Description

The swashbuckling classic comes to rip-roaring life in this lavishproduction, filled with breathless romance and derring-do! In the eyes of high society, SirPercy Blakeney (Brideshead Revisited's Anthony Andrews) is a typical fop, surroundedby adoring ladies and clueless gentry. However, he is also a master of disguise and bearsan infamous secret identity: the Scarlet Pimpernel, dashing and fearless rescuer of victimsof the French Revolution! Sir Percy also falls head over heels for the beautiful Marguerite(Somewhere in Time's Jane Seymour), who is also wooed by the villainous PaulChauvelin (The Lord of the Rings' Sir Ian McKellan), Robespierre's Chief Agent for theCommittee of National Security. Suave, stylish, and utterly irresistible, this dazzlingadventure is sure to capture your heart! ... Read more

Reviews (161)

Better Each Time
It's the type of movie that I always expect to be entertaining, but not really 'great.' And every time I see it I find myself wrong. This is THE BEST adaptation of the Pimpernel. Other films have gotten some elements right but not others; this one bags them all (except that I still prefer the most recent version's interpretation of Robespierre, he's priceless). Anthony Andrews is the definitive Sir Percy: hilarious at parties, charismatic in battle, irresistable in love, and unrecognizable in every disguise. Jane Seymour is perfectly lovestruck and intense, and Ian McKellan as Chauvelin shows a man being eaten alive by jealousy. All the portrayals are larger-than-life, but suitably so, for the film has no place for realism. Scenes swing from very funny to almost painfully tense to heart-stoppingly romantic. This production hits every note right (although I wish someone would assasinate that hateful blond child). Not to be missed, definately. So why can't I buy it, I've been trying for a year now? Let's hurry up the DVD.

Sink me! But it's demmed brilliant!
Hopefully "The Scarlet Pimpernel" will someday make its way back to the big screen, but in the meantime this television version holds the place as probably the best one to date. First and foremost, the script never has a dull moment, as it's jam-packed full of romance, intrigue, suspense, and adventure. The action continuously bounces back and forth between England and revolutionary France, where the mysterious Scarlet Pimpernel is saving innocent lives from the cruel blade of Madame Guillotine. Anthony Andrews, as foppish Sir Percy Blakeney, an English aristocrat with a big secret, never fails to deliver. His droll, dry delivery of Percy's lines contrasts brilliantly with his dashing Pimpernel persona. Jane Seymour is a perfectly lovely Marguerite, entirely believeable as a spirited French actress caught between her loyalties. And Sir Ian McKellen is delightfully menacing as Citizen Paul Chauvelin, an agent of the French Republic and Marguerite's spurned lover. The plot is fast-paced, and every scene is as well done as the one before. It is truly a classic to be treasured. Unfortunately, the DVD is only a basic transfer and has no bonus material, but at least it's finally getting its due!

Great Movie, Horrible DVD
When the first second of the first scene shows you little cubes instead of people's heads, the walls, and the torches, you might think the DVD transfer has some problems. When not even the letters in the credits stay stable, you begin to wonder whether you wouldn't be better off buying an old VHS copy and turning it into a tiny-sized Divx file. ARRRRGH!

Which breaks my heart, because this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel is one of my all-time top ten movies. I'd be rating this with one star if the movie wasn't five-star. Too bad I can't actually see it!

Sink me! I'm renting it, and now I've ordered my own copy!
I've watched this movie five times in one weekend, and yet I still want to see it again. The copy currently in my DVD player is one that I'm renting. But I love this movie so much that I've ordered my own copy to add to our home library. Anthony Andrews is the best Sir Percy Blakeney/Scarlet Pimpernel that I've ever seen. I wish there was some way they could make sequels with the same cast members all looking as they did when this 1982 movie was released.

Sink me! Indeed
I took a chance and purchased this dvd purely based on your reviews. I must say that I am simply enamored by this movie. Yes, it differs to the book but it is certainly forgivable. One simply has to understand that it is based on two of Baroness Orczy books and then it all falls into place.

Now, for the movie. Anthony Andrews as the foppish/valiant Sir Percy was excellent. I thought he delivered an exceptional performance. I could not find any fault in his performance especially since the book Percy is so inane and a complete idiot...well, at least, his alter ego in any case. At times, it is so amusing to watch him, especially when he tries to undo Chauvelin. **smiles** I cannot say enough about his performance. When he is also conflicted by his love for Maguerite and his cold treatment of her, it is also beautifully done. His expressions are so real. His concern for the families of the aristos adds such a beautiful side to his character as well. You can actually see that he cares.

Jane Seymour as Maguerite was wonderful as well. The chemistry between her and Anthony Andrews was superb. They conveyed so much fire simply by a glance.

Ian Mckellan was also good. I must admit that when I realized he would play the villian that did not sit well with me (I love him as Gandalf but he really looks different out of the wizard's costume), however, it worked out well.

In conclusion, I thought this was a splendid movie. The sets, the music, the dances, etc were all engaging. There was never a dull moment. I actually ordered the film for my mum since I figure she would love it as well. Though I have never seen any of the other versions, I cannot imagine another one uprooting the love I feel for this one. It would be demmed near impossible. ... Read more

Reviews (75)

Sheer delight
For my money this is Blake Edwards' most enjoyable movie. I've viewed it perhaps a dozen times, and its combination of a peerless cast, fine songs, supremely witty script and sure-footed direction make this a real gem that I will never tire of watching.

Robert Preston (in a role originally intended for Peter Sellers) practically steals the show as Toddy, a gay nightclub perfomer in 1930s Paris. Preston's vitality and charisma make the character of Toddy so warm, humorous and believable that he feels like an old friend by the end of the movie. What a shame Preston made so few films! (We do, however, have his memorable aoppearance in SOB - another Edwards triumph - to be grateful for.)

Julie Andrews is perfectly cast, with her distinctive voice and seemingly ageless face and figure all contributing to a convincing portrayal of a supposed female impersonator. The rapport between her and Preston is a joy to behold, and one can only applaud their classy professionalism.

The rest of the cast is top-notch, and the film reunites Julie Andrews with James Garner 18 years after their first movie together, the 1964 Americanization of Emily. Garner shows a fine comic touch - as always - and Lesley Ann Warren is inimitable as his supremely irritating ex-girlfriend.

The film positively overflows with 1930s Parisian atmosphere and sophistication. In short, Victor/Victoria is a real treat that offers a little something for everybody.

Essential viewing.

Le Jazz Hot!
Although he has just recieved an honorary Oscar, Blake Edwards is often looked upon as a purvayer of low comedy. Although he is the genius behind such sparkling classics as The (original) Pink Panther and Breakfast at Tiffanys, many people frown upon him for his later films such as S.O.B., Blind Date and Switch (let's not mention the post-Sellars Panthers). Victor / Victoria falls, chronologically, between the two sets of films and, in my view, is Edwards at his peak.
Edwards directs his wife Julie Andrews (never better and that includes being a nanny and a nun), in a tale of a [woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman]. The central plot serves as an excellent backbone on which to hang a wonderfully farcical script, some hilarious set-pieces and the fantastic song-and-dance numbers (Bricuse and Mancini's score makes you wish they'd worked together more often).
Andrews, as I say, is flawless coming somewhere between the innocence of Poppins and the lewdness of S.O.B. and giving a fantastic performance. From under her very nose though, the film is stolen by the ever-watchable Robert Preston as Toddy. Preston brings great depth and love to a part that could quite easily have been, as he is refered to in the film, 'a pathetic old queen'. James Garner commendably plays the straight-man (in more ways than one!) with a twinkle in his eye and Lesley Ann Warren hilariously chews every bit of scenery she lays her hands on.
The script, which bears Edwards' name as a co-writer, is as witty and moving as anything written in Hollywood's 'Golden Era' and the musical elements have as much vibrancy as MGM's in their hey-day. Musical highlights include Le Jazz Hot and The Shady Dame from Seville (not to mention the riotous reprise as performed by Preston for the films finale). One-liners don't come much better than "A lot of men can't get it ... up to now, you've been fine", "You look like a raccoon" (you need to see it) and the entire scene in the restaurant that leads to the line "It is a moron who takes advice from a horse's arse" (Edwards regular Graham Stark at his dead-pan best).
The extras on the DVD are limited to trailers and a commentary. The commentary by Edwards and Andrews is informative, if a little disappointing considering the wildness of the film and mainly consists of Edwards enjoying watching the film and Andrews making sure that all of the on and off-screen talent is name-checked.
A real unsung gem that deserves to be seen as often as possible. Tell your friends!

JULIE ANDREWS! A LEGEND!
I remember sitting through it in 1983 in the theatre with Mama and Grandmother. We all LOVED it. With Poppins, Maria and Gertrude; Julie`s Victor/Victoria is HER BEST effort on celluloid. Leslie Ann-Warren, James Garner, Robert Preston, Blake Edwards, Henry Mancini & Leslie Bricusse ALL excell in this comedy. It may be a trifle long and the Hercule Poirot-imitation unnecessary; but it really is the last of the GREAT MGM MUSICALS(although it was shot i England, released by MGM). The set-designs are a treasure 2 behold.

One Big Riot
There is one word that best describes this film, and it's RIOT. The film is one big and grand RIOT. The cockroach-instigated riot scene in the restaurant is memorable. Mr Edwards shot this from the outside so that we get to see a third-person view of what is going on inside through the windows. Also, look at that RIOTY performance by Leslie Ann Warren: the scene where she walks down the train aisle spurting out vehement %$&*$# should be made a classic!! Again, this was shot using a third-person view so that we see inside the train windows but never actually hear her. The film delights in its RIOTS, we get the feeling that it makes fun of its characters in this way, albeit a tender way.
But beneath all the film's RIOTS, is a warm heart (highlighted by Henry Mancini's score.) This warm-hearted attitude transcends even through all those nightclub brawls; and I believe that without this formula, the film might not have been able to handle the issue of homosexuality so well. Excellent performances by Julie Andrews, James Garner, Robert Preston (in a delicious drag queen finale,) Leslie Ann Warren (show stealer) and the whole cast. The musical numbers are also winners. Certainly not for the Lazy Afternoon viewing, but for the Friday/Saturday night film. To those who are offended by gay contents, be warned, the film insists. This is one GAY & RIOTY film.

Blake Edwards - Musical Gender Bending At It's Best!
This is most definitely musical gender-bending at it's best!

Not many musical/comedies are produced nowadays, let alone good ones like Rocky Horror Picture Show & Little Shop Of Horrors to name a few that come to my mind.

This 80's musical/comedy is set in 1934 GAY and I DO MEAN GAY Paree! This film is quite unparalled in the fact that Victor/Victoria was a movie BEFORE it made it to The Great White Way. Julie Andrews played Victor/Victoria in both movie and on stage.

Great songs in - Julie's "Le Jazz Hot" & Lesley Warren's bimboesque "Kings Can-Can". The sexual chemistry is A+++ between Andrews & a sexually confused James Garner who plays "King Marchand" a Chicago club owner, who is so TOTALLY out of his element in Paris, let alone being sexually frustrated and confused over his crush on the beautiful, stylish and gay, Victor.

Great cast, great songs and a greater storyline with lots of slapstick comedy make Victor/Victoria a classic of it's time!

Happy Watching! ... Read more

Reviews (12)

I cried the entire time...
This is a heartwarming story of two tiger cubs separated when they were young, raised in very different environments, and finally reuniting through a sequence of events that could only be described as fate. The shots in this movie are breathtaking, and the tigers' performances put the human actors to shame. There were times when the tigers were talking to each other that I expected subtitles to pop up on the screen - so complex and expressive their language was, and indeed is. But, of course, you don't need subtitles to understand what they say, for they speak in a universal tongue that all beings across the cosmos can understand.

Beautiful Movie!
This movie, "Two Brothers" is magnificent! The script/storyline is great, the acting on the part of the Tigers is absolutely amazing, and best of all, you leave the movie theater with a smile on your face!
I must warn you however: This movie contains scenes that depict violence towards Animals. Of course, the Animals in the movie arent really hurt, but when you realize that things that happen in the movie actually go on in this cruel world that we live in, it will be sobering.
You may actually hate the human race a little after seeing this movie.
But, thankfully, a couple of humans redeem themselves (atleast in the movie they do) by movie's end.
The movie begins with the two precious, and beautiful Tiger cubs, Sangha and Kumal, as they frolic and play in the jungle with their parents.
Then, as usual, humans come along and ruin all that was once beautiful.
The Cubs are seperated and learn just how mean humans can really be.
But fate had something else in store, that the hunters hadnt counted on.........a beautiful, happy reunion of the Two Brothers that will leave a happy tear in your eye, a nice chill up and down your spine, and best of all, a toasty warm feeling in your Soul.
You'll even laugh a few times, too!
This movie accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: To make us realize that HUMANS ARE THE TRUE ANIMALS, AND THE TRUE PREDATORS, AND THAT IT'S UP TO US HUMANS WHO HAVE LOVE AND COMPASSION IN OUR SOULS, TO SAVE THESE BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, FOR ANIMALS ARE GOD'S CHILDREN AS MUCH AS THE HUMAN ANIMAL IS!
Tigers are coming closer and closer to becoming extinct, and WE MUST ACT NOW OR THEY WILL BE FOREVER GONE FROM OUR PLANET!
We must NOT allow that to happen.
How do we prevent it?
By treating Animals, like the beautiful, precious Souls that they are. The same Souls that were created from God's loving hands, just like the human animals were.
This movie proves that Animal Souls, like human Souls, share love, and that love truly can conquer all!

Another great animal film from Annaud
"Two Brothers" tells the story of two tiger cubs, living in the jungles of Asia, who are suddenly split up when treasure hunters who are plundering a temple shoot the father tiger in self-defense. One of the tiger cubs, Kumal, is found by the expedition leader Aidan McRory (played by Guy Pearce). When McRory is thrown into prison, Kumal is sold to a gypsy circus. The other tiger, Sangha, escapes with his mother. Mother and son are separated during the Prince's hunting expedition, and Sangha is found in a cave by the son of the regional governor who brings the tiger home. But, determined to be a danger to the boy, he is given as a gift to the Prince. The tigers re-unite at a staged fight and manage to escape with McRory hot on their trail.

If you've ever seen Director Jean-Jacques Annaud's other animal film, "The Bear," it's told in much the same way -- very little dialogue between the human characters. The animal trainers and the director did an amazing job with the tigers so, at times, I could almost tell exactly what was going through the tigers' minds. Also, Annaud films some of the scenes from their point of view to give that additional depth to the characters. Guy Pearce shows some fine work as McRory who is torn between the spoils of hunting and his love of Kumal. Great scenic shots of the Asian jungles, too. It's just a great family film.

A rare diamond among children's films
"Two Brothers" is a very rare film among the bombastically stupid kiddie pleasers that have filled in the movie landscape for some time now. It does what the best children's films do: It rises above the genre in such a way that it is not a children's film. It supposes that children are intelligent, thoughtful, and emotionally eloquent, and these terms describe the film well. The story surrounds two tiger cubs separated by fate and how they change the humans with whom they interact. One is rescued by a hunter and the other is taken in by a young French boy. The film meditates on issues such as animal cruelty and the choices we make in regard to nature itself. Jean Jacques Annaud, known for films such as "Seven Years in Tibet", and the similar, "The Bear," has made a film of unusual power. As in "The Bear", the dialogue is kept to a minimum, and story is all the more eloquent for it. There is no rapid fire, sound bite dialogue. When the two human leads speak (a great white hunter played by Guy Pearce & young Freddie Highmore) they communicate through, simple, direct dialogue that is somehow more moving by sparing us drizzly speeches or dewey eyed sentimentality. The tigers are wonderous to watch. The movie was shot on High Definition Digital Video instead of film, which also helps with the special effects. The illusion is created by simply filming the animals and adding some CGI alterations here and there. The result is magical. This is somehting of an art house children's film, it feels like a French import and its pacing and visual style. It is distinctly "non-Americanized" and I am grateful for that. While film's like "Shrek 2" which is clever yet obvious dominate the box office, I am hopeful that audiences will discover this film either in its theatrical engagement or on video and DVD. Kids who have seen it have told me it is the best movie they have ever seen, which I think is due to the fact there are no longer any films that credit them with having an attention span or interest in a film that has a fully realized, emotional story (save of course PJ Hogan's spectacular version of "Peter Pan", another underrated gem). More than that, adults will be every bit as enchanted and as taken by suprise as I was.

"Two Brothers" theatrical release
My sister and I saw this movie today and what a wonderful movie! Being animal lovers, we did shed a few tears and fell in love with these lovable tigers, and was so glad that there was a happy ending - I loved the ending. I can't understand why this movie didn't do better at the box office. The tigers were so well trained and the human actors did a great job too! I plan to buy the DVD when it comes out so that I can watch it again. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

I cried the entire time...
This is a heartwarming story of two tiger cubs separated when they were young, raised in very different environments, and finally reuniting through a sequence of events that could only be described as fate. The shots in this movie are breathtaking, and the tigers' performances put the human actors to shame. There were times when the tigers were talking to each other that I expected subtitles to pop up on the screen - so complex and expressive their language was, and indeed is. But, of course, you don't need subtitles to understand what they say, for they speak in a universal tongue that all beings across the cosmos can understand.

Beautiful Movie!
This movie, "Two Brothers" is magnificent! The script/storyline is great, the acting on the part of the Tigers is absolutely amazing, and best of all, you leave the movie theater with a smile on your face!
I must warn you however: This movie contains scenes that depict violence towards Animals. Of course, the Animals in the movie arent really hurt, but when you realize that things that happen in the movie actually go on in this cruel world that we live in, it will be sobering.
You may actually hate the human race a little after seeing this movie.
But, thankfully, a couple of humans redeem themselves (atleast in the movie they do) by movie's end.
The movie begins with the two precious, and beautiful Tiger cubs, Sangha and Kumal, as they frolic and play in the jungle with their parents.
Then, as usual, humans come along and ruin all that was once beautiful.
The Cubs are seperated and learn just how mean humans can really be.
But fate had something else in store, that the hunters hadnt counted on.........a beautiful, happy reunion of the Two Brothers that will leave a happy tear in your eye, a nice chill up and down your spine, and best of all, a toasty warm feeling in your Soul.
You'll even laugh a few times, too!
This movie accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: To make us realize that HUMANS ARE THE TRUE ANIMALS, AND THE TRUE PREDATORS, AND THAT IT'S UP TO US HUMANS WHO HAVE LOVE AND COMPASSION IN OUR SOULS, TO SAVE THESE BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, FOR ANIMALS ARE GOD'S CHILDREN AS MUCH AS THE HUMAN ANIMAL IS!
Tigers are coming closer and closer to becoming extinct, and WE MUST ACT NOW OR THEY WILL BE FOREVER GONE FROM OUR PLANET!
We must NOT allow that to happen.
How do we prevent it?
By treating Animals, like the beautiful, precious Souls that they are. The same Souls that were created from God's loving hands, just like the human animals were.
This movie proves that Animal Souls, like human Souls, share love, and that love truly can conquer all!

Another great animal film from Annaud
"Two Brothers" tells the story of two tiger cubs, living in the jungles of Asia, who are suddenly split up when treasure hunters who are plundering a temple shoot the father tiger in self-defense. One of the tiger cubs, Kumal, is found by the expedition leader Aidan McRory (played by Guy Pearce). When McRory is thrown into prison, Kumal is sold to a gypsy circus. The other tiger, Sangha, escapes with his mother. Mother and son are separated during the Prince's hunting expedition, and Sangha is found in a cave by the son of the regional governor who brings the tiger home. But, determined to be a danger to the boy, he is given as a gift to the Prince. The tigers re-unite at a staged fight and manage to escape with McRory hot on their trail.

If you've ever seen Director Jean-Jacques Annaud's other animal film, "The Bear," it's told in much the same way -- very little dialogue between the human characters. The animal trainers and the director did an amazing job with the tigers so, at times, I could almost tell exactly what was going through the tigers' minds. Also, Annaud films some of the scenes from their point of view to give that additional depth to the characters. Guy Pearce shows some fine work as McRory who is torn between the spoils of hunting and his love of Kumal. Great scenic shots of the Asian jungles, too. It's just a great family film.

A rare diamond among children's films
"Two Brothers" is a very rare film among the bombastically stupid kiddie pleasers that have filled in the movie landscape for some time now. It does what the best children's films do: It rises above the genre in such a way that it is not a children's film. It supposes that children are intelligent, thoughtful, and emotionally eloquent, and these terms describe the film well. The story surrounds two tiger cubs separated by fate and how they change the humans with whom they interact. One is rescued by a hunter and the other is taken in by a young French boy. The film meditates on issues such as animal cruelty and the choices we make in regard to nature itself. Jean Jacques Annaud, known for films such as "Seven Years in Tibet", and the similar, "The Bear," has made a film of unusual power. As in "The Bear", the dialogue is kept to a minimum, and story is all the more eloquent for it. There is no rapid fire, sound bite dialogue. When the two human leads speak (a great white hunter played by Guy Pearce & young Freddie Highmore) they communicate through, simple, direct dialogue that is somehow more moving by sparing us drizzly speeches or dewey eyed sentimentality. The tigers are wonderous to watch. The movie was shot on High Definition Digital Video instead of film, which also helps with the special effects. The illusion is created by simply filming the animals and adding some CGI alterations here and there. The result is magical. This is somehting of an art house children's film, it feels like a French import and its pacing and visual style. It is distinctly "non-Americanized" and I am grateful for that. While film's like "Shrek 2" which is clever yet obvious dominate the box office, I am hopeful that audiences will discover this film either in its theatrical engagement or on video and DVD. Kids who have seen it have told me it is the best movie they have ever seen, which I think is due to the fact there are no longer any films that credit them with having an attention span or interest in a film that has a fully realized, emotional story (save of course PJ Hogan's spectacular version of "Peter Pan", another underrated gem). More than that, adults will be every bit as enchanted and as taken by suprise as I was.

"Two Brothers" theatrical release
My sister and I saw this movie today and what a wonderful movie! Being animal lovers, we did shed a few tears and fell in love with these lovable tigers, and was so glad that there was a happy ending - I loved the ending. I can't understand why this movie didn't do better at the box office. The tigers were so well trained and the human actors did a great job too! I plan to buy the DVD when it comes out so that I can watch it again. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The fascinating British actress Samantha Morton stars as the titular heroine in this provocative version of Jane Eyre, based on Charlotte Bronte's oft-filmed, 1847 novel. The familiar contours of Bronte's story are all here: Jane, the unhappy orphan, grows up to become governess at Thornfield, a gloomy estate owned by the imperious and worldly, but curiously desperate, Mr. Rochester (Ciarán Hinds). While the latter's grasping attentions stir the inexperienced young woman, the gothic goings-on at Thornfield suggest layers of unwholesome secrecy in Rochester's life. Most productions of Jane Eyre carefully reflect Bronte's absorbing balance between romance, horror, and Jane's psychological passage to adulthood. But this 1997 television movie is interesting for its near-reckless emphasis on Jane and Rochester's mutual obsession and galloping jealousies. The dramatic strategy throws off the story's overall tone, but such problems are worth it to see Morton and Hinds explore Jane Eyre's darkest possibilities. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (136)

The best film rendition of this classic novel
This version of "Jane Eyre" with Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds is truly the absolute best, most heart-wrenching one I have seen. The William Hurt and Timothy Dalton versions bored me to tears. This was the first "Jane Eyre" film I have seen where I was weeping at the end. The actors have a true gift for bringing out the emotions of the characters. It was truly superb, unbelievably moving and achingly beautiful.

Nice acting but why didn't they use the book?
Cirian Hinds and Samantha Morton are wonderful actors, but why didn't the screenwriters even glance at Charlotte Bronte's book when they wrote this screenplay? It was a very strange experience to see some of my favorite characters of literature saying and doing things that weren't even remotely connected to the story. Rochester screaming at Jane to leave Thornfield? Jane and Rochester shopping downtown for wedding clothes and "bumping into" Blanche Ingram? I don't think so! Not only did the screenwriters make up entirely new scenes, the dialogue in familiar scenes was often totally unrecognizable. I watch film adaptations to see my favorite characters and scenes fleshed out, not given a major overhaul.

Two things they got right -- the age difference and chemistry between Rochester and Jane (although Samantha Morton is too pretty. Come on! She can't be pretty Harriet Smith in the A&E version of "Emma" and plain-Jane Eyre in this movie!) If you just like to watch good acting, you might like this. But if you, like me, are a fan of the book, this is a very jolting and unpleasant ride.

Best ever Jane Eyre adaptation; magnificent casting!
After reading the book and watching several adaptations, I found this version to be far superior to the others. Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds are absolutely perfect. I find myself compelled to watch it over and over! The only objection I have is the length--it is a shame it couldn't have been a 4 hour miniseries and included more details from the novel, especially interaction between Jane and Mr. Rochester. I was happy to find out the actual video did have added footage from the A&E TV version, but still not enough. Hats off to the two lead actors for superb performances! I look forward to seeing them in future productions.

Really compelling
I can't say that this version of Jane Eyre followed the storyline closely. Because of time constraints, large chunks of the novel had to be cut out or streamlined. This includes not only some key plot points, but a lot of the best dialogue between Jane and Mr. Rochester as their relationship develops.

That said, I still think this is an enjoyable film, so long as you enjoy it in its own right and don't compare it to the book. Both Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton commit to their roles with passion. Like the characters in the novel, neither is conventionally beautiful; they are riveting because of the emotional force they bring to their parts. At times, Hinds was a little too gruff as Rochester, but it never went over the top; he looked the part of Mr. Rochester and in my opinion acted it incredibly well. And Samantha Morton is luminous - she may wear plain clothing and sport a ridiculous hair style, but she shines.

I have to confess
...that I haven't read the novel and can't comment on the liberties that the screenwriters have taken. I can read the book or watch other film adaptations for the "real thing." Based on other's critiques, this version of Jane Eyre seems like a creative re-interpretation, which is fine by me when the end results are so powerful. Certainly a few scenes or characters could have been fleshed out more, but the electric chemistry between Jane and Rochester (as played by two of the most gifted actors on the BBC/A&E scene) makes for a powerful film.

The indoor and outdoor settings, cinematography, and lighting are superbly handled for a small-budgeted TV production, too: the imposing and creepy manor; the gloomy, wind-swept moors; a few strategic shots set in bright sunlight for dramatic contrast and symbolism--all very well done indeed.

If you want a powerful, memorable, and unusual tale of gothic romance with superb acting, do yourself a favor and give this version of Jane Eyre a try. ... Read more

Amazon.com

"I try very hard never to distort or dissemble," says Mr. Neville (Anthony Higgins), a draughtsman of considerable talent contracted by a certain Mrs. Herbert (Janet Suzman) to make 12 drawings for her absent husband of their English estate. Part of that contract involvesMr. Neville taking his pleasure, and that pleasure is Mrs. Herbert.While Mr. Neville aims for fidelity in his drawings, infidelity in privateis quite another matter. Then the film becomes a cerebral puzzle when objects start appearing mysteriously in the subjects of Mr. Neville's various drawings: a ladder that wasn't there before, a pair of boots standing in a field. Mr. Neville's penchant for realism is stymied by these clues, which may or may not suggest the murder of Mr. Herbert. Peter Greenaway seems to have directed this, his first art-house success, with the aim of exploring the failings of perspective in art and casting his doubtful eye on the possibility of "faithful" drawings such as those by which Mr. Neville makes his living. Greenaway was, after all, an art student, and must have known that drawing machines like the one Mr. Neville uses in the film (whichis set in 1694) led not only to the invention of photography, and therefore of film itself, but also to the renouncing of perspective that informs so much of 20th-century painting.

In the film, Greenaway overlays the story's mysterious elements withhighly mannered tableaux, making each scene like a realistic, though sumptuous, painting, while having his actors spout witty and complicated sentences. While this is very entertaining, it has a dual purpose, which is to depict the falseness of surfaces. Mr. Neville's faith in the same is his downfall, and Greenaway's triumph is in his distortions and dissemblings, the narrative lie that gets closer to the truth than any architectural drawing could. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Lovely & Amazing
I first saw "the Draughtsman's Contract" in the movies when it first came out. I was rivited by the wholeness of every detail in the film. For example, the filmmakers eye for accurate detail, even down to the orange ribbions the men & women wore on their clothes!
The story is a real mind bender as well. Everything seems so matter-of-fact, but it's not that way at all. I also love how the tables turn for the obnoxious, know it all draughtsman, and how the clothes colors were reversed when that happened(black/white).
The scenes filmed by candelight were wonderful, not as pretty as those in Barry Lyndon, but with a starker authenticity, making them appear more real.
Another great thing about this movie is how it was scored. Greenaway uses Purcell, but with a twist, it's so clever & very appropriate to this film. Also, Janette Suzmann is terrific as Mrs. Herbert.
Like all of Peter Greenaway's films, this does not have mass appeal, but it's truly a masterpiece & worth a watch especially for those who enjoy period peices, mysteries & stories about the human condition.

Utterly British
This film could have come only from England, and only from director Peter Greenaway. I wasn't sure what this film would be like, but I'd enjoyed all the other Greenaway films I'd seen: THE COOK..., BELLY OF AN ARCHITECT, DROWNING BY NUMBERS, THE PILLOW BOOK, and 81/2 WOMEN. Still, this one seemed different from all of those. I was sure it'd be at the very least interesting, but like I said I had no idea what to expect when I put the brand new DVD into the player. Right away, I liked the film, as I saw a group of powder-faced aristocrats relate some "Tales of Ribaldry". Immediately, I was reminded of Ken Russell. But as this most unusual film unfolded, I realized that this was the first time I could actually call a film a "moving painting" and not feel totally pretentious; THE DRAUGHTSMAN'S CONTRACT is nothing if not an animated landscape painting of the 17th century. Mr. Neville (Anthony Higgins) is our "hero"; he isn't a very likeable sort, supercilious and overeducated, and unabashedly lustful. But even as he causes trouble among the men and women of the Herbert household, beginning an affair with Mrs. Herbert as part of his payment for the 12 drawings of the estate he has been commissioned to produce, he is a fascinating character, played to the T by Higgins. But something strange is going on: as she peruses his drawings, Mrs. Herbert's daughter, Mrs. Talmann (whose husband dislikes Mr. Neville very strongly) believes she sees evidence of "misadventure" (in 20th-century parlance, "murder") in the pictures. So she now blackmails him for favors similar to those which Mr. Neville gets from her mother. Complicated? It gets worse... but if you're really into it that won't matter. Plot isn't important here. Greenaway is making a statement about art which, in spite of the epoch in which it is set, is timeless. No matter how hard an artist (presumably in any medium) tries, it is impossible not to "distort or dissemble". There's more to it than that, but if you're interested you'll have to work to get to it like I did. Don't worry, it's probably more interesting and entertaining than the way I've described it; Greenaway's dialogue is DELICIOUS and the photography (this was before Sacha Vierny became his cinematographer) is excellent, making brilliant use of light and shadow, evoking some of the nuances of painting at that time. Each frame of Greenaway's film is literally a painting in and of itself, and instead of an easy, comprehensive story with likeable characters that anyone could identify with, Greenaway gives us a narrative that resembles that of a painting (witness the scene in which Mr. Neville and a haggard Mrs. Herbert examine a painting, trying to ascertain the story it tells). For those tired of films with characters and situations that supposedly "anyone could relate to", Greenaway's crisp, challenging, funny, and fascinating THE DRAUGHTSMAN'S CONTRACT may be just what you're looking for. See it!

The Draughtsman's Contract
"The Draughtsman's Contract" is a precise, almost mathematical dissection of human motivation, desire, envy and retribution. The wonder is that it is delivered by a painterly director at the height of his powers. A rare mix.

Cunning and subtle, yet in love with the subject...usually doesn't work - but while you're being beguiled by the visuals, the story sneaks up on you from behind, and leaves you with a puzzle which rewards the solving.

Michael Nyman's memorable score perfectly complements the gorgeous cinematography, while providing a constant reminder of the enormous underlying tension of the story.

If all of this sounds a little earnest, let me put it another way - it's all about..., and it looks and sounds beautiful - what's not to like?

Simply perfect
Minimal style could perfectly fit this work. Notwithstanding, it is not a minimal music understood as a boring, monotonous or interminable series of notes, but a magisterial example of mixture 20th and 16th century music. Watching the film is not a neccesary condition to understand this surprising music, supposed to be dated on Purcell's times.

Nyman wonderfully metamorphoses his music, according to the film. You must also listen to Gattaca, a very realistic view of our future world. In this film, the images of the scenes and the music "inhabit" in a perfect simbiosis. The same as this score.

The first song "Chasing Sheep Is Best Left to Shepherds" is the main theme, from which all the music is developed. This is why it could sound minimal but the lovely use of different baroque instruments (and not so baroque, such us harspichord, horns, electric bass...)smears up any idea of monotony.
Quite right.

Detached & Aloof.
This tale of a 17th Century draughtsman who takes a commission to do drawings of a wealthy Englishman's estate only if he can "do" the Lady of the estate at the same time, is an intriguing piece for those unhurried and with a taste for something different.

Meticulously recreating the era, with the best candlelit scenes since Barry Lyndon, we realize that a stately sort of mystery is unfolding as we watch the arrogant artist have his way with first the mistress of the house and then her daughter, all the while insulting and denigrating everyone around him.

The Draughtsman is arrogant, self-confident, and sure that he is superior to the aristocratic twits he serves with his art. That he believes he is smarter than everyone around him will come around to be his undoing. Being used while he thinks he is doing the using, the Draughtsman finds out too late that he has been nothing more than a pawn in a game he never understood.

Not for everyone, I found the film fascinating but as detached and aloof as its protagonist. This cold detachment becomes the wry amusement in the story, but also separates us from any emotional connection to the characters. There are also the typical Greenaway non sequiturs, in this case a naked fool, painted, posing as statues etc. At any rate, worth a look for those wanting something different. ... Read more

Reviews (36)

very long movie/not worth the time
If you're a Meg Ryan fan, she doesn't even appear until halfway through the movie, and then disappears somewhat near the end. Robert Downey Jr. is the main character here and he's always very good. He plays a man who is trained as a physician in the 16th century, but is afraid to use his "gifts", as everyone in the movie calls them, because he has seen so many people die and suffer. He adopts a carefree, indulgent lifestyle, much to the disturbance of his best friend who, in contrast to Downey's character, is a devoted physician. His friend prays for his return, and eventually, Robert (actually his character's name here) does return, by default. He has been banished from his lavish lifestyle by the king (Sam Neill), whom he has angered and disappointed by falling in love with the king's mistress (Polly Walker). Hugh Grant has a tiny part, as a snooty painter commissioned by the king to draw a portrait of his mistress. His character is a real nasty one, very unusual for Hugh Grant. Robert's character undergoes a major transformation, as the new harshness of his life forces him to grow and maximize his potential/his "gifts". The drawn out plot reaches an only slightly satisfying conclusion. Again, very long, and not worth the time.

Amazing scenery, very solid acting, strong story line
All I can say is this is an amazing story. I for one like movies over their printed counterparts - especially when the actors and directors interpretations tell a fantastic story. This is that type of movie. Sam Neill is extraordinary as is Robert Downey Jr. who is playing a character similar to his real life.

I think it is a stunning movie visually but don't believe others that tell you this overshadows the plot or character development, it doesn't. In fact the point of the movie is the Restoration of Merivel (Downey) from a sensualist bent on wine, women and song, to recognize his true talents of a physician and the support that those close to him have given him. This movie is a journey for Merivel through the ups and downs of his life, from drunken debauchery of Charles II's court to fighting the great fire of London and the plague that struck Europe.

All in all I think the scenery is enough reason to get this movie. But don't believe for a minute that there isn't a compelling story, a true character transformation and plenty of conflict and resolution that would have made this movie a winner were it shot in black in white in the mountains.

The rise, fall & restoration of the physician Robert Merivel
"Restoration" won a pair of Oscars for Eugenio Zanetti's Art Direction-Set Deocration and James Acheson's Costume Design, and there is a sense in which the spectacular sets threaten to overwhelm the story, which is based on the novel by Rose Tremain. This is a gorgeous film where the camera often takes time to focus on every detail as we are introduced to one spectacular set after another that presents the lavish court of King Charles II, who returned to the English throne following the restoration of the Stuart monarch. As far as period costume dramas go this 1994 film is virtually in a class by itself, and how it was made for only $18 million is beyond belief.

The reason that many viewers may not cotton to this film is that it is one in which we are repeatedly misled as to what the film is above. Even with the hint of the film's title, which is at face value the term used to describe the reign of Charles II, "Restoration" makes more sense retrospectively. However, I liked the idea that my idea of what the film was about kept evolving. After all the times I have sat through predictable films and been ahead of the characters and the plot, I can certainly enjoy trying to keep up with a story for one and being surprised by the twists and turns in the narrative.

The story is about Robert Merivel (Robert Downey Jr.), a young physician of great promise who is summoned to court to attend to a patient at the command of the King (Sam Neill). Merivel succeeds, albeit more through luck than skill, and is appointed to a position in court. Seduced by life in the palace Merivel accepts the position, which means turning his back on his studies and his best friend John Pearce (David Thewlis), a Quaker. However, the King finds another use for Merivel and marries him to his most spirited mistress, Lady Cedlia (Polly Walker). After the lavish wedding Merivel gets a knighthood and a huge country estate, but the one thing that is denied him is sex with his "wife." Having been ordered not to fall in love with Celia, we believe we know what this film is going to be about. However, in that regard we are both right and wrong.

Despite the glamour of Merivel's rise in the first part of this film, it is his fall that produces the true drama. It is a long fall, hard fall, set against the backdrop of two cataclysmic events in the London of that time: the Black Plague and the Great Fire. It is not that Merivel finds himself during these trying times, but rather than he remembers himself. Downey's performance covers a lot of ground. When he is the fool he embraces the role wholeheartedly, but at the end when he has restored to him the most precious thing that he has lost the look on his face is a moment of transcendent joy. Of course, it is impossible to watch this film today and not wish the actor had taken its moral to heart.

I have enjoyed watching this film several times and one of these days I am going to have to read Tremain's novel. I suspect that the screenplay by Rupert Walters is being extremely faithful, but I would also think that Tremain has all sorts of marvelous period details that I would enjoy. Another thing that impresses me about Michael Hoffman's film is that it has Ian McKellen and Meg Ryan in what are essentially small, but pivotal, roles. "Restoration" is a film where you just go along for the ride, enjoy the pretty pictures, and be surprised at the end to discover how far you have come from where you started.

A fantastic period piece
Some of Downey's best work, I believe. There isn't a single piece of acting in this film that didn't impress me, and of course as a period piece the costuming is gorgeous. It's a well-made statement about what was going on during the Restoration period, as well as being a moving story about an intelligent and talented man thrown into the world of court intrigue, and failing to deal with it very well.
I could wish for more extra stuff on the DVD, but I almost always can. ;-)

Poor DVD Transfer
I am very disapointed. I loved the movie enough to get the DVD only to find that for one of the most beautifull movies ever made it is one of the worst DVD transfers I have ever seen. First, I don't know why Hollywood cannot get it screen format act together. This movie is not wide screen animorphic ( to fite wide screen TV's) nor is it surround sound, as it says on the back under special features. You have to look closer to see the word "Stereo" after running time and color. The first release of The Last of The Mohicans had the same screen format problem but thank God they came out with what they then called an enhanced widescreen version that fixed the problem. Please Mirimax restore Restoration to true wide screen dolby 5.1 surround sound and I will give it an easy 5 stars ... Read more

Amazon.com

Did someone say Dracula II? Like there haven't been a few hundred Dracula movies already? Oh well: Dracula II: Ascension is a sequel to Dracula 2000, with the ageless vampire again returning from apparent extinction. The twist is that Dracula's blood will be used by a researcher (baroque performance by Craig Sheffer) to reverse the effects of a crippling disease; Sheffer's assistants (read: vampire fodder) will help. Joining this scientific survey is long-haired vampire slayer Jason Scott Lee, who seems to have stalked in from another picture--but never mind Roy Scheider, whose wizened priest might be onscreen for all of 60 seconds. After a reasonably lively opening half-hour, this cheapie devolves into the usual blood-letting and illogical behavior. Some of the vampire lore is pretty diverting (did you know a vampire must untie every knot he sees?), but Dracula II is strictly for enthusiasts of the genre. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Amazon.com

S Club's Seeing Double will be best remembered as the film that marked the end of the band. Their demise wasn't caused by this film being particularly bad, but rather their big-screen outing was the contractual glue that kept the group together a little longer than they probably wished. Incorporating the standard pop-movie themes--a control-freak manager, overzealous fans, and the stresses of living on the road--the film also makes the customary tongue-in-cheek references to the fragility of manufactured pop groups.Centered around the S Clubbers' shock discovery that clones of the band are touring America, the film tracks the six as they attempt to capture the impostors and their evil creator, Victor Clonemaster.Peppered with some of their greatest hits--including a musical-style version of "Don't Stop Movin'" performed in a prison--their back catalog is surprisingly underused.

As the group admits in the accompanying interviews, this film is no masterpiece.There are no glitzy special effects, and the clones of the six are created by clever camera angles rather than anything more fancy. Like in Spiceworld, all sense of reality and location gets lost during the film.Despite some establishing shots, it's difficult to work out where the action of the film is supposed to be taking place: is it Los Angeles, Barcelona, or a set at Elstree? But the need to suspend all sense of reality adds to the fun of the film, and Seeing Double turns out to be good, wholesome entertainment that mixes adventure, fun, and irony.--John Galilee ... Read more