Reviews (110)

one the definitive films of the '80s finally on DVD!
WALL STREET has always been one of my favourite Oliver Stone films. it crackles with the same intense, acerbic dialogue as SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS. from his "Greed is good" speech to the way he handles day to day deals with ruthless efficiency, you can see how Michael Douglas nailed this role of the ultimate amoral insider and deservedly won the Oscar that year for Best Actor.

after watching this film on a crappy pan and scam VHS tape, it is so gratifying to finally see this film given a proper DVD treatment. the transfer is crisp and clear with good sound but the real selling points are the fascinating documentary -- which features Douglas and Charlie Sheen and their views and thoughts of the film after all this time -- and Stone's informative and candid audio commentary. for someone like myself who has seen this film a zillion times, listening to Stone's observations on his movie was a real treat. great stuff. along with GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, this is one of THE best films about money, greed and the people who ruthlessly pursue it.

'Gekko the Great'
Real-life bigtime investment banker Jeff Beck not only advised Oliver Stone when he made 'Wallstreet' but also stars in this film for a few minutes playing himself at a climactic meeting of topdog-lawyers and bankers. He delivers one of the many exhilirating monologues in this Epic tale of greed, pride and innocense lost. "Now your boss will really start thinking he's Gekko the Great!" He shouts at Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) who plays a struggling young stockbroker who's desperately trying to get on the fast-track to becoming a "player".

Michael Douglas who plays 'Gordon Gekko' (not 'Gecko' as the Amazon review suggests, the name can be seen in the scene where Charlie Sheen turns on his computer in the morning and finds out it's "Gekko's Birthday") puts on such a mindblowing performance he really can be dubbed 'Gekko the Great'. The character is right up there with Don Vito Corleone, Tony Montana, Popeye Doyle and some other members of that elite group of high-octane male movie-characters that will long outlive the actors that created them.

Gordon Gekko is a high profile corporate raider that was probably modeled after Ivan Boesky (the biggest corporate raider of the 80's who eventually went behind bars for insider-trading), Michael Milken (creator and unchallenged 80's king of the high yield or junk-bond) and John Guttfreund (CEO of Salomon Brothers in the 80's who'se extravert and bizarre behaviour is documented in the classic books "Liar's Poker" (Michael Lewis) and "Barbarians at the Gate" (John Helyar).

Michael Douglas seems to have been born to play this part and from the moment he is introduced ("Lunch? whaddaya kiddin' me, lunch is for wimps!") to the moment we viewers have to part from his hypnotic character ("I gave you Darian, I gave you everything!") he reduces any leaps of faith that his character may present us with to tiny hops due to his powerhouse presence. In fact, whenever I see Michael Douglas in another movie I have the strange feeling that Gordon Gekko is trapped inside and might burst out at any time to hose us down with sardonic one-liners. ("Love is just an old lie created to keep people from jumping out of windows.")

Gekko is truly the "mother of all high-rollers", and his performance alone more than warrants the purchase of this film.

Charles Sheen plays a believable 'Bud Fox' but one wonders what a late 80's Tom Cruise or Kiefer Sutherland might have done with the part. Charlie never really creates the electricity that Douglas shocks the audience with.

I won't get into the details of the story here but will post some comments on the general themes in the movie.

There's the theme that Stone had already explored in 'Platoon' of two fathers fighting for the soul of their son. In Platoon it was Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe battling for custody of Charlie Sheen's spirit. In Wallstreet it's Douglas and Martin Sheen representing the 'exciting but evil' and 'wholesome but tedious' ways to go for Charlie Sheen's character. This theme introduces some good tension in the storytelling.

The other theme that Stone put into this narrative is the bleeding heart "Capitalism is bad and unfair" jingle. "I don't produce anything...I own..." Gekko confesses at one point. "How many boats to waterski behind do you need? When is it enough?!" cries a shocked Bud Fox. The moral comments on succesful capitalists come accros somewhat naive and in my opinion don't really work. I won't go into the details but most people I've met who've seen the movie don't even remember what it was about Gordon Gekko that was so wrong. All they remember is the classic "Greed is Good" speech and ironically most of them agree with Gekko on the issue. The fact that Oliver Stone lets Gekko initiate industrial espionage is the reason I gave the movie only four stars instead of five.

I personnaly think this was a real blooper. A man in Gekko's position doesn't need the aggravation of blatantly breakin the law. There's a good plot-line concerning a fictive company 'Bluestar Airlines' that Gekko has his own plans with to make himself rich and get scores of hard working people fired that adds enough suspense to the tale. It seems as though Stone was so set on painting a negative picture of egoistical an a-moral Wallstreeters that he went one bridge too far.

Fact is that, if anything, this movie is like a recruiting video for Investment Banking. What "Top Gun" did for Naval Aviation "Wall Street" has done for Investment Banking. Big corporate banks have never had to complain about the amount of interested well educated young hopefulls but nowadays there's probably not one person sitting in any dealing room anywhere in the world who has not seen Wall Street. I am currently a trader in Amsterdam and I am convinced that if it wasn't for the scenes that have the camera following runners and stressed out yuppies yelling "How about those september 40's!" I wouldn't have been in this racket.

The dealing room-scenes are some of the most exhilirating scenes in the history of cinematography. Spielberg sucked in audiences with his scenes of Normandy's beaches in '44. Stone creates the same spellbinding grip on the audience without getting anybody shot or brutally maimed. That alone is a great achievement for any director in Hollywood. More so for the man who made a career in gory cinematic violence with 'Scarface', 'Platoon' and 'Natural Born Killers'.

Al Hail Gekko the Great! See this movie again and again. It's full of catchy one-liners that will make you not only the toast of any party but might provide you with more of an energy boost than any Tony Robbins video ever will. "Life all comes down to a few moments...this is one of them."

One of the Best Movies of the 1980's
Oliver Stone will never be known for subtlety. "Wall Street" bashes you over the head with its message- getting to the top in society requires duplicity, dishonesty, and the willingness to destroy any obstacle. However, unlike Ayn Rand, Stone vilifies rather than lauds this dubious morality. Bud Fox is a fresh faced, innocent stock broker trying to get ahead through hard work and elbow grease, as he was taught by his father. Bud soon meets powerful, charismatic corporate raider Gordon Gekko, incapable of love, remorse, or empathy. Gekko, we are told, sold NASA short 15 minutes after the Challenger exploded (impossible since the shuttle was destroyed in 1986 and the film is set in 1985!). Gekko predictably seduces Bud with his world of "perks", and Bud's star rises dramatically the farther he falls into corruption.

Throughout the film, Bud serves as a sounding board for the rival values of Gekko and his father. The speech most cited by critics and fans is the immortal "Greed is Good" monologue. While this speech, standing alone, is a vigorous defense of capitalism and selfishness, it is important to note that Gekko is using it at a shareholders' meeting against a lousy, entrenched, and greedy management!

Inevitably, Bud is forced to decide whether to follow his father's philosophy or Gekko's, and to pay the price for his misdeeds. A slight complaint with the ending- the fate of Gekko is hinted at rather than displayed. Gordon Gekko has become something of a hero for young, wanna-be big shots, who are attracted to the glamour of his lifestyle and his "up your's, I got mine!" attitude much as Bud was. Perhaps seeing Gekko get his comeuppance could have made an impression.

Overall, Wall Street is a tight, well done character drama populated with iconic characters delivering iconic dialogue that acts as an indictment of a decade. The movie and its message will stay with you long after viewing it.

As for the DVD, the sound, although in 5.1, is relegated almost exclusively to the center channel. One does not hear the sounds of Manhattan from all directions as Bud navigates the concrete jungle. The video quality appears grainy in some areas. This is a great movie worthy of better treatment on DVD.

Good.
'Wall Street' was a good movie, although once again, Oliver Stone goes way over the top. Powerful speech about greed by Michael Douglas though.

My favourite movie
I found this movie to be fantastic. I loved every minute of it. Most of this movie seemed to tie in with politics. Being a conservative, I found this very interesting. The plot of millionare Gordon Gekko followed along the ways life should be lived. Greed, power, and self-confidence.

Revenge was another big part in this movie. I liked how Charlie
Sheen played his role of Bud Fox. Towards the end the focus was to screw over Gekko and to have sweet revenge.

From this movie came my favourite quote of all:
"... greed, for the lack of a better word , is good. Greed is right, Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essense of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all its forms-greed for life, for money, knowledge has marked an upward surge of mankind..."

I'm not sure that my way is the way that Oliver Stone intended his movie to be interpereted. Oh well, I don't necessarilly care. Greed is Good! ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Good, but bogged down slightly
This was an enjoyable movie, but unfortunately it had many, many plot holes that made liking it difficult.

A spy-movie-enthralled young woman named Linda Voss ("half Jewish, half Irish") gets a job with a man named Ed Leland whom she suspects is a spy. Before long, they are lovers, but their budding relationship is dashed by World War II. Before you can say "Berlin strudel" she's whisked off to Germany as an undercover operative, to discover secret plans in the house of a handsome and sympathetic Nazi (the always-good Liam Neeson)

One of the problems is Melanie Griffith. She might be good in other roles, but as Voss she fails. Voss comes across as amazingly lucky and none too intelligent, constantly licking her lips in a very distracting way. Michael Douglas is completely convincing as Ed Leland, although he looks slightly embarrassed sometimes. Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson are excellent in their smaller roles.

Second problem is the attitude of the heroes. When Voss does not show up in time for the rendezvous, Leland disregards orders in favor of carrying her to the Swiss Border. Though it may seem heartless, an actual spy would have followed his orders and left Voss to die. In fact, we see the evidently smarter Germans such as Neeson's Dietrich and Richardson's Margrete following their orders despite their personal feelings about Voss.

Watch the movie if you are interested, but do not expect great accuracy.

A good comedy -- a bad war drama
I think I might have enjoyed "Shining Through" more if I'd been drunk. This movie is a fantastic ensemble comedy, but I don't think they were trying to make one! The only redeeming points of the movie were Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson's performances as a pair of Nazis.

Melanie Griffith plays Linda Voss, a young woman of mixed Irish and Jewish ancestry in World War II. Because of her linguistic skills, she's hired as a translator for Ed Leland (Michael Douglas), who works for the government as a spy (he keeps denying it, but she's seen movies so she knows better!). They become lovers, until his work comes between them. But no sooner have they been reunited than a spy is needed to sneak into Germany to find some bomb-related plans.

She's accompanied into Germany by Konrad "Sunflower" Friedrichs (Sir John Gielgud, who looks like he's always thinking "What am I doing in this movie?") and his niece Margrete Von Eberstein (Joely Richardson). Her position as a chef blows up on the first night, and she quickly finds herself hired as a nanny by elite Nazi official Franz-Otto Dietrich (Liam Neeson, Richardson's now-brother-in-law). And now that she's inside his house, she has only a limited amount of time to find the plans.

I don't think the people who made this movie wanted me to like the Nazis more than the Americans, but unfortunately the Nazis are a lot more likeable. Richardson comes across as competant and multifaceted, divided in her loyalties; Neeson comes across as a loving father, a nice sensitive guy (we don't ever hear of him actually doing anything bad!) with big puppy-dog eyes. Frankly it's hard not to like him, especially compared to the insensitive clod Leland. Douglas looks unhappy and embarrassed all throughout the movie, he's as stiff and cold as a pine board, and Griffith's performance is the stuff of nightmares.

It doesn't help that the best description of Linda is "ditzy blonde." She gets all her info about spies from movies, whines when Douglas goes on missions, and thinks she's qualified to be a spy because she can make strudel. (In one scene she runs through a crowded street chanting a secret password out loud!) She also mouths off to everyone in a way that would not be tolerated in a mere secretary (prepare to cringe when she says "My other half's Irish"), and bungles everything spy-related.

I would say this is a movie best shown to young children but there's a fair amount of profanity, violence, and a detailed sex scene. The direction is pretty terrible -- you'd think WWII included only a handful of people. The Nazis have none of the casual amorality that the real people did. There are one or two creepy, freaky moments that work, like the German woman who exults that the house they took from a Jewish family had everything they wanted (even bedsheets with correct monograms), but they're few and far between. If they'd had Dietrich doing something, anything wrong, then it might have worked. There are a few moments of intentional comedy ("That pompous little (butt) ate a raw bird to prove it was edible!") but most of the comedy is totally accidental. ("What's a war for if not to hold on to what we love?" Gaaaaaggg!)

I only can recommend this to fans of Joely and Liam, because they are the only ones who actually have good roles to play. "Schindler's List" this ain't!

Shining Through
If it were possible to give this movie a six star rating, I would. Besides being a GREAT movie, the soundtrack helps push this movie to more enjoyment. Moonlight Serenade, I'll Be seeing You, Goodnight Sweetheart and the main musical score lingers pleasantly in your mind long after the movie ends. I recommend it to all who has ever been in love.

Rips the emotional guts from the book
I have a hard time liking this movie because it made such a travesty of Susan Isaacs' book. The book, as originally written, was a classic ugly duckling-to-swan story set in New York, Washington, and Germany during World War II. Linda Voss, the character played by Melanie Griffith, was a working class girl in love with and eventually married to her gorgeous cad of a boss. She had the brains; he had the social cachet. They move to Washington, she gets a job as secretary to a top intelligence agent (played by Michael Douglas), the marriage founders, and in despair she signs up as an undercover agent. The rest of the movie follows the book's plot fairly closely, although the Douglas character does NOT figure in as a romantic interest until the very end. In the book, he's Linda's unexpected reward--pure gold where her husband was only gold-plated. The movie, by simplifying the story, guts its emotional core and turns a contemporary fairy tale into your basic trite Hollywood production--glitzy but without a heart.

That said, there are some strong performances in the movie. Douglas's stiffness makes much more sense in the context of the book, but doesn't work in the movie as filmed. Griffith is Griffith--you either love her or hate her. Liam Neeson is good, as is Joely Richardson (although the "Mein Gott, you have guts" line is a bit over the top). There are some suspenseful moments in the scenes in Nazi Germany. At times the movie's enjoyable, but overall, it disappoints.

Excellent film, with excellent acting!
I have loved this film since I saw it when it first came out on VHS! In fact, I watched it so many times that I ruined the tape. The story is engrossing, and the acting is top-notch! The obvious chemistry between Melanie Griffith and Michael Douglas made the film so much more realistic. I can't say enough good things about it. I am eagerly anticipating the film's release on DVD so I can add it to my growing collection of excellent films. ... Read more

Reviews (116)

Makes me happy every time!
This is an all time favorite of mine and absolutely guaranteed to lift my spirits each time I watch it.

Michael Douglas plays somewhat against his usual type as a likeable, widowed, well-meaning single father who is also the President of the United States, Andrew Shepherd. He becomes romantically interested in an environmental lobbyist, Sidney Ellen Wade (Annette Benning) which turns out to cause a lot of problems for both of them.

These two high-powered actors manage to humanize their characters into ordinary, likable people who are just trying to fall in love despite unbelievable opulence of surroundings, ugly political maneuvering and living inside a media fishbowl of publicity. Along the way, there are plenty of funny, heartwarming moments including a couple of very funny telephone calls. (Imagine what YOU would do if you suddenly received a call from someone who claimed to be the President of the United States)

David Paymer, Michael J. Fox and Martin Sheen are excellent in their supporting roles as advisors to the President and Shawna Waldron is wonderful as the 1st daughter.

If you love humorous dialog, beautiful, nearly fairy-tale settings and happy endings, be sure to see this movie. You won't be disappointed.

A fireball of fun from the start
Who would think that widower Andrew Sheppard's (Michael Douglas)decision to date Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening) would cause such a scandal? Normally that wouldn't make every news reporter jump. Except when Andrew Sheppard happens to be the President of the United States and Sydney Ellen Wade is a liberal lobbyist. And did I mention that it is an election year?

As President Sheppard's character ratings falling from personal best 68% to the low 40's, his interests become torn between the crime bill (his top priority) and Sydney's-passing Energy Bill 455. And it is up to the White House staff members A.J. MacInnerey (Martin Sheen), Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox), Leon Kodak (David Paymer), Robin McCall(Anna Deavere Smith) to help him maintain focus against his rival, Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss)

Filled with humor and unforgettable moments, you will not be able to watch The American President just once. The word 'charming' does not do enough justice to this wonderful piece of work.

Just Average...
I found this film to be just average. The story is nice, but a little unbelievable and very predictable. These films are usually my type, but for some reason, this one didn't do anything for me.

ALL GLORY TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!!
TAKE THAT YOU BABY EATING REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SAME GOES TO YOU THIRD PARTY MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY YOU NUTTY, COMMUNIST LIBERATARIANS AND 'INDEPENDENT' VOTERS, MOST OF WHOM MOST LIKELY EAT BABIES AS WELL!!!!!!!! HURRAY FOR ENVIRONMENTALISM!!!!!!!!! HURRAY FOR HUGE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!! HURRAY FOR HIGH TAXES!!!!!!! HURRAY FOR THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT!!!!!!

I love the President!
I absolutely loved "The American President"! I thought all characters and the plot was great, as well as being written with humour and intelligence! Great acting, and wow is Michael Douglass a good president, not to mention a hunk! I'd certainly vote for him! ... Read more

Reviews (31)

The Nightmare Divorce: A Dark Comedy
The 1989 film "War Of The Roses" was the product of Danny Devito who conceived the idea. He directed the film and it stars Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas. Their relationship in the film is nothing like their earlier partnership in Romancing The Stone. Here, the Roses are at war, in a modern parody of the historic British War Of The Roses, Tudors and Stuarts whose emblems were white and red roses. They are fabulously rich, they met traveling foreign lands and buying antiques. She's an experienced gymnist and he's a wealthy executive. Eventually, their love life and marriage falls apart and a divorce, long-lived and bitter, ensues.

The entire film is about that terrible divorce. It's a bit of a downer for happily married couples but it's still an enjoyable film as far as social satire and dark comedy. It's not really possible for any couple to conduct their divorce in the spiteful, nasty way these two go at it. Michael Douglas ruins his wife's dinner party, runs over her cat, and later Douglas eats his own dog which she had made into dinner. Their fighting becomes an all-out war, enacted inside their million dollar estate. At one point, they are hanging for dear life on a chandelier. Danny DeVito plays the lawyer and he is delivering absolute comedy. Remember, DaVito was a great choice for comic roles. Does anyone remember his partnership with Arnold Schwartznegger in the movie Twins ??

Terrific black comedy!
It`s a delight to see Michael Douglas,Kathleen Turner and Danny DeVito for the third time (all 3 started before in ROMANCING THE STONE and THE JEWEL OF THE NILE) in this winning black comedy about a marriage that disintergrates at high speed.To elaborate,the plot consists of Oliver and Barbara Rose(Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner)a couple determined to make the best out of life.They marry,have kids and buy a nice home.After some time,little arguments begin to turn into BIG trouble.They both agree on a divorce.But there`s just a little problem.BOTH of them want their luxurious house!The fights are farfetched and Oliver and Barbara are very stubborn and will stop at nothing to win the house.Grabs your attention from start to finish.surprising .Danny DeVito is perfect as the lawyer who defends Oliver during the battle.As a director,DeVito is simply terrific.He did an amazing job with THE WAR OF THE ROSES.Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner deliver excellent performances as well.Good job!Simply a winner!

Good DVD of an under-appreciated film
While critics (and audiences) were somewhat lukewarm in their response to this film when it was first released, I enjoyed it. Although it's a "black comedy", it never veers too far into total comedy or total darkness. DeVito's narration helps to hold the film together and keeps it from degenerating into a series of mind-numbing retaliations. The film is visually appealing, with interesting camera angles and a solid sense of composition that is often lacking in comedies. The movie has held up well and does not appear as dated as many films from the same time.

Douglas plays his role of a rather self-important and arrogant know-it-all quite well, and Turner is equally convincing as she exhibits growing distaste for him.

The DVD has a very good video transfer. The sound is surprisingly good for a 2-channel source, with reasonably good directionality in the front speakers.

There's a montage of deleted scenes that are arranged in chronological order so that it's easy for the viewer to mentally insert them in their proper place in the film. Unlike some deleted scenes, these have the same video and audio quality as the film itself.

Overall, this is a nicely done DVD of an under-appreciated film.

4.5 stars, really. I love black comedies!
I won't rehash the plot. It's simply a wonderfully observed crumbling of a marriage probably never built on the healthiest of foundations in the first place. One could say that the movie is perhaps an indictment of materialism, where we see Kathleen Turner's character finally turning bitter when she's done all the decorating she can, and Michael Douglas is too busy earning money to care that his wife is feeling empty now. Whose fault is it that the marriage is a shambles? Did Douglas continue to quest for more and more money to make himself feel good about himself and to keep his wife happy...and did she encourage it but continuing to spend, spend, spend? And when the ruins are revealed, it isn't emotional territory, as such, that they fight over, but the material goods that have come to represent emotional attachment for them.

All that may be, but what is so great about the movie is its unrelenting viciousness once the barbs start flying. When Turner tells Douglas she had to pull off to the side of the road when she thought he might be dieing from a heart attack because "she was happy" he might pass away...wow, if that ain't a slap in the face??

It's interesting that Turner is really the hard case in this. Douglas keeps saying that he's still in love with her. He keeps softening towards Turner, and she rebuffs him with her jaw set more and more firmly. Yet, is he really in love with her, or just feels he can "get her back" to put back on his trophy case. He probably doesn't know either...combination of the two, I'd say.

The movie is keenly observed, and the lead performances are flawless,really. Our sympathies bounce back and forth, back and forth all the time. And because we're watching a glossy Hollywood movie, in the back of our minds, we're expecting it all to turn out OKAY. Sure, they say things and do things no human can be forgiven for, but what the heck...it's a movie. I congratulate all involved for having the courage of their convictions. This is a BLACK comedy in all the best ways. The final action Turner takes with Douglas, as they lay side by side, is PERFECT!! I hadn't seen the movie in years until the other day, but many of her comments and actions were burned in my memory. These two actors had such great chemistry. A reteaming, even after all these years, might be fun.

Anyway, my one gripe about the movie is the role of "narrator" that DeVito plays. He's an attorney (and partner of Douglas'), who, in his scenes WITH Douglas, is quite amusing. But he also interjects little comments from time to time as he is retelling the story of the Roses to a prospective client. The tone of these scenes is unconvincing, DeVito does a terrible job of smoking (don't ask), and they add nothing to our appreciation of the "message." Maybe the movie wasn't long enough without these scenes...but I could sure do without them.

By the way,the DVD has a montage of deleted scenes, "hosted" by DeVito. It's worth watching, right through to the end, because DeVito (and his wife, Rhea Pearlman) have a very brief but delightful "scene" at the conclusion.

This is a great movie, and a lost treasure, in many ways, because so few people gave it a try when it came out. It still holds quite true today, I think, and despite the slightly outdated fashions in the film, remains timeless.

Entertainingly Tragic Comedy of the Eighties
Excellent and entertaining comedy, packed in a good DVD (including over half-an-hour of cut-out material), but the end is rather tragic.

The movie abounds with implicit (but subtle) cliches such as :

- Women are usually more downright materialistic than men are, and also have a way of getting their fair advantage out of it.
- Husbands are often rude to their wives in public, without even taking the slightest notice of it.
- Sex is typically an object of pure consumption for males, whereas for women sex is more than often just one of many different ways to an end.
- Husbands often end-up as being dominant dog-people, whereas women ususally tend to become emancipated cat-people.
- Outbound marital faithfulness are typical male attributes, whereas down-to-earth conjugal opportunism and emotional realism are more feminine qualities.
- Love, pride and ego are things that cannot be parted in a husband's often confused and puzzled mind, whereas for a woman, a husband's love ususally remains a very abstract concept.
- Husbands are totally irrealistic about the emotional situation and level of personal satisfaction of their wives, like they were living or floating in a world of their own, in an abstract historic reality as to the present state of their marriage.
- For most if not all males, love implies appropriation and possession, and a married wife is most often like a personal investment, an item which cannot be lost under any circumstances, whereas for women, engaging in marriage most often just seems to be just the most attractive option amongst many others, that is at least at the time they want to, a.k.a. aggree to or consent to getting married.
- Whereas the sexual drive is usually sufficient to channel enough of the man's attention and concern to his wife in the early stages of marriage, this drive is usually quickly enough superseded by other things like a carreer, a hobby, which usually end up getting the best of a man's attention and energy. To this trend of things, the wife consents and even tries to collaborate, untill she realizes that she has absolutely no place in them, finds herself as being just another part of the home furniture, which tends to further exacerbate her materialism, and so forth, in a circle which you might call either vicious or virtuous...

Although these cliches make the movie likeable to a very wide (presumably male) audience, the movie is also an intelligent and realistic presentation of the different evolutionary stages of a married couple, i.e. meeting, getting married, having children, building up a carreer, buying a house, undergoing mid-life crisis, etc.

Marriage and divorce statistics amply prove that married couples seldom have the ressources to overcome the latter evolutionary stages of their marriages (grown up children, crippled libido, etc.), so this movie is another rather caustic, abstract and hyperbolic way of showing how far things can go wrong, when they go wrong, as they usually do, one way or another... De Vito's explicit commentaries are here very welcome, as they provide some kind of a flash-back through a third-party, allowing for a more distanced observation by avoiding a first-degree identification to participants and scenes which are often rather dark, and at times quite brutal. So keep in mind: ONCE IN A LIFETIME COMES A MOTION PICTURE THAT MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE FALLING IN LOVE AGAIN. THIS IS NOT THAT MOVIE. The eighties was the decade of sweeping demystifications. This movie is part of it. ... Read more

Reviews (162)

Gordon Gekko gets his comeuppance--big time!!!
Less than a full year before A PERFECT MURDER (1998) was released, Michael Douglas starred in THE GAME (1997), which is not simply a Michael Douglas movie, it's a David Fincher film-and you know what that means! From a screenplay by John D. Brancato & Michael Ferris, THE GAME is classic Fincher: dark, mysterious and with a constant sense of brooding danger in which lets you know that somehow, somewhere, something is not quite kosher.

In THE GAME, Douglas is Nicholas Van Orton; a man of great wealth and power and totally devoid of any human compassion (as evidenced by the cold and callous way in which he fires a longtime employee). If this sounds like Gordon Gekko to you, it's because Michael Douglas, at this stage in his career, plays cold callousness like no one else. Call it typecasting; I call it brilliant acting ability and being smart enough to stick with what works. However, Gordon Gekko in the legendary Oliver Stone-directed WALL STREET (1987) didn't have a younger brother; Nicholas Van Orton does. On Nick's 48th birthday (the same age at which his father died, hint hint), his black-sheep-of-the-family brother Conrad, as brilliantly played by Sean Penn, visits him in his sprawling, cherry-wood office and hands his older sibling his birthday present: a business card with the name Consumer Recreation Services (CRS) on it. "What is this," Nicholas cynically asks. The sly answer given by Penn is one of my favorite lines in the film, and one that tells us that his elder bro's life will never be the same, once he begins to play THE GAME.

Along the way, Nicholas Van Orton encounters CRS and its primary spokesman (or so he thinks) Jim Feingold (played with disarming confidence by character actor James Rebhorn), a mouthy cocktail waitress (Deborah Kara Unger) who seems to hold the secret to THE GAME, and a spooky-looking full-size inanimate clown who appears to watch everything he does. Also along the way are near-brushes with death that culminate with Conrad Van Orton's tearful admission that he "didn't know what the $#@! he had gotten them into" when he had signed his brother up for THE GAME. But that's still just the beginning...

Everyone is superbly cast in this film, including BABY DOLL (1956) herself, Carroll Baker, and the always-watchable Armin Mueller-Stahl. But the real star here is David Fincher; he is so adept at guiding us down a labyrinthic path of which only he knows the end, that all we can do is hang on and enjoy the rollercoaster ride on which he breathlessly takes us. He primarily relies on small, subtle signs of foreboding to generate suspense, as opposed to full-blown violence and gore. Although this is one of those films that relies on first-time viewers' lack of knowledge of what to expect, and thusly loses something on repeated viewings, it is still a very good film to re-visit on occasion, if only to experience Fincher's unique style (this film and A PERFECT MURDER are miles apart in this respect, believe me), Douglas and Penn's acting and the production values, which are first-rate.

See and experience THE GAME for yourself.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

CULT MOVIES 57
57. THE GAME (thriller, 1997) On the day of his birthday millionaire businessman Nicholas (Michael Douglas) is visited by his brother Conrad (Sean Penn) with a gift. The gift involves Nicholas signing up for a mysterious company which offers a 'game', which in turn offers the participants a series of surprises that "provides whatever is lacking" in their lives. Though a rather pessimistic and somber individual Nicholas accepts in the hopes of escaping the memory of a solitary childhood and witnessing his father's suicide. When the surprises the 'game' issues become seriously deadly Nicholas wants out. But this particular game offers no escape.

Critique: Nerve-wracking, high wire act of a movie directed with guile precision by David Fincher ('Seven', 'Alien 3'). So far all of David Fincher's films have been good which is rare for someone who has been dubbed as a purely commercial director. The sort of tagline that is a deathnail for anyone seeking true legitimacy in Hollywood. Michael Douglas is good in the role of another heartless tycoon type character in the mold of Gordon Gekko from 'Wall Street'. Douglas gives the character just a slight insidious turn and taking him into Twilight Zone territory. It's also good seeing Sean Penn in a first rate mainstream movie for a change. Film is made in such a way that every detail has to be dissected in order to make a logical progression of events. Which otherwise would seem chaotic and purely coincidental. Towards the climax it all makes perfect sense and provides a most welcome escape ending. When the credits roll and you know it is truly over it is strangely satisfying and disappointing.

QUOTES: Conrad: "What do you get for the man who has everything?"

The initiation of a millionaire
Nicholas Van Orton (Douglas) thinks that he has everything - this is true only is we consider material possessions (a vast house, millions of dollars, an enviable reputation, etc.). What he is lacking is the access to the sacred and to his true Self. CRS is there to help, courtesy of his brother Conrad (Penn). But Van Orton will have to get rid of all that he previously stood for and accept to lose himself in the unknown. While some viewers have objected to the film's outrageous events and progression, this is precisely what draws me to it: its willingness to dispense with 'believable' developments makes Van Orton's quest all the more powerful. The movie could have been subtitled 'The initiation of a millionaire', because Van Orton undergoes numerous archetypal trials: he is stuck in a car underwater (in the belly of the monster); he is buried alive; his descensus ad infernos is such that he (literally) has to make a death-defying jump in a garbage dump; he has to find his way through mazes and use secret keys; most scenes take place in darkness. By the time he becomes a new man late in the movie, he has already died three or four times! Perceptive viewers will discover far more than a strandard thriller here, if they allow themselves to dig under the surface... a remarkable film.

Birthday that you'll never forget
Can you imagen a movie with no victims and yet it's one of the best thrillers ever made?! When I heard that director is David Fincher who is responsible for hits such as Seven or Fight Club and that Michael Douglas has leading role, that was more than enough for me to buy it. And I didn't regret it: This film is one wild ride through every aspect of your mind. Just in the moment you think - It's all clear now, next one will leave you with your mouths open. Every scene is one big surprice for you and for main character Nicholas, who is cold rich businessman, who cutted all bonds between him and his family and friends just for power and more money. But his brother's present for his birthday will change everything. One moment, he's on the top of the world, next one he is down in rags, fearing for his life; confused and with no confidence in anyone. That is the price when you are in The Game. Michael prooved that he worths dozen Oscars and Sean Penn is also very good. If you like fast, confusing and surpricing thrillers, this is a movie for you. Note: Ending is unforgetable!!!

Where's The Director's Cut????
This was a great movie with an excellent story to go with it. It's too bad the dvd shares the same fate of others with weak features and no behind the scenes or commentary. This is one dvd that deserves an overhaul like the one that panic room received. ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Neither Good Nor Bad
ROMANCING THE STONE could be seen as the poor man's Indiana Jones movie. It's short on snappy dialogue, coherent plot and memorable characters.

Essentially this is a vehicle for Douglas as rough and ready Jack Colton, and Turner to show her versatility as Joan Wilder, the novelist who sheds her loner image and eventually becomes a heroine. Danny DeVito crops up as a slimy rival to the duo's quest, but his part is overplayed and underwritten.

The story as it is revolves around Wilder going to Columbia to rescue her kidnapped sister. This leads her into a journey of adventure to recover a fabled jewel with adventurer Colton. An almost sinister kidnapping becomes a farcical adventure comedy: I found the switching in tone of this movie at times confusing, and at other times far too blunt.

Whilst ROMANCING THE STONE is not a movie that will leave any lasting impression on you, it is passable as entertainment - saved as it is by the one thing that causes it so many problems: the reliance on the Turner-Douglas on-screen relationship to carry it through.

On A Par With Indiana Jones Movies
Without even looking at other reviews, I'm sure I'm the first to draw this parallel.

*uses pliers to remove tongue from cheek*

Romancing the Stone jumped in to ride the wave of adventure movie semi-fanaticism spawned by the Indiana Jones movies, but gave us a more comedic villain in Danny DeVito; a less indomitable and less scrupulous hero in Michael Douglas; more pratfalls, and a stronger, less nice, more sultry heroine in Kathleen Turner.

There are several things that make this a five-star adventure movie. The action and the pace are great; there is a moderately complex plot; the special effects, while less than what you see in an Indy movie, are well-done; the music is rousing, and the scenery/setting is gorgeous. But, what I see as setting this film apart is the same factor I've noticed in most of my favorite films: the actors appear to be having the times of their lives playing their parts to the utmost. They seem to be enjoying being their absolute most in their parts, and their enthusiatic spills off the screen and flows through the room.

If you are a fan of adventure movies, you should see this one.

Romantic Comedy Adventure: Turner And Douglas
This 1984 film was the first that brought together the incredible on-screen chemistry of Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas. The film, a romantic and comic version of the Indiana Jones films, involves a romance novelist (Kathleen T) and how she gets wrapped up in a hunt for a rare and valuable diamond. As her love interest and her partner in the search is Michael Douglas. At first, the two don't get along very well. Their fighting and bickering as well as game-playing (they each plan to dump the other and take the diamond for themselves) is only an overture to the subsequent romance and passion that overwhelms them. At the end of the movie, they are on a boat on top of a car in New York City headed for a romantic world travel adventure.

This movie also stars Danny Devito (this team- Turner, Douglas and Da Vito would later make War Of The Roses which was a darker comedy about a nightmare divorce). Danny DeVito is hilarious as he is a shlemiel. The location was shot in South America, specifically Columbia, and the lush scenes of photographic landscapes - jungles, rivers, waterfalls, rapids and villages, make this a very engaging adventure story. Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas are really great together and it is the real salvation of the movie. For Turner's character, her life becomes an adventure and a romance as any of the novels she has written. Highly enjoyable, very comedic and never aging, this movie is a welcome fill for any space in your DVD collection. On DVD, it's even better. Greater color and sound, picture quality and bonus feature such as insight on the film, the actors and commentary.

Jewls For Romance
This is the story of a romance writer, who needs a romance. It's a silly story but fun none the less. It's a chick flick I guess but it's fun.

Great casting
Who knew that Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas would turn out to be such a super casting duo? And then add Danny DeVito to the mix as the inept, addled wannabe villain, and you've got an instant winner. The story line revolves around a romance novelist (Turner) accidentally gone astray in Colombia. Douglas is her opportunistic rescuer/ally, and the pratfalls and plot twists keep coming fast enough to keep an audience on the edge of their seats. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

good grief
A Chorus Line is a truly great show, when performed onstage keeping true to the original *ahem* SONGS, but the movie kind of failed in the attempt to re-create the magic. I mean, "Music and The Mirror" is a perfect example. Did they think it was too subtle for the movie-watching American public? Did it really have to be replaced with something as blunt as "Let Me Dance For You"? Puh-leaze. And they cut out the entire montage, which really helps in exploring the character's personalities, etc. Why did Cassie seem like such an...annoyance? She did interrupt "I Can Do That". She did harass him into giving her a role. She didn't seem graceful, like in the stage version. (ie, falling while getting into the taxi) I really liked the Sheila, and I loved Terrance Mann. I also found the drag show monologue very well done. It's good, but not even close to the singular sensation it was onstage.

"One Singular Sensation!"
The screen version of Michael Bennett's landmark Broadway musical lets the audience experience the struggle, anxiety and triumph of a group of dancers auditiong for the chorus of a Broadway show.

This is a classic and not to be missed. One of the best "backstage musicals films" ever made. Michael Douglas soft-shoes 16 dancers through a grueling audition to Marvin Hamlisch's Oscar nominated music and Jeffrey [Flashdance] Hornaday's sizzling, synergistic choreography.

The cast is excellent most notably, Michael [Chaplin] Blevins, who brings charming honesty to the role of 17 year old Mark, the youngest dancer on the line. Other fine performances are given by Gregg Burge, Audrey Landers, Nicole Fosse, and Terrence Mann. For such excellent dancers they all bring great credibility to their respective acting roles.

Oscar winning director Richard Attenborough heads-up this dazzling three-time Academy Award nominated adaptation of Broadway's long running musical that received nine Tony awards and the Pulitzer Prize. Attneborough gracefully blends big production numbers with intimate moments.

This movie is so enjoyable to watch because the transition from stage to screen is smooth and entertaining. Afterall, the New York Times called the film :

"A single burst of breathtaking inspiration!" -New York Times

The Dance and Theatre critics raved about it:

"It is the best dance film, and for that matter, the best movie musical for years!" -Clive Barnes, New York Post

"...exhilarating...one of the year's best pictures..." -Jeffrey Lyons, Sneak Previews, INN

This is a Great White Way phenomenon. Join the chorus of this high-stepping piece of celluloid - it is truly "One Singular Sensation"!

Fun movie, very true to life of a dancer
Considering I have never seen the Broadway show, I found this movie to be quite enjoyable. The songs were fun, the dancing fantastic, the acting was relatively good, and I thought the plot would have been very good without the Cassie/Zach relationship being thrust into the limelight. Many people did not like "Surprise, Surprise," due to its replacing of an original song. However, I thought Gregg Burge did an absolutely amazing job with it. His dancing was so high-energy and almost technically impeccable. No complaints there. I loved: "Dance Ten, Looks Three", "Nothing", "Hello Twelve", and "At the Ballet." My one major complaint with this movie is Cassie. I felt she was annoying, she detracted from several of the musical numbers with absolutely pointless shots of her sitting in a chair, and I didn't enjoy her songs very much. Other than that, good movie, and hopefully I will get to see the Broadway show sometime.

Don't delete old songs
While I can understand the need for space and time in a movie, the two new songs, Richie's "Surprise" & Cassie's "Let me dance for you," are both fascinating and reveal to us something more about their characters. It was good that part of the excessively long montage went away, though they should not have left out Richie's previous part, in which he reveals that his athletic skills give him a scholarship to college in which he intends to become a kindergarten teacher, until he realizes that "Nobody's going to be standing there with no scholarship to life" and selects dancing instead.

But Cassie's distracting subplot gets in the way a bit. It would have been better to have Cassie appear twice, singing both her original "Music & the mirror" (and emotionally stronger song) earlier, getting tossed out, then returning later to sing "Let me dance for you."

In addition, Kristine's song, "Sing," reveals more about this pathetic bride whom we know or care nothing about in the movie. Her husband (and assistant in the song) is more powerful, but he too suffers from losing all importance to the plot.

Beyond this, the character of Connie is completely ignored. She didn't even get a song, nor much to say. She could at least have helped out a bit with Diana's "Nothing."

That's it. My tirade is over. I like the film, but I could bear to watch a further half-hour to include more for these characters.

Unjustly Underrated!
I can't believe all the negative reviews I am reading for this film, but then again, I haven't seen the stage version, so I can't compare. The film adaptation of "A Chorus Line" is the quintessential backstage musical, a celebration of the lives and tribulations of the dancers who turn up by the hundreds to audition for a handful of jobs on Broadway.

The simple story goes like this: A choreographer is casting eight dancers for a new musical, and during one long and truthful day he auditions hundreds of dancers before he makes his final selection. The remaining dozen pour out their hearts and souls through song and dance, all desperate for a part, and all deserving of one. We learn about their lives, loves, fears, and sacrifices through the brilliant lyrics.

From what I understand, Richard Attenborough's film treatment of the story sticks to the outlines of the stage version, although he takes the liberty to fill in the details of the choreographer's old romance, and he leaves out some of the original songs to make room for new ones. I think it's a wonderful idea, and hey, for me, it works.

The result may not please purists who want a film record of what they saw on stage, but this is one of the most intelligent and compelling movie musicals in a long time. Everybody, at one time or another, has been on a line similar to this one--anxious to be accepted and terrified of being rejected by someone judging his or her worth.

Attenborough (Gandhi) makes the most of this dramatic tension, along with the hopefulness of all those in the audition. Best of all, he captures the vibrancy of modern dance from the free-form confusion of the opening scenes to the high-stepping kicks of the finale.

This is truly one of the most underrated films EVER, an emotional, powerful, and anxious musical definitely worth seeing. Give it a chance, it won't hurt! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The husband (Michael Douglas) is a currency trader whose portfolio value is going right down the drain. The wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the heiress to a $100 million fortune. The marriage is not a happy one, but the promise of long-term affluence keeps them together. The wife pursues an affair with an artist (Viggo Mortenson) who gives her all the passion she doesn't get at home, and when the husband finds out, well ... someone's going to pay with their life. Who will the unlucky one be? We wouldn't dare spoil the elegant plot twists of this devious thriller, but it's well known that Douglas excels at portraying greedy characters with ice in their veins. Here, it's easy to assume that Douglas has pulled off, as the title implies, a killing that nobody will ever pin on him. But this is the kind of glossy thriller (loosely inspired by Alfred Hitchcock'sDial M for Murder) that delights in disrupting your expectations, so it grabs your attention right up to the final scene. It's a bit too cold to really draw you in (hey, these are not very nice people we're dealing with here!), but with its able cast and stylish direction by Andrew Davis, this less-than-perfect murder thriller is still definitely worth a look. The widescreen Special Edition DVD includes audio commentary by Michael Douglas, Andrew Davis, and producer Peter McGregor Scott, an alternate ending deleted from the finished film, and sketches by the film's costume designer. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (505)

Very Good, but not quite great...
I hesitate to heap tremendous amounts of praise on this film. Its strongest point is clearly the exceptional characters. They make all the difference. The PLOT is, well, I don't know how to describe it. A bit disjointed I suppose, but still strong enough to pull you in. This movie isn't really about a story, it's about people being affected by the drug trade in North America.

Soderbergh's direction is excellent. The scenes in Mexico just LOOK hot because of that grainy yellow tinting. And living in San Antonio, near the border, I can certify that yes, that's genuinely how it feels down here. Often. The lack of steadycam shots gives it a "newsreel" feel to it. It will draw you in if you let it.

Now onto the characters. My favorite was Del Toro's. I just think the guy can act and he shows it to you here. His character faces the trials of loyalty, friendship and ultimately the choices between doing good and doing for yourself. Catherine Zeta Jones character was also captivating in her descent into the drug game. The characters I least liked involved the Michael Douglas storyline. While they were genuine and somewhat interesting, I found myself waiting for their scenes to end so that I could get back to the more intriguing developments. Also, I'm not quite ready to buy how easily it wrapped up near the end. A hint of optimism is good, but that was a little too much sunshine after a mostly cloudy set up.

Overall, it's a good film, and Soderbergh's Oscar for direction isn't a bad choice (though I still think it probably took more skill for Ang Lee to make people FLY). Watch it for the characters and the perspective on the drug "war."

A bleak look at the war on drugs
TRAFFIC is a great film. It showcases from many angles the world of the drug user and trafficker. Director Steven Soderburgh uses a wonderful cast, many different camera types, and many intriguing subplots that all somehow link to make this film great. If you enjoy fine acting, great directors, views from many locations, and just great films in general, buy TRAFFIC today.

TRAFFIC bases around the installation of a new drug czar, superbly played by Michael Douglas. How can he fight a war on drugs when his daughter is a user? This is the question the character seems plagued by throughout the film. This makes for interesting discussion. Meanwhile, two Mexican police officers are swept into helping ward off cartels in Tijuana. Benecio Del Toro is excellent in the role. There are other plots which call for wonderful performances from the likes of Don Cheadle, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Albert Finney. All in all, this film is well scripted and acted.

TRAFFIC, like any film, has flaws. It is tedious at certain points, sometimes the language is too excessive, and it seems to offer a negative message to youth. However, for its few flaws, it is still a wonderfully crafted and shot film. It was lauded because of that fact. If you need a great film to watch, I urge you to buy TRAFFIC today!

Flat out, lousy movie-making
This is a frustrating film for many reasons. Firstly the schizophrenia of the plotlines is poorly done and distracting. It merely further hindered me from actually gaining any sort of emotional connection to the characters (and that's counting the headstart the dialogue had given).

The themes of the movie are so apparent that they become oppressive. A previous reviewer encapsulated the film with the phrase: Drugs R bad, and while I can appreciate a noble premise like this, the way Soderbergh badgers the audience with the futility of the "war on drugs" and the affect that drugs have on addicts is devoid of tact and feels contrived to the point of nausea.

The characters are not well-developed either. Their actions are completely obvious. While this is not usually a just complaint about a movie, the lack of intrigue in the plot, the often cheesy dialogue, and the general lack of subtlety makes for an obnoxiously assuming film. It comes across not only snobbish to the layperson, but boring to the average movie-goer.

This movie really drags. This is an in-escapable fact. There were too many trifling scenes in this movie.

But that's just how it rubbed me. Although, I can see how many a pseudo-intellectual film buff could trick himself into gushing about how thought-provoking and "original" this film was, I can also see how many critics and sincere film-goers would like it as well. The message is certainly an important point of discussion regardless of how you feel on the issue, and the conclusions leave much to be debated (although, not about the film)

My main point is this: Unless you're interested in grinding your way through a movie with a plot that can be summarized in the political/humanitarian issue of the film, it's not worth seeing. If you're interested in drug-related issues, do yourself a favor and simply walk, don't run to your nearest bookstore and sift through the myriad of books on the matter. Heck, why not (since you're online anyway) look through one of the lists here at Amazon.com?!

Traffic, not your typical Half Baked
this movie ruled. the shaky camera and grittyness is awesome. but instead of some review on how it is an academy award brilliant film of substance abuse,etc i will tell you how cool it is, even if those cool parts glorify drug dealers.
i like the part where that girl is at the party and the kid topher grace from that 70s show is talking all philosophically cause hes so stoned. and the kid on the other couch is like 'im so high' and he passes out and they drop him off at the ER and the cop comes and he yells the F word. ya i cant say it cause of amazon.com policies. its also funny when he has to get that girl messed up in a seedy hotel downtown to get with her. and theyre like doing trashy drugs too, whats up with that? since when do private school seniors do heroin through their foot? man i thought it was all about coors light and weed. guess not.
the movie starts out cool too when benicio del toro is in the mexican desert with his highway patrol giant sunglasses waiting for this plane to go over them thats traffiking cocaine. hes such a mexican badass. and his buddy cop next to him is playing game boy. thats the first noise you here in this 3 hour plus long drug war epic: mario jumping over a green tube. i love it.
another great part is when don cheadle and that funny peurto rican guy luiz something shoot that drug dealer in a san diego chuck e. cheese place. and the clown gets scared and goes back into the kitchen.
o ya when michael douglas takes topher grace out of spanish class and the teachers like where are you going and hes like im taking seth on a field trip and he takes him to the ghetto to find his prostitute heroin junkie 17 year old daughter.
traffic is a great movie cause it has moments like this. stephen s. the director is a badass who makes movies like the limey and this and the writer is good too. hes like 21 and he got the oscar for best adapted screenplay. this movie rules for stoners, concerned parents and politicians alike.

Interesting look at drugs
"TRAFFIC" is three interwoven stories about the drug trade and its impact on people. It attempts toshows how drugs can affect everybody connected to the drug dealers and pushers eg. family. It works in a way, but not enough to make me feel empathy for the characters.

It's fast moving and engaging, but something is missing from this film. Big names like Zeta Jones and Douglas aren't enough to make the film great.

If you really want to see a film that tackles the subject really well but in a different light, may I suggest "Requiem for a Dream". The devastation of drugs is well told in this film. ... Read more

Reviews (163)

A strange and wonderful gem of a motion picture.
Curtis Hanson's follow-up to his brilliant 'LA Confidential' is equally amazing but in a completely different way. 'Wonder Boys' is a wonderfully skewed comedy, with characters who zig and zag across the screen, weaving in through each others lives, and ultimately finding salvation in each other. Michael Douglas gives his second-great performance of 2000 (the other being in 'Traffic') as Professor Grady Tripp, a chronic pot-smoking, english teacher/author who has had great success in the past with his first novel. Problem is, he can't seem to finish his follow-up and he's been trying for years. He is having an affair with a married chancellor at his school (Frances McDormand in HER sceond great performance of the year, the other being in 'Almost Famous'). His barely-in-the-closet editor (the incredible Robert Downey Jr.) is breathing down his throat and a student of his (Katie Holmes) is trying to get in his pants. Not only that he has the chancellor's dead dog in his trunk, thanks to a mishap with a bewildered, mysterious student of his (Tobey Maguire at his usual excellence) and the car he's driving may or may not be stolen. Over the course of one hellish weekend, Grady Tripp will find out what it means to be in charge of one's own life and the way making a simple choice can change things for the better. The movie rides smoothly from start to finish thanks to great, assured direction by Hanson and smooth screenwriting by Steve Kloves (from the novel by Michael Chabon). It's a truly amazing film, whose character's are so well developed and layered that we never know what to expect of them at any given moment. In fact, anywhere you think this movie might be going at any given time, you will more then likely be wrong. It's surprising and heart-felt, as funny as it is involving, as moving as it is intelligent. And you won't find a better performance then Douglas's in any film this year. It's a true stand-out role for him, a break from his normal obsessive, hard-headed monsters. And he is brilliant. And so is Tobey Maguire, who continues to dazzle with every film. One of the best films of 2000.

EXCELLENT! (as God said, and I think rightly..)
I enjoyed this movie immensely. I'd put it right up there with 'American Beauty', 'Magnolia', and 'Being John Malkovich' as one of my favourite films of recent years. I particularly enjoyed Michael Douglas's performance (yes, I was surprised too) as Grady Tripp (pot-smoking college english professor, dubious literary mentor, and flailing, aging author of the critically aclaimed 7-years-gone novel 'Arsonists Daughter'...)

I really enjoyed the down-beat oddities and subtleties of the film and it's cast of strange but endearing characters (yes, yes, THERE you go!) Frances MacDormand's character (The Chancellor) is the only one who you might be able to call something that resembles a "normal" person, but even SHE, underneith her guise of normalcy, is a pregnant-out-of-wedlock habitual gardener! It gets no better I'm afraid. Robert Downey Jr plays Grady's gay book editor who has a penchant for transvestites and certain relaxing pharmacuticals (Terry Crabtree) to great (and oddly touching) comedic effect. Tobey Maguire plays Grady's morose young student/protege (who lays claim to the uncanny ability of being able to list hundreds of movie suicides in alphabetical order..) I'm Sorry 9-to-5ers. Abandon hope all ye who enter here, It gets no more mundane or ordinary than that. Oh well. But, to be honest, this sort of off-the-wall character development only served to make me even more enamored of the film. Speaking intimately as a very weird person (and speaking FOR MY PEOPLE) I desparately want to see more space-cadets and freaks and kooky-spooks casually represented in feature films. It's all about equality really. We don't all live in caves y'know. We're everywhere amongst you! We shop at your supermarkets! (albeit at strange hours..) We attend your schools! We even write movie reviews for enormous websites you visit late at night! Freakitude is not so uncommon a phenomena.. and my people DEMAND SCREENTIME ... And in 'Wonder Boys' they certainly get it. Kudos to whoever it was that wrote it that way. This film allows itself to positively WALLOW in human quirkiness.

The movie also features a fantastic soundtrack (ALWAYS a bonus..)

Best line?

"You're mad at me.. You're mad because I shot your girlfriends dog."

HIGHLY recommended! :o)

Offbeat ecletic mix of comedy and pathos
Adapted from the novel by Michael Chabon, this offbeat dark comedic drama is set at a college in Pittsburgh, a shabby city of bleak weather and aging buildings. Michael Douglas is cast in the role of Grady Tripp, a college professor long past his prime who lives in haze of marijuana and failing marriages. He's gained weight for this role and his face is lined and drooping, capturing the essence of the character so well that he was able to submerge his movie star image. Tripp is a former "wonder boy" who had been acclaimed for his first novel seven years before. Unfortunately, even though he has written more than 2000 pages on his second novel, he can't seem to bring it to completion even though his New York agent, Terry Crabtree, played by Robert Downey Jr. will be in town for the writer's weekend set up at the college.

Tobey Maguire, the rising young actor who made a name for himself in "The Cedar House Rules" is cast as James Leer, a brilliant and troubled young writer from Tripp's class. And Frances McDormand is cast as the Chancellor of the college who's having an affair with Trip. Katie Holmes plays a student who is interested in Tripp for more than his teaching ability. Other characters fade in and out of the scenes, adding interest and contributing to an eclectic mix and which somehow all add to the cohesive whole. There's a transvestite as well as a professor affixed on Marilyn Monroe as well as a black man in a pompadour hairdo and his waitress wife. And, in addition to the people, there's a vintage car and an old manual typewriter and an electric selectric. There's also a dead dog.

All this is put together in a mix that gently pokes fun at it all, played for pathos and humanity instead of slapstick. And it is all slightly off focus in the marijuana haze created by the professor. I did find it a bit slow and I sometimes dozed off. But the beauty of video is that could wake up and replay the few frames I missed. I was always rewarded because of the subtleties of dialog and nuances of the acting and of the fine direction by Curtis Hanson, whose last film was L.A. Confidential. I recommend this video although it is not for everyone. It's quirky and offbeat and the pace is slow and hazy. But I personally thought it was really good.

Best Michael Douglas role ever
A bit of bad luck at the box office prevented this movie from getting the hype it so richly deserves. Good luck finding roles into which Michael Douglas, Frances McDormand, Tobey Maguire, and Robert Downey, Jr., slip into as effortlessly and brilliantly as they do the ones in this film. With a script that neatly repackages Michael Chabon's excellent novel for the screen, Steve Kloves (lately the screenwriter for the Harry Potter series) shows where he mastered the craft of adaptation. And director Curtis Hanson follows up the tour-de-force of L.A. Confidential with this funnier, more bizarre, and ultimately more enjoyable effort.

On one level, the movie plays out like a drug-induced dream sequence; it's almost implausible that so much would happen during a single weekend. Michael Douglas loses his wife, discovers his girlfriend (McDormand) is pregnant, flees the university at which he and his girlfriend work with his darkest and most troubled student after that student kills his girlfriend's husband's dog and steals Marilyn Monroe's wedding coat, exposes that student to pot and his literary agent of ambiguous sexuality, has his car stolen, loses a 2,000 page manuscript...

Did I mention that his girlfriend is the chancellor and her husband is the chair of the department that employs Douglas?

Yet all these events--and many more--feel very real during the movie. And not in the dreamlike way that anything makes sense while you're sleeping: this movie has the feel of truth. Other reviewers have complained that it's too weird, that each character's eccentricities pile on those of the others until it passes a level of acceptability. But people have quirks; some people are pathological liars, some people just like one kind of shoe, some people can only write in a pink bathrobe. In life we take these quirks for granted in the people we know and love; in Wonder Boys a group of people are thrown together, quirks and all, by fate and common interest and the confines of a very realistic university life. The interplay of their quirks, and the way that people who come to them with sympathetic eyes quickly rally to support one another, makes for a movie that engages, entertains, and provokes thought. If that's not what you look for in a movie, look elsewhere. If it is, prepare to add a new movie to your all-time favorites list.

THE CHOICES WE MAKE IN LOVE & LIFE..
This film is of that quirky, self-aware cadre that makes people easily dismiss it as pretentious, or worse, pointless. But I believe those who ascribe such notions to the movie have clearly missed the plot's subtle nuances, and the humorous undercurrent that permeates the entire theme.

Wonder Boys has that charming yet simple elegance that draws on its real but clumsy characters -- all pretty painstakingly drawn out as we almost live their fumbling lives. Professor Tripp (Douglas) in particular was very credible as just about anyone among us. James Leer's (McGuire) obsession with celebrity suicides is made light of and overcast by his pathological lying. Holmes is appropriately cast to tantalize.

Plus, the score is something to cherish thanks in no small measure to Bob Dylan's superb "Things have changed".

A good chuckle comedy with a wistful look at midlife, decisions to be made or avoided. Recommended for the discerning viewer. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Writer that has back is killer
This isn't an intelligent film, even for American standards. The police are so dumb they couldn't find a giraffe in a field of wildebeasts. Even the US army would be able to find the killer in this movie.

Having said that, this movie did make me quite hot. I walked down to the well and jumped in.

Here in Africa most people don't wear clothes anyway so nudity alone isn't enough to satisfy me.

Relied on erotic images to sell the film
BASIC INSTINCT is easily the most over-rated film of the 90's. I didn't like it in 1992, and watching the full uncut DVD version in 2004 I still feel the same.

BASIC INSTINCT tries to be a Hitchcock type film in many ways. Firstly, it has an annoying 'suspense' music score that plays throughout the film even when a scene doesn't warrant it. Next, the film reveals the killer but attempts to leaves you wondering if he/she is the real killer. The problem with BASIC INSTINCT is that it is so obvious that Sharon Stone is the killer. Not that we really care, afterall the storyline is so sleazy, that you feel no empathy for any of the characters.

The film relied on lots of erotic images to sell the film, and there is a reason for that. The Director must have realised from the begining that it was very ordinary storyline, and needed something to make it appealing. Problem solved: include lots of erotic images and a naked Sharon Stone ... and people will go to and see it for that alone. Clever marketing.

DVD SUMMARY: Basic Instinct has been released three times now on DVD, its first release way back in 1997. The version I saw was the second version which sports a DTS soundtrack, and some interesting special features. These include a "comparison with TV and Uncut version", and a documentary on the "making of" which reveals the problems that plagued the film set in San Fran. The DVD copy I have has a very soft film print which I would consider similar to VHS quality (it's that bad), however it is in Widescreen (five points for that).

Eye Candy and More...
I can't believe I waited so long to see this movie! It left me nearly speechless. The sex! The plot twists! The madness! How can it all be processed into words. First, the love scenes (if I can even call them that) would make Billy Bob and Hallie blush any day of the week and the famous "interrogation" was all that it was cracked up to be. By the end of the film I didn't know whether to be aroused or in complete shock. I thought I had it all figured out, but I was thrown for a loop (probably because of Stone's privates and Douglas's bottom all in my face). The last word: a must see, but not with your mother.

Sex, sex, sex, sex and more sex. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's hilarious how worked up people got when this movie came out. The PC crowd decried the fact that a lesbian was the killer and, therefore, must have been the villan. The right wing crowd then immediately accused the PC crowd of being too hysterical about the alleged prejudice against homosexuals. Basic Instinct, they contended, was bad because it was a dirty movie. The producers, of course, loved all this publicity because EVERYONE went running to see the move and, in the words of Liberace, cried all the way to the bank. Telling audiences to not see a film because of homosexual activity and graphic sex scenes is like trying to scare ants away from a picnic by pouring sugar on the ground.

First of all, Sharon Stone's Catherine Trammell who is the killer lesbian (actually bisexual) in question, IS THE MOST SYMPATHETIC character in the whole film! EVERYONE is a slimebag! From Michael Douglas' hot tempered, tourist killing, chain smoking, cocaine snorting, oversexed police detective to Jeanne Tripplehorn's neurotic, kinky police psychiastrist who is more messed up than any of her patients to the rest of the morally compromised sleazes who pass for cops who laugh at murder victims and have the compassion and sensitivity of storm troopers, EVERY single character in this movie is a cesspool of a person! The way I see it, Sharon Stone is the most sympathetic person in the entire film -- at least she makes no bones about being sleazy. If you take the position that lesbians should be offended by their negative portrayal in Basic Instinct, then you could say the same for psychiatrists, cops (especially members of the SFPD), mystery writers, drug addicts, San Franciscans, smokers, country/western fans, chilli eaters, Mustang drivers and basically all human beings in general.

Of course, the right wing is just as clueless when it comes to Basic Instinct. I went to see Basic Instinct BECAUSE of all the sex in the movie! Anyone who tells you that they saw Basic Instinct for any reason other than to see loads of nudity and sex is so full of it, they should be slapped! I went to see Sharon Stone's nether regions in the police interrogation scene. I went to see the sex scene between Douglas and Stone that seems to go on for about half the movie (although I had to wait until the home video release to see ALL of the sex scene -- what a rip-off!). I went to see Sharon Stone display the wares she only hinted at having in Total Recall. I WANTED TO SEE SEX AND NUDITY AND, BY GOD, THAT'S WHY I WENT TO SEE BASIC INSTINCT!!! So many hypocritical prudes tsk tsk at all of the sex in movies today. Get a clue! This movie is like a huge bug zapper: drawing us in with loads of sex and nudity even though we're going to get zapped when we realize what a piece of sleazy trash we're watching (Joe Ezsterhaus must read tons of pornography in order to form his views of women).

But please don't get me wrong, this is INSPIRED sleaze that I am wholeheartedly recommending you at least rent, if not purchase. It may be sleaze, but it's really, really enjoyable sleaze which will have you "standing at attention" for a long, long time afterward (even after you see not one, but two, gratuitous shots of Michael Douglas' butt). And for those of you who have moral objections to Basic Instinct, please, go out and get a life!

Brilliant trash
Is this film trashy, exploitive and misogynistic?
Yes.
Is this film exciting, thrilling, titillating and fun?
Yes.
Is this film basically just a sexed-up version of Hitchcock's "Vertigo"?
Yes.
Does it work anyway?
Yes.
Did this film do us all a favor by introducing the world to Sharon Stone, who, as an actress is hit-or-miss, but as an icon and diva is one of the greatest?
Yes.
Could I go the rest of my life without ever having to see Michael Douglas' butt again?
Yes. ... Read more

Reviews (77)

Fantastic movie, intense.
This movie is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Michael Douglas and Glenn Close give life to this stylish, sexy and famous movie that was nominated for 6 Academy Awards.
The story is about a man named Dan (Douglas) who is happily married with a 6 year old son. And one day he meets Alex (Close) in a party and few days after when Michael's wife goes to the country with their son. Dan meats again Alex again in a meeting and they have an intense affair during those days.
It was all meant to finish there, as an affair but Alex falls helplessly in love with Dan and doesn't want to let him go.
Dan's wife returns from the country and he refuses to answer Alex's phone calls and messages but Alex is desperate to see him again and she even cut her veins to make him stay. The whole nightmare starts there and Alex won't stop until Dan belongs to her...
You will be watching this movie without closing your eyes beacuse it's full of suspence.

Almost
Except for the final scene (which I suspect was "borrowed" from Henri-Georges Clouzot's Diabolique), this is a solid film. In it, Director Adrian Lyne examines the consequences of a one-night affair involving two very attractive people, Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) who is single and Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) who is married and a parent of young children. While Beth Gallagher (Anne Archer, also "borrowed," from Jack Ryan) and the children are visiting her mother, Dan unexpectedly finds himself having drinks and then dinner with Alex. They feel an immediate and powerful sexual attraction to each other. Later, they spend the night in her loft apartment. Insofar as he's concerned, it was a memorable night, thanks ever so much, but that's it. Alex reacts differently, at first asking and then demanding that they continue the relationship. She even claims to be pregnant and at one point attempts suicide. Of course, all this is not what Dan had in mind but Alex forces him to recognize the significance of his adultery.

The acting is consistently strong but the screenplay allows for almost no character development, nor are the nature and extent of Alex's psychological problems ever revealed or even explored. Obviously, she is lonely and delusional as well as envious of the lifestyle Beth and Dan share. Only an actor possessed of Glenn Close's talents and temperament could reveal (albeit only in brief moments) Alex's tenderness which helps to explain her vulnerability to both real and perceived grievances. After seeing the film again, I still think the final scene in the upstairs bathroom doesn't work. In fact, I think it detracts from the narrative development which precedes it. On balance, however, Fatal Attraction offers solid entertainment even as it raises (at least in my mind) questions about the two main characters and their relationship which, for whatever reasons, Lyne and/or his screenwriters do not address in the film.

Hence my