gravely disappointing
I just didn't buy the premise of this movie, painting Hilary as long-suffering and Jackie as capricious. There was very little indication of what made her the great musician that she was. The whole family was a little sick, but I think Hilary was the really certifiable one. I have always loved Emily Watson, but this performance was not among her best. The mimed cello playing was unconvincing. The fox-like Rachel Griffiths had some moving scenes, but this seemed like a self-serving attempt of an ordinary soul to "set the record straight" about her brilliant sister. The movie also suffered from inept concert sequences and the usual misguided cinematic attempts to portray the life of classical musicians. The whole thing left a profoundly sour taste in my mouth. Why not look at a video of Du Pre performing to cleanse the palate? ... Read more

Description

1911 London is the setting for this dark drama of sexual obsession and murder. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Based on Fact!
Dr Joseph Bell was a real person, and was a profound influence on the young Conan Doyle in medical school. Bell's approach to problem solving was by method of deductive reasoning. See the book "Doctor Joe Bell: Model for Sherlock Holmes" by Ely Liebow, Professor of English at Northeastern Illinois University. This fascinating book is available on Amazon, but is pricey as it was privately printed. Dr Liebow's personal page is at www.neiu.edu/~edepartm/dep/profs/liebow.htm.

agreed
i agree with the rest of the reviews this is an excellect movie
series i have seem them all and went looking for them to find out the rest have not yet been release as of yet and its a series i cant wait to get them all i hope its soon to me this comes close to basil rathbone sherlock holmes.

A hidden gem. DVD and movie. But what about the rest?
DVD - Video is clear and crisp. Colors are bright (for a Victorian subject) and don't bleed. The audio is clean.

The MOVIE- My biggest complaint is that they haven't released the rest. If you like mysteries in general, or Sherlock Holmes specifically, then you'll find Dr. Bell & Mr. Doyle a great little film. I found the whole premise of the origins of the idea of the Holmes character to be great plot. The acting is wonderful.

I'd pick this up before someone gets the bright idea to put it out of print.

Essential for any mystery lover's collection
American viewers may not realize that this offering is but the first in a series (the only one available in NTSC format so far, the rest being in PAL) called the "Murder Rooms" series. Subsequent titles include "The Photographer's Chair", "The White Knight Stratagem", "The Kingdom of Bones", "The Patient's Eyes", and perhaps more (?), starring the inimitable Ian Richardson. For those who like David Suchet's Poirot series, and Jeremy Brett's Holmes series, this series is absolutely stunning and mandatory!! Any good DVD mystery library is severely deficient without these episodes! This reviewer has finally thrown in the towel and purchased complete PAL-compatible equipment since there are so many such riches in the British PAL/DVD world that are simply unattainable in the USA. This matter could be the subject of a truly wild rant by this reviewer, the NTSC available-title crap-factor index being so high while so much other great material on both sides of the pond goes begging!

This episode deals with the young Arthur Conan Doyle (Robin Laing) as a medical student, who must perforce, with considerable trepidation, take a mandatory course from a certain Dr. Joseph Bell (Ian Richardson). It seems Dr. Bell has a notorious reputation amongst the medical students as a quite idiosyncratic, difficult and perhaps too challenging tutor and instructor. In this opening sequence, several of Dr. Bell's students are mystified by what they perceive as his strange nocturnal disappearances. One of them, the young Doyle and protagonist of this episode, surreptitiously follows Bell one night on such an errand. The result is that Bell catches the young Doyle in the act and subsequently "drafts" him as his "clerk" into these night-time escapades. It seems the good doctor, as a master of logic, deduction and diagnosis, is trying to unravel various crimes for the Crown which he feels are getting short shrift by those charged to investigate such matters. This story follows the unraveling of several inter-related murders by an apparent serial murderer.

The real-life Dr. Joseph Bell is alleged as the historical personage on whom Sir Arthur Conan Doyle modeled his Sherlock Holmes character, with the young Doyle himself being the archetypal Watson. Ian Richardson is truly superb as the good doctor, a pioneer forensic pathologist who took up crime investigation and related matters in his free time when he wasn't busy teaching during the day. This episode, set in 1878 Edinburgh, is extremely rich in Victorian period lore, full of subplots like the homeless, the struggling women's rights movement, the sub-citizen status given to prostitutes' rights, and police incompetence. This reviewer is not familiar with Sir Arthur's biography (but see below), so cannot judge the factual merits of the material presented here. But such accuracy would be totally irrelevant to the enjoyment of this rousing good story.

B.F.S. Video's color picture and Dolby digital sound are excellent for this BBC production. There is a great set of easily accessed and read special feature stills, including a multi-screen Doyle biography, a list of his selected works, multi-screen cast profiles, and multi-screen production notes. The 116-minute production is highly recommended along with the rest of the series if you can get them!

The game's afoot
I bought this DVD primarily because of Ian Richardson, who was so excellent in the "House of Cards" trilogy. Although this subsequent effort doesn't provide Richardson with as delightfully colorful a role, it's quite interesting in its own right.

The film -- which is directed by Paul Seed, who helmed the first two "House of Card" installments -- takes the facts of Arthur Conan Doyle's early life and adds a bit of conjecture to forge a convincing mystery. It's very well done, and the viewer is expertly manipulated into jumping to wrong conclusions in order to stay surprised at the end.

What gives the film added depth is the sense of period it gives, as well as the historical perspective on forensic investigation. And Doyle fans will enjoy seeing the parallels between Dr. Bell and Sherlock Holmes.

Anyone with an interest in any of the above will find this DVD worth getting. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The tragic history of Henry VIII get a brash, full-blooded treatment in this well-cast, two-part production for British TV. Having made a vicious impression in the acclaimed 2000 gangster film Sexy Beast, Ray Winstone plays Henry as a self-doubting, insecure brute with base instincts and a healthy suspicion toward his not-so-loyal subjects. Director Pete Travis and writer Peter Morgan can be forgiven for neglecting the greater scope of history; by leaving epic battles off-screen and focusing on the intrigues and betrayals surrounding Henry's infamous succession of six ill-fated wives, this authentic-looking melodrama succeeds as a tightly paced study of hidden agendas among the King's immediate staff. In a story that involves religious upheaval, infidelity, courtly corruption, and Henry's anguished obsession to sire a male heir to the throne, Helena Bonham Carter (as Anne Boleyn) is an obvious stand-out in an excellent cast that includes Charles Dance, David Suchet, and Sean Bean, while Winstone's volatile Cockney bearishness drew mild objections from royal-drama purists. The film doesn't flinch from the brutality of the early 1500s when Henry reigned with an iron fist (including several beheadings to drive the point home), so this Henry VIII is not for kids or the faint of heart. Taken on its own terms, however, it's a rich, irresistible example of superior British filmmaking. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (254)

It isn't as bad as everybody would have you believe. Really.
There isn't many people who like this film. Honestly, when I first saw it: I was like, "What the eff?!" But upon subsequent viewings, I became somewhat enamored with director David Fincher's style; he has since gone to notable films, SEVEN and THE GAME.

In a nutshell, ALIEN3 more or less negates everything Jim Cameron had established in ALIENS, and if you view this movie as a sequel you're gearing yourself up for disappointment. However, if you view this film as a science fiction piece with none-too-subtle religious undertones then you might be surprised to find yourself in for quite a ride.

The look of the film, the trademarked beautiful Aliens grunge, in pulled off quite well. The characters (mostly bald White guys with Brit accents) are a little hard to decipher to the passive viewer, but are quite earnest in their acting. Charles Dance and Charles S. Dutton provide some pretty cool roles (if a little heavy-handed in the latter case).

The religious undertones are there; and they may offend some ardent Bible-thumpers (I'm talking about the Christ-like death sequence)--but it's a nice change of pace for the ALIEN films. The first was horror. Second, war. Why not have the third be 'bout religion?

I think it works; but, hey, different squids for different kids (thanks, Steve, for that phrase). All in all: great cinematography, passable performances with a few gems, laughable story, 'bout two hours of late night or Sunday afternoon