Amazon.com

In The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, director Wes Anderson takes his familiar stable of actors on a field trip to a fantasy aquarium, complete with stop-motion, candy-striped crabs and rainbow seahorses.And though Anderson does expand his horizons in terms of retro-special effects and a whimsical use of color, fans will otherwise find themselves in well-charted waters. As The Life Aquatic opens, Zissou (Bill Murray), a self-involved, Jacques Cousteau-like filmmaker, has just released a documentary depicting the death of his best friend Esteban, who was eaten by some sort of sea creature--possibly a jaguar shark. Zissou’s troubles also include his waning popularity with the public, and a nemesis (Jeff Goldblum) who hogs up all the grant money. Hope arrives in the form of Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), an amiable Kentuckian who may be Zissou’s son. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for fatherhood, Zissou welcomes Ned--and Ned in turn saves Zissou’s new documentary (in which he seeks revenge on the jaguar shark) in more ways than one.

One of Wes Anderson’s greatest achievements as a director to date has been launching the autumnal melancholy phase of Bill Murray’s career, starting with Rushmore in 1998, and Murray delivers a similarly comedic yet low-key performance here. Unfortunately, Zissou is one of the few characters in this ensemble to achieve multi-dimensionality. Even co-star Wilson doesn’t get to develop Ned much beyond Noble Southerner, and he ends up seeming more like a prop for illustrating Zissou’s emotional development rather than his own man. The Life Aquatic probably won’t be remembered as a great film, but it is still one that no Anderson (or Murray) fan can afford to miss.--Leah Weathersby ... Read more

Reviews (152)

Stinks
worst movie of the year. This movie has alot of great actors but the story is lame and the jokes are not funny. In short stay away from this bomb.........

A beautiful, intelligent, and fun film
I loved this film from start to finish and it only got better the second and third times I watched it.There is a very nice feel to it: mellow, easy and cool, even when the action is on.This feel is perhaps captured best in the remarkably enjoyable Brazilian covers of classic David Bowie songs.

One thing worth noting about this film, beyond the "quirky" stylings that you expect from Wes Anderson (and that don't always come off, to my mind, as I just couldn't get in to The Royal Tenenbaums much as I wanted), is the way the film plays with and responds to the popularity of the "nature documentary," especially those of Jacques Cousteau.In the nature documentary, we feel as though we are getting "closer" to nature.We believe that we are getting at something real.What we tend to forget or be unaware of, is how much mediation is involved in the presentation of nature.The nature we see on film is never nature "as it is" but nature as it has been framed and captured in accordance with certain expectations of what will sell, what values will play to a wide audience.

It should also be remembered that this is a Disney film, and Wes Anderson appears tobe very self-conscious of the fact that a large part of Disney's name and popularity was established through Disney wildlife films.Walt Disney himself once remarked that he saw his live action wildlife films to be merely an extension of his animations -- because he knew how much the editor and filmmaker are involved in showing what you want to show.What they did show was not Darwin's "nature red tooth and claw" but a sanitized nature, where danger was always contained, and family values were reinforced by the behaviors of animals: a mother and her pups, for example.

That, it seems to me, helps explain the fact that Wes Anderson chose not to employ "real" underwater animals but chose stop motion animation as his medium.It reminds us that nature appears on screen always mediated, through a "nature hero" (as Zissou once was) and through a set of decisions about what to include, how to edit it, what to value.

Anyhow, I could go on and on about what I liked and thought about this film, but I can say that I didn't expect to like this film but found myself surprised feeling very nice (and a bit odd, not sure what to think) about half way through and leaving with a smile and a hint of sadness as I walked the theater.Any film that can do that to someone as jaded as I am has something going for it.

ZZZZZ....Is This A Movie?!
Holy cow! I tried staying awake long enough to see if this movie would develop a plot, have some intersting special effects, but nothing even remotely resembling a movie ever took place. I barely was able to keep my eyes open. I thought maybe it was an artsy attempt at being clever, but this was absolutely the lamest, low budget, poor plot-movie I had ever seen. Even the usually likeable and clever Bill Murray fell FLAT in this movie. I watched it wih my brother and wife. She only made it through the first 20 minutes. My brother and I are more optomistic and somehow made it through the first 70 min., fast forwaded to the end, and didn't even carre that Owen Wilson's character had died!! If you want a movie that will put you to sleep, this is it!

Call me weird...
...but I really enjoyed watching this film. Willem Dafoe carried a manic comic energy throughout that was the perfect foil to Bill Murray's well developed drollery. I thought the take off on the Jacques Cousteau TV specials was spot on and truly humorous. I did not laugh out loud all the way through this film mind you, it is chock full of dull stretches and things that just make you want to scratch your head in puzzlement. I do that all the time with Wes Anderson movies, so I guess this one should be no surprise. I found this film to be clever, smart, profoundly silly, and usually just plain fun. The views of the fanciful sea critters encountered by the crew were very well done and showed a great deal of imagination and wonder at work. The fellow who kept popping up singing David Bowie songs in Portuguese somehow stole my soul and I couldn't get the sounds out of my head. Lovely idea squeezed into a wonderfully odd little film. C'mon, since when does everything have to make sense to be fun?

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
This was a pretty funny, ironic, amusing yet realistic story. I think it deals with some interesting existential issues. Giving wrong people too much credit and basing your life on it. Like in real life, it is not always (or ever?) that better people win and suceed. You can base your whole life on wrong assumptions and pay for it dearly...
I was definitely inspired to re-examie the values I base my life on and instincts I trust. The music is brilliant and many scenes were extremely beautiful. Anjelica Houston is very good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, director Wes Anderson takes his familiar stable of actors on a field trip to a fantasy aquarium, complete with stop-motion, candy-striped crabs and rainbow seahorses.And though Anderson does expand his horizons in terms of retro-special effects and a whimsical use of color, fans will otherwise find themselves in well-charted waters. As The Life Aquatic opens, Zissou (Bill Murray), a self-involved, Jacques Cousteau-like filmmaker, has just released a documentary depicting the death of his best friend Esteban, who was eaten by some sort of sea creature--possibly a jaguar shark. Zissou’s troubles also include his waning popularity with the public, and a nemesis (Jeff Goldblum) who hogs up all the grant money. Hope arrives in the form of Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), an amiable Kentuckian who may be Zissou’s son. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for fatherhood, Zissou welcomes Ned--and Ned in turn saves Zissou’s new documentary (in which he seeks revenge on the jaguar shark) in more ways than one.

One of Wes Anderson’s greatest achievements as a director to date has been launching the autumnal melancholy phase of Bill Murray’s career, starting with Rushmore in 1998, and Murray delivers a similarly comedic yet low-key performance here. Unfortunately, Zissou is one of the few characters in this ensemble to achieve multi-dimensionality. Even co-star Wilson doesn’t get to develop Ned much beyond Noble Southerner, and he ends up seeming more like a prop for illustrating Zissou’s emotional development rather than his own man. The Life Aquatic probably won’t be remembered as a great film, but it is still one that no Anderson (or Murray) fan can afford to miss.--Leah Weathersby ... Read more

Reviews (152)

Stinks
worst movie of the year. This movie has alot of great actors but the story is lame and the jokes are not funny. In short stay away from this bomb.........

A beautiful, intelligent, and fun film
I loved this film from start to finish and it only got better the second and third times I watched it.There is a very nice feel to it: mellow, easy and cool, even when the action is on.This feel is perhaps captured best in the remarkably enjoyable Brazilian covers of classic David Bowie songs.

One thing worth noting about this film, beyond the "quirky" stylings that you expect from Wes Anderson (and that don't always come off, to my mind, as I just couldn't get in to The Royal Tenenbaums much as I wanted), is the way the film plays with and responds to the popularity of the "nature documentary," especially those of Jacques Cousteau.In the nature documentary, we feel as though we are getting "closer" to nature.We believe that we are getting at something real.What we tend to forget or be unaware of, is how much mediation is involved in the presentation of nature.The nature we see on film is never nature "as it is" but nature as it has been framed and captured in accordance with certain expectations of what will sell, what values will play to a wide audience.

It should also be remembered that this is a Disney film, and Wes Anderson appears tobe very self-conscious of the fact that a large part of Disney's name and popularity was established through Disney wildlife films.Walt Disney himself once remarked that he saw his live action wildlife films to be merely an extension of his animations -- because he knew how much the editor and filmmaker are involved in showing what you want to show.What they did show was not Darwin's "nature red tooth and claw" but a sanitized nature, where danger was always contained, and family values were reinforced by the behaviors of animals: a mother and her pups, for example.

That, it seems to me, helps explain the fact that Wes Anderson chose not to employ "real" underwater animals but chose stop motion animation as his medium.It reminds us that nature appears on screen always mediated, through a "nature hero" (as Zissou once was) and through a set of decisions about what to include, how to edit it, what to value.

Anyhow, I could go on and on about what I liked and thought about this film, but I can say that I didn't expect to like this film but found myself surprised feeling very nice (and a bit odd, not sure what to think) about half way through and leaving with a smile and a hint of sadness as I walked the theater.Any film that can do that to someone as jaded as I am has something going for it.

ZZZZZ....Is This A Movie?!
Holy cow! I tried staying awake long enough to see if this movie would develop a plot, have some intersting special effects, but nothing even remotely resembling a movie ever took place. I barely was able to keep my eyes open. I thought maybe it was an artsy attempt at being clever, but this was absolutely the lamest, low budget, poor plot-movie I had ever seen. Even the usually likeable and clever Bill Murray fell FLAT in this movie. I watched it wih my brother and wife. She only made it through the first 20 minutes. My brother and I are more optomistic and somehow made it through the first 70 min., fast forwaded to the end, and didn't even carre that Owen Wilson's character had died!! If you want a movie that will put you to sleep, this is it!

Call me weird...
...but I really enjoyed watching this film. Willem Dafoe carried a manic comic energy throughout that was the perfect foil to Bill Murray's well developed drollery. I thought the take off on the Jacques Cousteau TV specials was spot on and truly humorous. I did not laugh out loud all the way through this film mind you, it is chock full of dull stretches and things that just make you want to scratch your head in puzzlement. I do that all the time with Wes Anderson movies, so I guess this one should be no surprise. I found this film to be clever, smart, profoundly silly, and usually just plain fun. The views of the fanciful sea critters encountered by the crew were very well done and showed a great deal of imagination and wonder at work. The fellow who kept popping up singing David Bowie songs in Portuguese somehow stole my soul and I couldn't get the sounds out of my head. Lovely idea squeezed into a wonderfully odd little film. C'mon, since when does everything have to make sense to be fun?

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
This was a pretty funny, ironic, amusing yet realistic story. I think it deals with some interesting existential issues. Giving wrong people too much credit and basing your life on it. Like in real life, it is not always (or ever?) that better people win and suceed. You can base your whole life on wrong assumptions and pay for it dearly...
I was definitely inspired to re-examie the values I base my life on and instincts I trust. The music is brilliant and many scenes were extremely beautiful. Anjelica Houston is very good. ... Read more

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

The hugely ambitious Beckett on Film project gathered together 19different directors to turn the 19 stage works written by Samuel Beckettinto films. The range is vast--from the 45-second Breath to the twohours of his most famous play, Waiting for Godot--but all the worksreflect Beckett's penetrating obsessions with memory, regret, and thesimple, excruciating experience of being. Not every film succeeds--likeall great theater, Beckett's plays demand interaction with a live audienceto express their full intent--and though scholars tout Beckett's everyword as genius, several works are slight (Catastrophe, OhioImpromptu, or What Where will leave many viewers unimpressed).But all the plays feature Beckett's uniquely distilled language; thegreatest of them--including Waiting for Godot (in which two trampspass the time while they wait for someone who may never come),Endgame (in which a blind man and his lame servant bicker and jokeas the world declines), and Play (in which a love triangle isbitterly recalled by two women and a man in urns)--are astonishing in boththeir potent humor and piercing grief.

Though Beckett's stature drew in animpressive array of directors (including Anthony Minghella, PatriciaRozema, and Neil Jordan) and actors (including Jeremy Irons, JulianneMoore, Alan Rickman, Kristin Scott-Thomas, Michael Gambon, and JohnGielgud), some of the finest work comes from relative unknowns. But thegem of the collection is Krapp's Last Tape, about an old manrevisiting his life through recordings he has made throughout his years.It's the perfect marriage of text, actor (the incomparable John Hurt), anddirector (Atom Egoyan, The Sweet Hereafter); in their hands, theplay spins from deeply funny to deeply sad, all with only the slightestdim of the light in Hurt's eyes. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Worth a look.
2 stars is misleading. I would recommend this to anyone interested in Becket. To see a directors interpretation of his work provided invaluable insights into both the works themselves, and the process of directing film.
That being said, I was not amazed. The potential of a four disk DVD and large booklet, exclusively Becket, was unlimited. The product was a half-dozen enjoyable plays, and not even a documentary on Becket. In their great humility, they made a documentary, about themselves, making the DVD you are about to purchase. Great.

Who Put the Film in the Beckett on Film Project?
Directors working on stage-to-screen adaptations find themselves torn between dual obligations to both the original work and the new medium. In the case of creating a collection of films meant to highlight the playwright's vision, questions raised by these obligations become even more controversial: should they remain true to the text, even if elements of the play don't work well on film? Dare they change those elements to better fit their new mode of expression? And in the case of Beckett, what percentage of the collections' earnings should go towards manic-depressive treatment centers? Of course, total objectivity in stage-to-screen adaptation remains a pipe dream. But we have to remember that even a theatric production has a director, who-while possibly faced with less decisions than a film director-invariably must makes choices leading to his own personal interpretation of the play. Ultimately, every production of a play, be it for DVD or Broadway, interprets rather than mirrors the original work. Therefore, the Beckett on Film Project should not be regarded as an unbiased representation, but rather an ambitious interpretation of one of the greatest playwrights of the twentieth century. And in this regard, with few exceptions, the Beckett on Film Project shines with commendable effectiveness.

I wish to illustrate a few interpretive anomalies in the collection, to give you an idea of both the kinds of adaptive problems these directors had to face and some of their solutions. Consider "Act Without Words II," a short and dialogue-free play in which two characters mime their different daily routines against a narrow backdrop "violently lit in its entire length, [with] the rest of the stage in darkness." Director Edna Hughes chose to divide this backdrop into three film frames and to add a movie reel-like quality to the video. This constant reminder that we are watching a film is the same sort of self-referential metatextuality we find in many of Beckett's plays. Hughes' interpretive decision regarding the background also reinforces the repetitive theme of the play. That is to say, these characters' routines will go on and on, day after day, just as this very movie is being filmed-one frame after another. Hughes' use of a freeze-frame effect also highlights the technological superiority that film holds over its older cousin, theatre. The play calls for a "Frieze effect," but only on film can this be accomplished literally; in theatre it must be acted out. These changes by Hughes show intelligence in both his reading and adapting of the play to screen. Now, for something of a contrary example, consider one of Beckett's most famous short plays, "Play," in which three characters, trapped in urns, are forced to perpetually retell the story of the love triangle between them. The inquisitor: a lone spotlight that dictates which one of the three urns speaks, when, and for how long. But director Anthony Minghella's version gets rid of the light altogether, in favor of a loud and sometimes shaky camera, whose stronger presence is meant to take the light's place as these characters' inquisitor. Minghella's technique here ultimately falls somewhere between failure and success. The audible clicks and zooms of the camera do, for a time, give the viewer a feeling of submersion within the scene; since the camera now questions these characters, and we as viewers share the camera's gaze, the film achieves an interesting effect that draws us into the world of the story. But the camera cuts between the three urns so many times that the sense of a "unique inquisitor," as Beckett requests, soon dissipates. Not that the adaptation adds nothing to the play; once or twice, the camera pans around to give a broad scene of the background, a dark, foggy, and graveyard-like field littered with many more people in urns. While this background reduces the ambiguity of setting present in the original play, it does so perhaps necessarily, and in addition, clearly suggests that these characters' situations are in fact meant to be symbolic of some greater human condition. Ultimately, we recognize a tradeoff for every one of these questions of adaptation, but by and large, as these two examples illustrate, the gain outweighs the loss in the Beckett on Film Project. Or, put simply: the directors and actors earn their paychecks.

Now keep in mind that despite the interpretive decisions I just described, the main thrust of this collection remains Beckett's. What does that mean? It means that these plays glimmer and shine with a bleak despair. The most dramatic moments are often the most comedic, and the only happy characters-well, forget about happy characters (after all, "Nothing is funnier than unhappiness," as Nell from Endgame tells us). But, dismal as they can be, Beckett's plays always manage to match their gloom in originality, creativity, and importance. They pose critical questions about what it means to exist as a human being. Do we simply spend our days idly, waiting-for Godot or anything else? Do we bury ourselves in the desert when we say "I do"? Can our condition be reduced to the emblem of a solitary finch, living in a draped cage with a dead mate and only a cuttle-bone to eat, in a darkened room stalked by a black cat whose own life depends on a suicidal man standing at a window? Whether or not you agree, you cannot help but ask, once Beckett has shown you the shadowy corners of his imagination. And keep in mind his influence on theatre and even art in general. Often touted as odd and sometimes inaccessible, but always brilliant, Beckett's plays deserve our attention, whether or not we choose to buy the Beckett on Film collection. What these productions add to Beckett's vision is an important sense of a modern moment. How have the technological advances made since Beckett's death affected what it means to be Beckettian? And how do the questions his work poses affect you? It's worth your time to find out.

Mixed bag
Those who are familiar with the original productions will find this collection both exhilarating and frustrating. The more faithful the directors are to Beckett's vision, the more successful the adaptation to film. Come and Go is perhaps the purest of them, and also the most chilling. Other effective adaptations include Krapp's Last Tape, Rough for Theatre II, Act Without Words II, A Piece of Monologue, and Play (Minghella's truly -cinematic- adaptation probably deserves the highest marks). I'm ambivalent about many others, not least Ohio Impromptu and Catastrophe.

Unfortunately the longer plays (Godot, Happy Days, and Endgame) suffer from the directors' mistaken impression that Beckett's characters must be decrepit, disgusting, and/or humorless. Quite the contrary, there is levity and compassion to be found in Beckett's work, and without it his meditations become intolerable rather than incisive. Godot has its moments, but it's not nearly as effective (or funny) as any number of previous productions.

Pacing is also a significant issue here. Beckett's plays (excepting Not I and Play) demand a very slow reading, with an abundance of silence. Many of these adaptations simply plow through the texts with no apparent consideration of heft or nuance; Rockaby is probably the most egregious example. Other directorial liberties make Not I and What Where wholly unacceptable; these simply cannot be considered Beckett's work.

Happily, more Beckett productions are becoming available on DVD. You can purchase Happy Days with Irene Worth's excellent performance on this very site, three plays (Eh Joe, Footfalls, Rockaby) starring Beckett's favorite actress Billie Whitelaw, and a DVD of Beckett Directs Beckett (the three long plays) hopefully in the near future.

Excellent, with one exception.
First let me say I've been waiting my whole adult life for this collection. I've spent 30 years trying to collect audio and video recordings of Beckett's work, and suddenly here are all the theatre peices in one beautiful package. The chance that you will ever find another film version of most of these works, or ever have a chance to see them on stage, is almost nil. If you love Waiting for Godot and Endgame, you will not regret the money spent on this. Unlike most plays and almost all movies, these are peices to be seen again and again, over a lifetime, letting the beauty and subtlety of Beckett's language slowly soak into your being.

That being said, I was disappointed with only one peice: Endgame. With Michael Gambon as one of the leads, I expected the most from this play. But I'm afraid he was badly misdirected in this. He simply enjoys his dispair too much. He enjoys being a selfish, cruel master and his "Perhaps I could go on..." speech (one of Beckett's greatest)loses all its power. Gambon delivers this with hardly a pause, rambling on with the same puckish tone as the rest of his performance. (I thought maybe I was just too used to an earlier film version directed by Beckett, so I went back to the script to check this. After almost every phrase in the speech, Beckett has written (Pause). Without these pauses to let the anguish of the words sink into our minds, the speech carries no more weight than the rest of the text. Well, probably much more than you wanted to know.)

Short Review: BUY THIS NOW! You'll be watching these films again and again as long as you own a DVD player.

The Artist of the Century
Curious that DVD Basen, the wonderful Danish web-compendium of dvd reviews from all over the world, has yet to register a word on BECKETT ON FILM, by any measure the dvd release of the year. These film renditions of Samuel Beckett's nineteen works for the stage (which is not the same as his "complete dramatic works," which would include radio plays and scripts for television), are, for the most part, thrillingly successful. The plays fall into two types. WAITING FOR GODOT, ENDGAME, KRAPP'S LAST TAPE, and HAPPY DAYS, however revolutionary in their time, still more or less conform to the conventional understanding of what a play is, ie: they contain recognizable characters and the shortest is an hour long. Despite the filmmakers' protests to make true movies of these plays, as opposed to "filmed plays," each of their single-locale settings make the theatrical origins of each work inescapable. Having said that, they are the best "filmed plays" this viewer has ever seen. Most of the remaining plays, particularly the late plays, are very short (under 15 minutes), and as Alan Rickman remarks, seem more like installations or "performance art," then full-fledged plays. What makes these works among the greatest plays ever written is precisely their inability to be transfered to another medium. With one exception, each of these little films, even the most brilliant of them (I'm thinking of the mind-blowing PLAY), must somehow compromise itself as a play in order to make the transition to film. The exception is OHIO IMPROMPTU. The intensity of this two character, ten minute piece perhaps reaches the full measure of its power as a film. Beckett's stage directions specify that its two actors be as alike as possible. On film, they can be exactly alike, by virtue of being played by the same actor, namely Jeremy Irons, who has famously played twins before. Despite the actor's disavowal, the characters of Reader and Listener can't help but conjure the image of DEAD RINGERS' Elliot commiserating with his twin brother Beverly aeons from hence in their own personal purgatory. Irons' performance is impeccable and affecting, although the Beckett purist might wish there were a little less of it. The performances throughout the plays are deliriously good, with the sad exception of the beautiful FOOTFALLS, which suffers from an overly mannered delivery on the part of its two actresess. One can only feel sorry for the director saddled with the relentlessly uncinematic THAT TIME. But BECKETT ON FILM is mostly a box of treasure, and a gift to the world. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Tony Kushner's prize-winning play Angels in America became thedefining theatrical event of the 1990s, an astonishing mix of philosophy,politics, and vibrant gay soap opera that summed up the Reagan era for anentire generation of theater-goers. Post-9/11 wouldseem to be too late for a film version--philosophy and politics don'talways age well--but this 2003 HBO adaptation, ably directed by Mike Nichols(The Graduate), provides a time capsule of the '80s and reveals thedeep emotional subcurrents that will give the play lasting power.

The story centers around Prior Walter(Justin Kirk) and Louis Ironson (Ben Shenkman), a gay couple that fallsapart when Prior grows ill as a result of AIDS. But cancer is not the onlything invading Prior's life: He begins to have religious visions of anangel (Emma Thompson, Sense and Sensibility) announcing that he isa prophet. Louis, who doesn't cope well with disease and suggestions ofmortality, leaves and starts a relationship with Joe Pitt (PatrickWilson), a closeted Mormon who works for Roy Cohn (Al Pacino, Dog DayAfternoon)--the real-life right-wing lawyer, notorious for hisruthless behind-the-scenes machinations. Add in Joe's depressed andhallucinating wife Harper (Mary Louise Parker, Fried GreenTomatoes), his determined but open-minded mother Hannah (Meryl Streep,Adaptation), a fierce drag queen/nurse named Belize (JeffreyWright, Basquiat, reprising his celebrated performance from theBroadway production), and you've still only begun to discover the wealthof characters and storylines in Kushner's ambitious work.

Thepowerhouse cast (also featuring James Cromwell, Michael Gambon, and SimonCallow) is uniformly superb. The script has its weaknesses--some of thefantastic elements, including Prior's journey to Heaven towards the end,fall flat--but even what doesn't work is bristling with ideas and aferocious desire to capture human existence in this time and place.--Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (20)

A profound human dimension amid the politics and pain
A jaw-dropping film adaptation of Tony Kushner's epic, 5-hour play, which was a defining artistic statement documenting the political and social upheaval that AIDS-HIV disease brought to America's gay community and to the wider America around it. Mixing agitprop and camp with magical realism and utter, heart-rending, pathos, Kushner and director Mike Nichols bring the story to the screen in a big, big way, with all-around amazing performances by a perfectly cast ensemble. Al Pacino gets to chew up yards of scenery in his portrayal of the sleazy, venal, far-rightwing attorney Roy Cohn (who acted as Joe McCarthy's point man in the infamous 1950s prosecution of "atom spies" Julius and Ethel Rosenberg) and for once, all of Pacino's high-decibel yelling pays off with some real dramatic ooompf.

There are a lot of things that you could comment on in this play -- the exploration of Jewish-American assimilation, the powerful reaffirmation of a supposedly marginalized leftist perspective, etc. -- but the most profound insight Kushner has to offer is about who the real redeeming angels will have to be in our nation's coming cultural reconciliation. The humanity that he is able to impart into the character of the middle-American Mormon, Mother Pitt (played faultlessly by Meryl Streep), is a marvel of modern political drama: and it rings undeniably true. Pushing past our narrowly defined social and political "roles," and into our shared humanity, is the only road open to folks who want to see America's moral and ethical core liberated from the ideological intrusions of the religious far-right, and the resulting frustrated anger of the disenfranchised middle-liberal-left. In a strictly us-vs-them world view, Mother Pitt would be derided by those on the we're-here-we're-queer Left... but as many people have learned, particularly amid the devastating upheavals of the HIV crisis, our real emotional lives are (ideally) not ruled by dogma. Mother Pitt isn't just a caring parent, she's also a kind, pragmatic person, and for her, the most pragmatic choice when confronted with an epidemic, is to simply offer sympathy and solace. What could be more natural? Let's hope her example prevails.

The CITIZEN KANE of the Modern Era
My expectations were high when I learned that HBO was going to spend over $60 million on an adaptation of Tony Kushner's extraordinary 6-hour epic play, but I could nt have imagined that the resulting film would move to the top of my list of best films ever made in the United States - but that is precisely what Angels in America has done.

Streep and Pacino deliver the finest performances of their careers here (Streep in 4 roles!). Emma Thompson is radiant. And the performances of Jeffrey Wright, Mary-Louise Parker, Justin Kirk and Ben Shenkman positively shine.

And the WRITING and DIRECTION! As close to Shakespearean as any American work I have ever read. And scenes that captivate in their composition and lighting, in their structure and their content. And a magical blending of profundity, humor, pathos, tragedy, and ultimately, the triumph of the human spirit over desperation and resignation. A musical score to match the high levels of word and vision.

In short, this film is nothing short of miraculous. All who worked on this masterpiece should be proud of their achievement. Angels in America stands as testimony to what the human mind can accomplish at its finest and most creative.

Simply the best movie I've seen in years....
HBO should've released this movie in movie theaters. I saw it at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and it was a fantastic experience. Seeing it on TV is great, but.... Oh well, just enjoy! The acting, story, and filmography are amazing.

awesome
I started to watch the series using the on demand feature of our cable company and then it went away before I got to watch the whole thing. I can't wait to get the dvd so I can finish watching it and have it to watch again and again. Having been around when this was all going down makes this series really hit home. The acting is superb as are the special effects.

beyond wonderful
If they had released this movie in the theaters, there would not have been enough Academy awards to give to the writer, the director, and the wonderful cast. Who should get Best Actor? Al Pacino as the loathesome Roy Cohn or Justin Kirk as the dying Prior Walter? Who should get Best Actress? Meryl Streep as the practical, compassionate Mormon housewife, or Emma Thompson as the beautiful, terrifying angel? This series had me riveted to the TV set. I could not do anything but watch. Get this movie. You owe it to yourself to witness one of the major artistic events of the decade. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Gracefully adapted from Dava Sobel's extraordinary bestseller, the four-part TV production of Longitude combines drama, history, and scienceinto a stimulating, painstakingly authentic account of personal triumph andjoyous discovery. Equally impressive is the way writer-director CharlesSturridge has crafted parallel stories that complement each other with enrichingperspective. The first story involves the successful 40-year effort of 18th-century clockmaker John Harrison (Michael Gambon) to solve the elusive problemof measuring longitude at sea. In 1714 the British Parliament had offered agenerous reward to anyone who solved the problem, and Harrison devoted his lifeto that solution. The second story, some 200 years later, involves the effort ofshell-shocked British Navy veteran Rupert Gould (Jeremy Irons) to restore theglorious clocks that Harrison had built. Like Harrison, Gould is the mostadmirable type of obsessive, but, also like Harrison, he risks his marriage toaccomplish his difficult task.

Thousands of sailors perished at sea before Harrison's triumph changed history, but Longitude demonstrates that Harrison's glory was slow to arrive--and his prize money even slower. A fascinating study of 18th-century British politics and clashing egos in the arena of science, thefilm is both epic and intimate in consequence, and Sturridge's magnificentscript inspires Gambon and Irons to do some of the best work of theiroutstanding careers. The ever-reliable Ian Hart appears in Part 3 as Harrison's now-adult son and apprentice, and Longitude approaches its dramatic climax with the exhilarating tension of a first-rate thriller. Rallying after sickness to prove the integrity of their marvelous seafaring chronometers, the Harrisons still had to fight for official recognition, and Gould's restoration of the Harrison clockworks provides a fitting coda to this exceptional story about the thrill of discovery and the tenacity of remarkable men. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Better Than the Book
This film is described as an adaptation of Dava Sobel's book of the same name. It is far more than an adaptation, however. Charles Sturridge took a somewhat threadbare tale and turned it into a stirring, dramatic account of the life, tribulations, and ultimate achievement of the 18th century English horologist, John Harrison. It's not that Sobel's book is poorly written. It is in fact entertaining and engrossing as far as it goes. The trouble is that she doesn't go into enough detail and leaves a lot of questions unanswered for the reader. Sturridge takes up her story and fleshes it out, providing the sort of background and character development that the book lacks. Providing the audience with a parallel storyline involving the WWI veteran, Rupert Gould (briefly noted in Sobel's book) also is a stroke of genius on the writer/director's part. The parallels between the lives of the earlier inventor and the shell-shocked vet are striking and poignant.

It does nothing to hurt Sturridge's cause to have assembled such a sterling British cast. Irons and Gambon have great roles to their credit, but they surpass themselves in this production. Sturridge has demonstrated that he can squeeze good acting out of a virtual lemon (Ted Danson in Sturridge's adaptation of "Gulliver's Travels"). He has far more to work with here, and the results are remarkable. Gambon, perhaps best known to American audiences for his lead role in "The Singing Detective," and the recent "Gosford Park," again delivers the goods in this masterful performance. He captures perfectly his character's idiosyncrasies, vicissitudes and ultimate triumph.

Much of the series of course focuses on the "chase" for a solution to the longitude problem that plagued seamen from time immemorial. Methods for determining longitude before the chronometer was invented ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. Heavenly charts were sometimes supplanted by such ludicrous schemes as "the wounded dog method". The following is a transcription of a dialogue delivered by the method's inventor:
" Now, it is vital to my process, Sir Edmund, that each dog be wounded with the *same knife*, as these three animals have been, under my instructions, some three days ago. Now, the animals are then to be conveyed aboard one of His Majesty's ships, uh, under the supervision of a designated officer, whose task it is to *prevent the wound from healing*. Now the knife, however, would remain here, in London, and at *precisely noon*, each day, is to be plunged into the Powder of Sympathy, which would immediately aggravate the wound, so that each dog, no matter how many thousands of miles away he may be on his particular vessel, would begin to howl... thus."

Clearly, there was a need for a practical solution to this age-old problem, as thousands of sailors were placed in constant peril, owing to the fact that, without a reliable method, they really couldn't get their bearings. This is one area where Sobel does a very good job in her book describing the difficulty in determining longitude, versus the rather simple methods for calculating latitude. That a rather simple man of humble origins could work out the method was disconcerting to several members of the vaunted Board of Longitude, which was composed of members of the ruling class. Harrison's chief detractor and a rival for his claim of the longitude prize (20,000 pounds, equivalent to almost a million dollars by today's standards) was Sir Nevil Maskelyne. Maskelyne comes across in the film and in Sobel's book as a rather arrogant, self-inflated snob, who engages in actual subterfuge of Harrison's claims. Viewers/readers may be interested to note that Maskelyne also appears as a character in Thomas Pynchon's "Mason & Dixon," also in an unflattering light.

In terms of a recommendation, I would have to give Sobel's book between three and four stars. While it is highly readable and engaging, it leaves way too many avenues and dramatic possibilities unexplored. Sturridge fills in all the gaps, and then some. It is not often that I recommend a film over a book, but in this instance, the film is a far richer and satisfying experience.

The Quest for Longitude.
I just watched this docudrama this weekend, and while it is too early to see if critics will give this film any latitude, I will.

As a historian, I often long for at least a blend of authenticity when discussing historical events. Often, as in Jean d'Arc films, accuracy is forgotten in leiu of mythology. Longitude give us the story of one of the greatest quests in history, and remains true to Dava Sobel's book on John Harrison and his son William. The two of which have perhaps saved more mariner's lives than life preservers! One mistake of a few minutes cost more than 1,700 men their lives in one incedent.

The drawback to accuracy is length, as this is a four hour film. However, it took the Harrisons 40 years to construct the four clocks/watches, thus an hour per decade seems reasonable.

If you care about maritime travel, history or clocks, this film will keep you interested for the entire four hours.

Exodus I; BA History EWU

A wonderful tale of vital historical importance
The beginning of this film makes clear the importance of knowing one's position at sea. Disasters--some of epic proportions--were distressingly regular when doubts about one's position relative to land or dangerous reefs were the order of the day. This film tells two stories in parallel. The first is of John Harrison's efforts to make accurate nautical clocks--called chronometers--that could be used at sea and provide a simple means of acertaining longitude (by comparing the time at the home port of known longitude to that of the ship determined by the sun or the stars). Harrison had to struggle against many technical odds to make his machines--and against many bureaucratic barriers to getting them accepted.

The second story is that of Rupert Gould, the Royal Navy officer, who, suffering from his experiences in the first world war, begins the process of restoring the old Harrison clocks to working order. This story is of less historical significance than the first, of course, but it is why we are able to go to the Royal Observatory at Greenwich and see the clocks running today. The poor fellow turned the clocks into an obsession as his life changed dramatically around him.

Well done, and well worth the time.

True Story of a Lone Genius who Captured Time
=====>

Note: This review has been written from a city with the following position on Earth:

LATITUDE: (43 degrees 2 minutes North)
LONGITUDE: (81 degrees 9 minutes West)

This 3 hour 20 minute movie (based on the 1995 book by Dava Sobel) that was first on television in 1999 (and transferred to two 100 minute DVDs in 2000) is "a sweeping epic that takes place in two worlds." The two worlds are the eighteenth century of John Harrison (1693 to 1776) and the twentieth century of Lieutenant Commander Rupert Gould (1890 to 1948). This movie chronicles the life of Harrison who builds sea clocks and alternates his story with Gould's who restores Harrison's clocks and at the same time restores his own health. (Note that most of Sobel's book {that has the same title as this movie} is concerned with Harrison's story while only four pages in the last chapter of her book are devoted to Gould's story.)

The beginning of this movie is narrated and lasts less than three minutes. However, this narration is probably the most important part of this movie because it tells the viewer about latitude and longitude, indirectly how to calculate longitude, how time is related to longitude, and why longitude was so difficult to measure "during most of human history." (How to determine latitude was discovered centuries before this.)

I felt this narration was adequate but it did not mention one simple and important fact:

In 24 hours, the Earth spins 360 degrees on its axis from east to west. (Thus, as the narrator states, four minutes of time equals one degree of longitude east or west.)

The first DVD tells the story of how ships (with their crew and valuable cargo) were being lost at sea because they could not determine their position properly since their navigators were unable to calculate the ship's longitude accurately. As a result, the British parliament offered a reward that's equivalent to many millions of dollars today to anyone who could practically solve "the longitude problem."

Most of the scientists of this time thought that this problem's solution, even at sea, was astronomical. However, a lone genius, simple carpenter, and clockmaker named John Harrison (acted superbly by Michael Gambon) knew the fact stated above, so he reasoned that time was the solution to this problem.

So Harrison began building a clock (eventually called a "chronometer") that would be accurate enough to be used by a ship at sea. (Realize at this time there were only pendulum clocks that were quite bad at keeping time on a swaying ship at sea.) The viewer is shown Harrison constructing his clocks with it's many components. As well, we are shown the final beautiful result -- a clock that was to be used at sea. (Note that this first clock was named "H-1.") We are also shown the maiden voyage of H-1 as it's tested in 1736 on a ship bound for Lisbon (with Harrison, a non-sailor, on board). H-1 worked well during this trial. Because of Harrison's perfectionism, he elected after this trial, to build a better clock called H-2 (which was never tested). H-2 led to H-3 (which was also not tested).

As mentioned above, we are also shown scenes of Rupert Gould's life (very well-acted by Jeremy Irons) that alternate with Harrison's adventure described above. We are made aware that Gould's own life was tragic. As a result, he volunteers as a sort of therapy to restore clocks H-1, H-2, and H-3 that, in his time, were almost two centuries old. The result is that the viewer is shown more of the exterior and interior of Harrison's beautiful and complex "timekeepers" and how they actually work.

The second DVD tells us of Harrison's masterpiece -- H-4 (that was the size of a large pocket watch). As with H-1, H-4 is tested in 1761 on a ship bound for Jamaica with Harrison's grown son (well-acted by Ian Hart) on board. This timepiece worked well.

Also we are shown how Harrison had trouble collecting his monetary prize. In fact, we hear one official on the board (the "Board of Longitude") responsible for bestowing this prize say, "I would not wish to see the longitude prize stolen by a country toolmaker." As fate would have it, an astronomer who favored an astronomical method, Nevil Maskelyne (well-acted by Sam West) became the head of this board, causing further delays. Harrison has to seek the assistance of King George the Third (well-acted by Nick Rowe) to cut through this bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, Gould finishes restoring the clocks and manages at the same time to overcome his own problems.

The acting of those indicated above and the supporting cast is exquisite. The cinematography is breath-taking with the scenes at sea very realistic. All costumes that represented the two alternating time periods transport the viewer back to those periods. The movie itself has it all: intrigue, science, history, geography, astronomy, navigation, clockmaking, ambition, and greed.

A minor complaint is that a simple calculation for determining longitude was not shown. As well, the DVD only has one extra feature called "Behind the Scenes."

Finally, although not absolutely necessary, I recommend reading Sobel's book before viewing this movie. Doing this will enhance your enjoyment and understanding of the movie.

In conclusion, this movie was an A&E production. As a result, viewing this movie is definitely "time well spent."

<=====>

The Best!
This has it all! History, science, a great adventure story, great acting. Michael Gambon and Jeremy Irons are superb! Though I haven't read the book I got the book for my Dad a number of years ago. He's a scrooge about books and loved it!
This has a fast-paced story; lots of action shots, verve and movement. The story never dulls and moves easily and effectively. I've watched it nearly a dozen times. If you are interested in how academy, science, and politics collide; are interested in how difficult the scientific and historical processes were almost 300 years ago, this is a DVD for you! ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of Jim Henson's finest hours was the Storyteller series that aired on HBO in 1987. As with his other non-Muppet creations (Labyrinth), Henson fills the screen with wonderful creatures that have a wisp of a J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy. Half of the eight-part series was adapted from Greek myths by Anthony Minghella, who became an Oscar-winning filmmaker a decade later with The English Patient. Minghella weaves the narration of the storyteller (a sturdy and wonderful Michael Gambon, accompanied by a scene-stealing dog) with dialogue from the stories to beguiling effect.

By nature, the Greek myth episodes are a bit more mature and downbeat (ages 8 and older) than the rest of the series, yet give the audience lasting impressions of oft-quoted tales. In "Perseus and the Gorgon," King Argos locks away his wife when it is foretold his future son will kill him. Soon mother and son (Perseus, fathered by none other than Zeus) are washed ashore and another angry king looks to take away Perseus's mother. How can Perseus win the day? By killing the evil Gorgon whose snake-covered head includes eyes that turn humans into statues. Derek Jacobi stars as the brilliant Greek designer in the second tale, "Daedalus and Icarus." The father goes through many hardships, including the famous episode of his son flying too close to the sun. All is not well and does not end well. John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) directs the tale of "Theseus and the Minotaur." A young man reunites with his father, King Aegeus, but is cursed by his witch of a stepmother (literally). When Theseus tries to stop the regular sacrifice to the half-bull, half-man Minotaur, a new curse awaits the young prince. The magical musician Orpheus (Art Malik) finds his muse in "Orpheus and Eurydice." Unfortunately, she soon dies and goes to Hades where Orpheus follows, attempting to win her soul from the devil himself. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Immerse Yourself In Ancient Mythos...
Whether you are a Mythology major in a university or one who has become so familar in the subject that you consider yourself an expert, you are sure to love these myths-come-to-life retellings brought to the screen. Kept in the same vein as Jim Henson's The Storyteller series featuring John Hurt, this series is also told by a teller of stories represented by Michael Gambon and with as much ability to mesmerise the listener as his predecessor.

The music (which is a crowning point, in my opinion) is weaved by Rachel Portman who, as always, delivers a lovely score marred fittingly with dark, forboding - yet bittersweet tones. In many instances such as in the tale of 'Orpheus & Eurydice', the climatic storytelling is accompanied by the score which successfully heightens the intensity of what will happen next. Everything set to music from Eurydice's 'birth' to Ariadne's furious curse when she realises Theseus has abandoned her is rapturously beautiful, chillingly haunting.

The acting performances are also well worth mentioning, most notably that of Gina Bellman [Eurydice], Jesse Birdsall [Aristaeus] and Maggie O'Neill [Ariadne]. Whether it be the wonder found in new life, mischief or the sting of being betrayed, these things prove small feats to bring across by such seasoned performers as these.

Having waited what seems forever for this program to come to DVD, I am ecstatic that it finally has. Remaining true to the original Grecian myths, this series will be cherished for ages to come in the homes of fantasy and mythology lovers alike.

Complete your Jim Henson's The Storyteller Collection
Last year, fans were thrilled to find Jim Henson's The Storyteller Collection on DVD for the first time featuring the fairy tales crafted for the series. Thanks to the success of that DVD, the Greek Myths are also being released this year. While the effects of the series are somewhat dated, the series is still spectacular, incorporating the genius of Jim Henson and those he gathered around him. Also note that the storyteller in this series is Michael Gambon, the new Dumbledore in the third Harry Potter movie.

And to let you know what is on the DVD, here is the episode info provided by Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment:

DAEDALUS AND ICARUS: Daedalus, one of the greatest inventors of ancient Greece, and his son Icarus are betrayed by cruel King Minos and must flee for their lives. To escape Daedalus creates wings to they can fly to safety but will the young Icarus heed his father's instructions or will their dreams melt away.

ORPHEUS AND EURYDICE: The great musician Orpheus vows to bring back the soul of his beloved Eurydice from the depths of Hades. But the task he must complete to reunite with his love turns out to be as tortuous as the fate he will have to endure.

PERSEUS AND THE GORGON: When the evil king threatens Perseus' mother, he must bring back the head of Medussa - who's stare will turn anyone who looks upon her to stone. Will the help of the gods be enough to aid in this seemingly impossible task?

THESEUS AND THE MINATAUR: With the help of a beautiful princess, Theseus tracks down the man-eating Minotaur, half-man, half-bull to prove his courage and loyalty. A fight to the death ensues, and a shocking secret emerges. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Few directors polarize audiences like Peter Greenaway, a filmmaker asinfluenced by Jacobean revenge tragedy and 17th century painting as by theFrench New Wave. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover isboth adored and detested for its combination of sumptuous beauty andrevolting decadence. A vile, gluttonous thief (Michael Gambon, TheSinging Detective) spews hate and abuse at a restaurant run by a stoicFrench cook (Richard Bohringer, Diva), but under the thief's nosehis wife (the ever-sensuous Helen Mirren, Prime Suspect) conductsan affair with a bookish lover (Alan Howard, Strapless). Clothing(by avant-garde designer Jean-Paul Gaultier) changes color as thecharacters move from room to room. Nudity, torture, rotting meat, and TimRoth (Reservoir Dogs) at his sleaziest all contribute theatmosphere of decay and excess. Not for everyone, but for some, essential.--Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Even Worse Than Gummo
I cannot fathom how this horrendous onslaught of depravity masquerading as a film has received such good reviews. There is no plot so I'll sum up what "went on": a classy lady is inexplicably married to a grotesque, low-class criminal, and she goes with him and his gang of thugs nightly to this restaurant that, if I have deciphered the terse grunts serving as exposition correctly, he owns, where he wreaks havoc on the staff and other patrons. The wife endures this for awhile and then decides to have an affair with some guy who also goes there every single night.

Throughout the entire film there are gratuitous disgusting images which never ever let up. The characters are like a child's set of Fisher Price dolls: "Nice Guy," "Nice Lady," "Innocent Little Boy," and we are expected to care what happens to them. The villain comes out looking the best because he is the only one who's not a doormat, and the lead actress (Helen Mirren) is completely unsympathetic. They could have stuck a cardboard cut-out in any of her scenes and achieved the same effect. Not only does the whole movie look like gangrene, but the actors are also purposely made unattractive, so the viewer doesn't even have that to chalk up as a redeeming quality.

I know it's supposed to be challenging and contraversial and blabla...it fails. The two stars are for Gaultier's costumes. Go buy Un Chien Andalou.

Oh my goodness!
I went into Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover" with blinders on. I had absolutely no idea what to expect as the movie started, none whatsoever. I slightly suspected the director made "art" films due to a faint recollection of a discussion I saw on a bulletin board years ago, but that was all I could remember. Heck, I thought Uma Thurman was in this film for some reason! Obviously, this was my first experience with Greenaway, a director I have since learned is noted for creating disturbing films designed to upset audiences. I'll bet this masterpiece had arty types fleeing for the doors! Boy, I wish I'd seen this in an art house when it came out. I'm used to seeing films dealing with subject matter far worse than this one, but viewers who spend their time watching pictures about relationships and strolls through a park on a sunny day aren't. Yes, Greenaway's film deals with abhorrent themes expressed in undeniably grotesque forms. Yes, the picture has ugly scenes of violence. Yes, relationships of a decidedly revealing nature play a big part in the plot. What did you expect from a NC-17 rated picture? Don't worry-you can handle it. Actually, you'll probably be glad that you sat through it because this is a marvelous movie.

"The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover" starts on a particularly memorable note. Big time gangster and thief Albert Spica (Michael Gambon), his wife Georgina (Helen Mirren), and his entourage pull up to the back door of a fancy restaurant run by the fabulous French chef Richard Borst (Richard Bohringer), ready for a night of fine dining and obnoxious behavior. Spica is a notorious brute, a beefy, sadistic thug who enjoys tormenting everyone around him, especially his wife Georgina. Greenaway sets the tone immediately by having a pack of dogs snap and snarl outside the restaurant as Spica presides over the humiliation of an underling. The bad behavior continues inside as Spica and his miscreants throw food, insult the staff and fellow customers, and generally make fools out of themselves. Night after night, Spica and his band of dangerous ruffians return to the restaurant, tormenting Borst and his staff as the restaurant's business drains away. No one, it seems, wants to spend an evening eating next to a guy like Spica.

One gentleman seems relatively unbothered by the ruckus a couple of tables over. Michael (Alan Howard), a scholarly looking librarian who always reads a book while he eats, simply ignores Spica's loud theatrics. When he makes eye contact with the gorgeous Georgina, however, sparks fly. Within minutes the two are in the bathroom madly pawing away at each other. The clandestine affair continues night after night, with both Michael and Georgina continually aware that Albert Spica or one of his goons could discover the tryst at any moment. Eventually, the staff of the restaurant plays a part in helping the two lovebirds meet, allowing them to use the nooks and crannies in the cavernous kitchen and deflecting any suspicions posed by Albert. Georgina uses Michael as a respite from her vicious husband, a chance to escape his obnoxious behaviors if even for a few precious minutes. Spica's wife soon finds the strength to flee from Albert, moving in with Michael in his library. The thuggish Albert flies into a rage over his wife's disappearance. It's not that he cares for her in any way (he definitely doesn't), but his massive ego cannot stand the idea of her being with another man. Spica tracks down Michael and has him murdered by stuffing pages from a book about the French Revolution down his throat. The conclusion to the film is one of the most memorable in recent film history.

After I watched Greenaway's film, I looked a few things up. Some bright film critics in England see this picture as a critique of the Thatcher years, with Spica standing in for the right wing, Georgina as England, and her lover as the hapless political left. Maybe, but I didn't see any of that in the film. I spent too much time chuckling over the coarse behavior of Spica and his goons-one played by Tim Roth in an early role, by the way-and enjoying the stunning Helen Mirren. She's so beautiful here that your heart aches over the indignities she suffers at the hands of Albert. She's also not afraid to do some daring scenes, a lesson she probably learned from her role in the Tinto Brass and Bob Guccione classic "Caligula," made some ten years before this film. If you still need to a reason to watch the movie, if the political symbolism and charged situations leave you cold, check out the great musical score by Michael Nyman and the sumptuous atmosphere of the restaurant. The colors and décor of the dining establishment take your breath away, and Greenaway further uses color by having people's outfits change hue as they walk from room to room. What does it all mean? Who knows, but it's fun to watch.

The DVD version of the film I saw didn't have much in the way of extras besides a trailer and a widescreen picture transfer. No matter, though. The movie is challenging enough to make you forget all about commentaries, stills, and any other of the usual extras. After watching "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover," I would like to see other Peter Greenaway films. Unfortunately, most of them have not received a reissue on DVD. If the subject matter is as disturbing as this film, no wonder! I recommend renting this movie and then inviting some friends over to watch it. Don't tell them anything about it beforehand, though. Just sit back and watch the jaws drop.

Great Film; has it aged well?
Remember seeing this film when it first came out and loving every aspect about it - from the artistic direction, sets, costumes, music to the story line. Now, more than ten years later, after watching the DVD, I've noticed that the movie isn't as shocking as it was the first time around. I still wish the DVD version had subtitles in order to fully understand the thick, heavy British accent. Still, the movie can be enjoyed without even understanding the dialogue - almost as if it were a Silent movie.
And after ten years the only thing about the movie that looks aged are the trendy costumes that Gaultier designed.
The film's visual imagery continues to be its strongest asset with allusions to the Flemish and Spanish Masters of the Baroque Era

disgusting trash
Yuk! How do I give this a negative 5 star rating?

i got a question.
i want to buy "the cook,the thief,his wife & her lover",but i
want to know if there's an audio french version,or subtitles;if
it is,i'll buy it right now. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

As revisionist history, Michael Mann's intelligent docudrama The Insider is a simmering brew of altered facts and dramatic license. In a broader perspective, however, the film (cowritten with Forrest Gump Oscar-winner Eric Roth) is effectively accurate as an engrossing study of ethics in the corruptible industries of tobacco and broadcast journalism. On one side, there is Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe), the former tobacco scientist who violated contractual agreements to expose Brown & Williamson's inclusion of addictive ingredients in cigarettes, casting himself into a vortex of moral dilemma. On the other side is60&nbsp;Minutes producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), whose struggle to report Wigand's story puts him at odds with veteran correspondent Mike Wallace (Christopher Plummer) and senior executives at CBS News.

As the urgency of the story increases, so does the film's palpable sense of paranoia, inviting favorable comparison to All the President's Men. While Pacino downplays the theatrical excess that plagued him in previous roles, Crow is superb as a man who retains his tortured integrity at great personal cost. The Insider is two movies--a cover-up thriller and a drama about journalistic ethics--that combine to embrace the noble values personified by Wigand and Bergman. Even if the details aren't always precise (as Mike Wallace and others protested prior to the film's release), the film adheres to a higher truth that was so blatantly violated by tobacco executives seen in an oft-repeated video clip, lying under oath in the service of greed. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (233)

Exceeding my expectation
I didn't go to the cinema to watch this movie because I thought it's 3 hours length would have put me to deep sleep. Then, I reasoned the imposssibility of a director to dwell on an issue for 3 hours when we already knew beforehand that smoking is bad for you. Well, I will have to put my hands up in air & admitted defeat as this movie is compelling to watch. It could be the tightness of the script, the intensities of the main characters; played so well by Al Pacino, Russell Crowe (with his new found American accent), Christopher Plummer (a far cry from his Sound of Music day); brilliant directions by Mann; or semi documentary format of the movie. I had watched his previous offerings such as The Last of the Mohicans, Heat but The Insider would have to be my all-time favourite. I admired Wigand's bravery for standing up against the big giant corporation amid losing everything that he's owned, the loyalty of the Producer of 60 minutes for not hanging out Wigand to dry. Whilst it's true that in real life, that might not be the whole truth but the ideal is definitely worth reminding. One thing that niggled me would be Mann's usage of same actor & actress in his other movie such as Al Pacino (who could fault him?) & also the lady who played his wife in Heat, who played Wigand's wife in this movie. Highly recommended. Wide screen format is an extra bonus.

Of Smoke, Mirrors...and Truth
I enjoy a well acted and well written movie, especially if it's a true story, and most especially if the story is based upon a newsworthy event. For me, "The Insider" delivers on all accounts! I found myself completely captivated by this film from start to finish. It combines a compelling true story, sparkling performances by an all-star ensemble cast, an outstanding screenplay filled with sharp, crackling dialog, a beautifully haunting musical score, and cinematography which is darkly brooding. All add up to a taut and suspenseful real-life thriller.

This is the riveting tale of how the lives of two men - Jeffrey Wigand, the famous tobacco industry "whistleblower," and Lowell Bergman, a producer for CBS News' "60 Minutes" - become suddenly entwined in the maelstrom of one of the most controversial political and social issues of the mid-1990s: the conspiracy by American tobacco companies to enhance the addictive properties of cigarettes, and then cover up that conspiracy. It is the story of how one lone "whistleblower" publicly exposed the secret actions of the tobacco industry, and endured his enemies' public vilification for his efforts. It's also the story of how one of America's greatest and most respected news organizations, when confronted by the truth of that "whistleblower's" information, betrayed its own journalistic principles in the face of a threatened lawsuit by the tobacco industry.

This film abounds with superlative acting. Al Pacino delivers yet again a stunning performance as Lowell Bergman, the self-assured, still idealistic-after-all-these-years CBS News producer. Russell Crowe, nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Jeffrey Wigand, richly texturizes his character - in part a tormented soul, in part an easy to dislike cynical tough guy, and in part a dreamy idealist. Christopher Plummer brings a perfect blend of shirty arrogance and pomposity to the character of Mike Walla