Reviews (1707)

Titanic Triumphs Over Sinking Feeling
James Cameron's 1997 Titanic is, of course, the biggest box office hit of all time, edging out such blockbuster films as E.T., Star Wars, and Jurassic Park for that title. This film, with its tale of star-crossed lovers Rose and Jack intertwined with the real-life tragedy of the Royal Mail Steamer Titanic, won 11 Academy Awards and the loyalty of its millions of fans.
In 1997, though, no one involved in its making (except maybe the determined Cameron himself) believed this movie would float to box office glory. It was so ambitious and so expensive that not one but two studios (Paramount and 20th Century Fox) financed it, splitting the distribution rights and spending over $200,000,000 to recreate the fatal maiden voyage of the 1912 world's largest ocean liner. Yet Cameron, who had previously directed the first two Terminator movies, The Abyss, and True Lies, was proven correct when world-wide audiences embraced this touching and technically brilliant movie.
Yes, this first movie to reap $1 billion in box office gross did capture the hearts of millions of teenage girls who repeated screenings to see Leonardo DiCaprio's Jack Dawson woo Kate Winslet's feisty socialite (and soon-to-be-wed) Rose. And while many detractors scoff at this admittedly clichéd poor-boy-meets-rich-girl love story, it is exactly through this pairing that we get a feel for what it was like to travel at sea in those Gilded Era days before the First World War destroyed the old Europe forever.
This film has much going for it. It has, in addition to actual location shots of the real Titanic wreck (the minisub sequence is NOT special effects), a winsome couple, a classic mustache-twirling villain (Billy Zane) with the usual henchman (a menacing David Warner), a great supporting cast which includes Danny Nuccio, Bernard Fox (who used to guest star in TV series such as Hogan's Heroes and Bewitched), Kathy Bates, Bill Paxton (who has appeared in most of Cameron's movies) and Gloria Stuart (who plays the older Rose Dawson). Titanic also has a great musical score and incredible visuals: the sinking of the great liner is certainly realistic - even if the CGI effects are a bit artificial-looking. This picture certainly was difficult to make .... Thankfully, in spite of the media hype and negative publicity, Titanic proved to be a good and entertaining film. I recommend it to anyone who likes love stories or epic disaster films. This movie mixes both genres very well.

The Maiden Voyage
O.K. I'll admit it, while I'm usually not much for the sappy romantic films, James Cameron's Oscar winning epic Titanic is a very good movie. And I did see it more than once on the big screen.

An undersea expedition, led by explorer Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton), is searching for a valuable diamond aboard the wreckage of the Titanic. The team, instead finds a drawing of seventeen-year-old Rose DeWitt Bukater, (Kate Winslet) who is on the way to her wedding to wealthy tycoon, Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). Now an old woman (Gloria Stuart) Rose tells her story of the fateful voyage to the team. While the ship races to meet its fate with an iceberg, Rose falls in love with Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) a free-spirited artist and third-class passenger who ignites a passion inside her.

The film itself is a technical marvel. Cameron and his crew recreated the ship and her history with such skill and percision that it's easy to go along for the ride. I liked the way the fictional story of Jack and Rose was interlaced with actual historical figures and facts. For example "The Unsinkable" Molly Brown (Kathy Bates), Captain Edward J. Smith (Bernard Hill), and shipbuilders J. Bruce Ismay (Jonathan Hyde) & Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber), all have a place within the love story. Speaking of which, for me, it's Stuart that sells the romance. Acting as "narrator", she makes it possible to care about these characters more than you would have otherwise. The chemistry between DiCaprio and Winslet is very apparent and Zane is pitch perfect as Cal. The sinking sequence is really something and no disaster film since has matched its scope.

As it stands right now, the DVD doesn't have any bonus material on it, save for the theatrical trailer. Enough time has passed that another edition is warranted. That said, the bare bones DVD is recomended. For some additiional perspective on the history of the disaster, I also suggest, James Cameron's documentary Ghosts Of The Abyss.

movie hits an expensive iceberg
this is my opinion should have its own category in the video store.by this i mean it should be under terrible movies that cost to much along with the day after tomorow.I think that this movie really did hit an iceberg and it was only popular because of its stars these stars i must add were not that great they were ok but nothing special.And i would rather shoot myself than hear another person singing my heart will go on.I really do not like this over expensive movie bu5 i suppose that thats just my opinion.

LOVE IT!
THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORETE MOVIES OF ALL TIME!THE ONLY GROSS PART IS WHEN ROSE TAKES OF ALL HER CLOTHES!?YUCK!BUT ANYWAY,IT`S A GREAT AND ROMANTIC MOVIE!

build a bridge
titanic...The Movie....Is just that.
I enjoy the story, from that perspective.
I appreciate the effort to create a level of interest in such an event. Drama can attempt to capture, only you can respond!
In reading short 4-5star reviews, and Loooong 2-3star reviews, I believe the connection has been made, as planned! ... Read more

Amazon.com

This epic documentary does a wonderful job of recapturing the revolutionary impact the impressionists made while providing a historical and artistic context for this extraordinary group of painters. The work of Monet, Degas, Morisot, and their fellow impressionists has now become so familiar that its power to shock has all but disappeared.

Young and resolutely modern, these artists threw off the shackles of academic art to capture everyday life in paintings that were iconoclastic in both style and subject. At first they struggled to survive because their work was rejected by the conservative Paris Salon, but those with independent means helped those without (Monet in particular was frequently rescued from poverty by his friends), and gradually they became impossible to ignore. Bruce Alfred's script thoroughly explains the development of the impressionists' approach to art and reveals fascinating aspects of their individual personalities, while a combination of dramatic reconstructions, period photographs, and the paintings themselves creates a rich and informative visual tapestry. Anyone with an interest in the history of art will find much to enjoy. --Simon Leake ... Read more

Reviews (1)

magnifique!
My wife and I love Impressionism. We have several art books on the topic, and we saw the massive exhibit in Washington, D.C., in 1986 (from which we're still recovering!), and a more recent one at the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth.

BUT ... we learned so much in this DVD set (which I gave to my wife as a Christmas present) that we had not read/learned anywhere else: there is a lot of information about the artists' personal lives, family problems, quarrels with each other, their failing health and deaths, etc., that is almost as fascinating as the paintings themselves -- which are simply LUMINOUS in this presentation.

The only disappointment is the limited "extras" and the limited number of paintings in the gallery extra -- perhaps a reason to downrate this to 4 stars. But ... I'll keep it at 5. ... Read more

Reviews (117)

Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan give charming and sweet performances!
I still love this movie! "Sleepless in Seattle" is still one of the best romantic films that I have seen since...ever! The performances in the film were top-notch and the storyline was terrific! To me, this film talks about two things...fate and destiny. "Sleepless" focuses on Sam Baldwin (Tom Hanks), a recently widowed father who, because of the death of his wife Maggie (Carey Lowell), decides to move out to Seattle with his son Jonah (Ross Malinger) to start over again. One night, Jonah calls a talk radio show, who asks Sam to come to the phone and explain everything. So Sam sat down and talked about everything that he and his wife had done over the past few years, how he loved her, and such. Sam's story was such a big hit across America that women have been pouring letters of comfort at Sam's home. The story has also reached the heart of a newspaper writer named Annie Reed (Meg Ryan). Annie is single, lives in New York, and is engaged to a man named Walter (Bill Pullman), who is pretty much allergic to everything. After hearing Sam's story on the radio that night, Annie believes that she and Sam are destined to be together, due to typical Hollywood romance from such films as, for example, "An Affair to Remember". And romantic charm and trouble ensues from there on as, for example, Annie goes to Seattle to sort of "spy" on Sam to see what he is like, especially with his son, etc. "Sleepless in Seattle" marks the second teaming of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan from their first hit, "Joe Versus the Volcano" in 1990, and before they starred a third time in 1998's "You've Got Mail", which is directed by "Sleepless" director Nora Ephron ("This is My Life"). And speaking of the director, she directed this film with a lot of heart, soul, and emotion. Nora Ephron's best work to date! "Sleepless in Seattle" has also the absolute best performances of all time from Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. I kind of liked the way that Meg Ryan's hair looked in the film. To me, you don't get to see Meg Ryan with hair like that a lot. I like this film because it is one of those films where two people eventually cross paths continuously, and in the end, they meet each other for the first time and live happily ever after! I really hope that there is a sequel to this film in the making, but if there isn't, then I will still enjoy "Sleepless in Seattle" for years to come!

A Laugh-Out-Loud Funny Charmer
First of all, Sleepless in Seattle IS a chick flick, yes, and there are certainly some stretches of the imagination required as far as plot goes, but the real emphasis is the characters, and that is the strength of the movie...the entire cast is excellent, from Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks to the supporting cast (Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Pullman, Ross Malinger and Robert Reiner). The story and chemistry is charming, but more than that, the movie is hysterical. Everytime I watch the movie again (I've seen it about 5 or 6 times now) I realize how funny it is...Nora Ephron may be the best current writer of real romantic comedies. There are SO many funny little things scattered throughout the movie...even if you don't like "chick flicks," you should watch it because it's one of the funniest movies ever.

Absolutely wonderful!
I first saw this movie when I was in college with my roomate, who knows all the best movies out there. I absolutely fell in love with it, and I went out and bought it immediately. It's ideal if you are single, it gives you hope for finding that perfect someone :), at least it did for me. If you like You've Got Mail, you'll also like Sleepless in Seattle, or if you haven't seen either, they go perfect together!!

great chick flick for chicks
Tom Hanks stars as recent widower from Seattle who talks to a radio show host about his troubles and Meg Ryan plays a recently engaged woman from New York who develops a relationship with Hank's character. The plot is a bit cheesy as well as the lines, but that is how chick flicks are made--cheesy plots and lines. Though most guys will not like "Sleepless in Seattle" unless they enjoy other "chick flicks," most women enjoy this contemporary classic of long distance romance. If you like the movie be sure to check out the DVD, which has many more added features such as a music video and commentary by the director and co-writer.

Sleepless in Seattle
WOW! I LOVE this movie! It's a favorite of all my families. I think this is a great love story and almost anyone would enjoy it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Comparing Godspell to its near-contemporaries Jesus ChristSuperstar and Hair is unavoidable, but Godspell has developed its own unique following. With their thrift-store-meets-circus-performer garb, the characters in David Greene's adaptation of the popular off-Broadway production may look more like the hippies in Hair than the biblical personages of Superstar. But Godspell isn't really about the "Age of Aquarius," nor does it adopt a dark or operatic tone towards its subject matter, the Gospel according to Matthew. The mood is, instead, upbeat and uplifting (at least until the crucifixion sequence).

The film opens with youthful city dwellers from various walks of life dropping their activities to follow John the Baptist (David Haskell from the original New York production). They sing ("Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord") as he leads them into a fountain where they are (metaphorically) baptized. There they meet Jesus (Victor Garber). Frizzy hair and mime makeup aside, the handsome young Garber (Titanic, Annie) is convincing in his film debut. Once baptized, they follow him around various scenic New York locations, singing and acting out passages from the Scriptures.

The largely unknown cast is talented and charismatic, but the film is only fitfully engaging on an emotional level because only Jesus, John, and Judas (Haskell again) emerge as distinct characters. Stephen Schwartz's pleasing pop-rock score, however, helps to smooth over the rough spots, and Robin Lamont's hit version of "Day by Day" remains a highlight. --Kathleen C. Fennessy ... Read more

Reviews (105)

When wilt thou save the people?
I love Godspell, but this film won't be for everyone. The plot is confusing, since it's basically just Jesus and his disciples acting out parables from the Bible as the plot meanders along, somewhat faithful to the Gospel of Mattthew. The cast mugs a lot, using a ton of cartoon-y voices and facial expressions, which can get annoying.

My favorite part of Godspell is the music. I love almost every song. "Save The People," "Bless The Lord," "By My Side," "Beautiful City," "Day By Day," "Turn Back, O Man" are just some of the classics that appear in this film, sung with an exciting innocence, and staged somewhat inventively, especially the "All For The Best," number.

The cast is great - fans of ABC's "Alias" television series will be shocked to see Victor Garber as an Afro'd Superman shirt singing Jesus. I know I was! The great Lynne Thigpen, sadly passed away, gets a great rollicking number in "Bless The Lord," and the rest of the cast is entertaining as well in their own ways.

So this movie may not be for everybody - if you don't think you can handle a movie based on Bible parables, then don't bother buying this. But I suggest giving this a try - I did, and it turned into one of my favorite movies.

The Best Religious Musical Ever!
I am in a production of "Godspell" myself at my high school as John the Baptist. The movie was the perfect way to really see how David Haskell performed it. Not only that, but the power of the final scene made realize just exactly what I'd undertaken. The music, the characters, and the scenery made this a very moving show. The only bad comment that I would have to make is that the sound quality on some of the songs deteriorates, which made me a little edgy. However, I cannot believe that someone could call it a mockery of the New Testament. I consider it one of the best. Suddenly we can see Jesus, in a modern-day situation, and relate to him. The songs add more brilliant color to the movie, with songs varying from jubilant (Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord), to sad (By My Side, On The Willows). I would say that even if you aren't a religious person, the music and the acting is worth watching.

Better than Superstar
Someone said that this musical is horrible and if you wanted to see a Bible-based retelling of the Gospels to see Jesus Christ Superstar or !Hero. First of all, Jesus Christ Superstar is not Biblical and denies the diety of Christ (the writers aren't even Christians). !Hero is a well-intentioned try, but it's not the Bible, its paralellism (like sandwiches out of a backpack instead of bread and fish for feeding the 5000). Godspell, while at first seeming entirely bizarre and maybe even mocking, once you take a good look at it, you can see that they are really presenting the teachings of Jesus (whereas Superstar only presented the 'drama' of the story) in a fun and creative way that doesn't take away from the message. The songs are great too, although they may need some time to grow on you (because it is very very 70's).
One thing to keep in mind is that this movie is told in presentational form, where the audience is acknowledged and talked to. The actors in the movie are playing *actors*. The movie is meant to be understood that the people in the movie are *actors* acting out the stories. Once you get this, it's a very entertaining movie with great songs, dancing, and creative ways of modernizing some aspects of the Gospel without completely changing the message. I suggest getting it if you enjoy musicals in general, or if you're looking for a good alternative to Jesus Christ Superstar.

THIS MUSICAL IS TERRIBLE!!!
THIS MUSICAL DOSN'T MAKE SENSE! IT'S STUIPED! WHY DID THEY PUT JESUS ON A BASEBALL GATE INSTEAD OF PUTTING HIM ON A CROSS?!?! THIS MUSICAL CAN NEVER BE MADE SO IT WOULD BE BETTER.

THE FIRST SONG IS OK, BUT I'M STILL CONFUSED WITH THE WHOLE SUPERMAN SHIRT THING.

I CAN HARDLY REMEMBER THE OTHER SONGS. I SAY IF YOU WANT TO SEE A GOOD BIBLE BASED ROCK OPERA, YOU SHOULD SEE !HERO OR JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.

When.. you.. feel.. sad..
My sister and I have been fans of this movie almost since it came out. It is by far my favorite musical.

I love most of the musical numbers, except for "Alas For You", which scared me when I was a kid... but, I'm over it now. No, really, I am. :)

There aren't too many bonuses on the dvd (which is my reason for four stars instead of five): a couple of short text bios of a few of the stars and some trailers of the movie. The scene selection choices were well done, so if you have one favorite song from the movie, you can go straight to it.

The only two stars from this, that I know of, that have had a long lasting acting career, are Victor Garber who plays Jesus (I still can't believe this is the same guy that plays Sydney's father on Alias) and the late very great Lynne Thigpen.

Out of my dvd collection, this one has the strangest list of foreign language subtitles: English, Spanish, Portugese, Chinese, Korean, and Thai. I'm guessing the movie wasn't all that popular in Europe.

Soooo, when you feel sad or under a curse, this movie should definitely lift your spirits. Enjoy! ... Read more

Reviews (124)

Excellent
I watched this movie when it first aired and loved it so much that I bought the video. I have since watched it numerous times.

Brandy does not have near the voice to do a Rogers and Hammerstein. I still don't understand why she was cast as Cinderella. I hope she will not attempt another musical in the future. Whitney was Whitney. She succeeded in turning the fairy godmother into her image.

Fortunately, the rest of the cast more than make up for them. Overall, the acting was good. The singing (beside Brandy) was excellent. Whoopi Goldberg and Victor Garber were great as Queen and King. Whoopi was hilarious, but I wish she didn't have to sing. I agree with the other reviewers that Bernadette Peters stole the show as the wicked stepmother. Her singing and acting were superb. Jason Alexander was OK as the Prince's Valet, but why did he need that accent??? The two stepsisters were funny.

The real fairy tale is newcomer Paolo Montalban. He was exceptional in his TV debut and what a fantastic voice. I hope to hear him sing again. His prince was perfectly charming, and he could dance too.

Lastly, the mutlicultural casting is ingenious. All the actors and actresses were cast by their singing (except Brandy) and acting (except Whitney) ability. Disney didn't make this an all-white or all-black Cinderella so children of all races can enjoy it. For the people who think that this is not realistic, remember THIS IS A FAIRY TALE. If mice can change into horses and pumpkins into coaches that fly then why can't a white king and a black queen have an asian son. We don't need an scientific explanation to everything. Just enjoy the movie. ~

Great film!!
This version took a big risk and, eventhough its tough to see, it was a woderful film. True, Brandy doesn't have the best voice for R&H but her Cinderella was a stronger character and more believable, instead of the usual weak Cinderella. Having great B'dway stars like Bernadette Peters, Jason Alexander, Whoopi Goldberg, Victor Garber, Paolo Montalban and the two step sister brought life, woderful acting, and wonderful singing to the film. Even though Whitney Houston wasn't the best choice for the Fairy Godmother she produced the movie and you have to admit she can sing. The sets, costumes, and special effects were amazing and brought out the story book mood, something the other versions never did and R&H's score was beautifully brought back to its full glory that just wasn't in the 1965 production. Though the film has a few flaws it's a great film!!

Fabulous!
My 2-year-old daughter and I have so much fun singing along with this video. She even asks me to dance during the ballroom scenes. It is a fabulous production.

great voices but ok acting
I've seen the version with Leslie Anne Warren and thought that anyone could sing and be Cinderella better than her, and with Disney's 1997 version someone did. Brandy brings to this role some much needed sophistication and class that, unfortunately, Leslie Anne did not. The movie is filled with great music and overall ok acting, but still can't anyone make a musical that is not corny or cheesy? Did the great musical end with Grease? Paolo was absolutely fabulous and a great find. His voice resounded with greatness. It's too bad that a musical can have such great singing talent, but not much in the acting department. Still, it makes for great background noise while reading or studying.

multi-ethnic cast shines!
Having grown up with the magic of Lesley Anne Warren as Cinderella, I wasn't sure the Rogers and Hammerstein musical could be topped, but the whole family was impressed with this one. Brandy does a wonderful job as Cinderella: demur, wistful, and understated, and her singing is beautiful (and I wasn't a fan before). The set and costumes and the supporting cast are all excellent! All of the actors manage to convey a sense of their characters' humanity (with the possible exception of Jason Alexander). The "evil" stepsisters are a hoot, Bernadette Peters is inspired, the royal parents capture every parent's concern for their offspring, and Paolo Montalban as the prince is someone anyone could fall in love with.... In short, this updated, multicultural Cinderella is worth putting in your DVD library. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Meredith Willson's musical masterpiece is such an American classic, itdeserves to be known by each new generation--and this sprightly TV-movie versionspiffs it up nicely for the young folk. It's a testament to Willson'sachievement that this 2003 production can survive a casting flub: the usuallyengaging Matthew Broderick's low-key charm is an exact mismatch for the brassyenergy of traveling salesman Professor Harold Hill. When Broderick sings thewords "thundering, thundering!" from "Seventy-Six Trombones," he sounds asthough he's murmuring, murmuring. But he wears well (especially in a nifty"Marian the Librarian"), and he has lyrical support from Kristin Chenoweth'scrystal-clear singing. Director Jeff Bleckner has a maddening tendency to cutaway from the crucial moment of a scene, but the atmosphere of small-town Iowais ably created. Adding zip is Molly Shannon, hilarious as chief busybody Mrs.Shinn. In short, the "Think System" still works. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Broderick ruins great production
This is my second review of this movie, and I have found that I have a few more observations. Has anyone noticed how wooden and mechanical Broderick's performance is? At times he sounds like he's reading cue cards, and at others his movements resemble those of a puppet, marionette, or wind-up toy. I kept looking during "76 Trombones" to see if he had any visible strings attached. And that blank face of his shows almost no emotion. It's really a shame that casting Broderick ruined the whole movie, because the production has so many good points. The period small-town atmosphere is superb, Kristen Chenoweth is great, the staging in many of the musical numbers (eg. "Iowa Stubborn", "Marian the Librarian" "The Wells Fargo Wagon") is brilliant. The cast radiates YOUTH and vitality, unlike the original 1962 version, whose shopworn cast looks like its been hanging around on the set for too long. But believe me - as far as Harold Hill is concerned, Broderick isn't worthy to shine Robert Preston's marching boots. Whereas previously we had a MUSIC MAN with superlative Harold Hill and a weak production, now the situation is reversed. So again I say, what a shame.

One final point: "Trouble" looks and sounds all wrong. Hill is here assuming the mantle of an itinerant revivalist preacher; his mesmerizing patter is like a fiery sermon. He is cataloguing rather scandalous behavior for the time, and the townspeople should be reacting with shock. Here, instead of preaching Broderick dances around like an idiot, while the people just stand there. Tell you what, Disney, why not just get a new Harold Hill and run all the scenes with him in it all over again?

A pointless but nicely done film.
The age old question - why remake a classic?
The original The Music Man is, in my opinion, one of the greatest movie musicals ever made (as I outline in my review of it). When I saw that it had been remade I was, at once, horrified and fascinated. What will they have done to improve the original? Could they improve the original? Well, the short answer is they couldn't and they haven't.
My main concern was, and is, Matthew Broderick. Although undoubtably a talented musical theatre performer (I enjoyed his performance on the Producers and the How To Suceed ... soundtracks) he is no Robert Preston, which in my books means that he's no Harold Hill! He seems to suffer from a stiff neck for the duration of the film as he hardly moves his head (maybe it's those high collars!). In some of the numbers he looks positively uncomfortable! His voice is not suited to the role and in numbers like 76 Trombones, shows itself to be very weak. The rest of the cast is good, but not in comparison with their counterparts from the original film.
The saving grace to this production is the direction and choreography. The original film is slightly stagey with it's direction (something I actually find endearing), but this one really allows us to explore River City, Iowa and meet it's residents. The choreography dares to be different from the original and I especially love what has been done with 76 Trombones. The sets and costumes are equally impressive, especially when you consider that this was made for television.
On the whole, an entertaining couple of hours but I would recommend watching Mr Preston in action first. After that, this is at it's most entertaining when reminding you of the original. Which is no bad thing!

Wonderful production, but Broderick is miscast
On the whole, I prefer this 2003 Disney production of THE MUSIC MAN to the original 1962 movie version. The original was full of bright, garish colors that emphasized the cast members' age and made the supposedly turn-of-the-century high school gym look more like the one in WEST SIDE STORY. By contrast, the new version recreates the period beautifully, with muted colors that give the train, the town, the school, and the ice cream parlor the look of an old-fashioned picture postcard. The original version was also quite stagey, while the new one uses subtle camera angles to suggest the unwelcoming quality of the town in "Iowa Stubborn" and to create an almost menacing mood in the opening train number, "Rock Island." "Marian the Librarian," which looked silly in the original, here becomes a delightful "literary fantasy." And the new cast is youthful and fresh, with a Marian (Kristen Chenowith) both ravishing of voice and much more appealing of personality than the original's Shirley Jones. Chenowith's Marian is no uptight spinster but the town eccentric, an independent young woman of intelligence and humor. Disney regular Victor Garber also stands out as a pompous yet likeable Mayor Shinn.
Matthew Broderick, though, is all wrong as Harold Hill. In an interview, Broderick suggested that he wanted to create a more understated salesman than Robert Preston's famous "bass drum." But in fact Broderick's performance is simply boring. I couldn't imagine duller renditions of "Ya Got Trouble" and "Seventy-Six Trombones," for example - and if Harold Hill doesn't "sell" those two big numbers, then he is not Harold Hill. In short, though Broderick has been fine in other, less dominating musical roles, he is miscast as a fast-talking, charismatic "spell-binder."

No match for the 1962 version.
Okay, okay, the 1962 version of the Broadway musical turned film, starring Robert Preston (in the part of his life) and Shirley Jones, super sweet and sexy at the same time and with the voice of an angel, happens to be one of my favorite films of all time. But this version? Forgettabout it.

When I first checked out reviews for this after seeing it in its first TV showing (or seeing MOST of it since, I think I started switching channels halfway through), and checking out if it was available on DVD, I was not only a bit shocked they'd even waste a good blank DVD on it but then have the nerve to charge people to buy/rent it, but by some of the POSITIVE reviews. What movie were these folks watching, I wonder, or is it just self-denial, or perhaps they've never seen the 1962 version, or perhaps they just don't know what "The Music Man" is and should be all about?

Still, I gave it a chance. The opening sequence looks and sounds good, the production values good, but my first clue something was "wrong" here was the presence of an Afro-American traveling salesman. This was just not realistic for the time period or places involved. And when Matthew Broderick (playing Harold Hill) takes his first stroll through River City, Iowa, circa early 20th century, more blacks. Fancily dressed ladies and little kids, all living in racial harmony in 1912 Iowa? Just not realistic. I think I even spotted an oriental or two, and these are not "racist" remarks at all. It's just that this just wasn't the way it was back then. Nowhere in the country back then actually, but especially the time period this takes place in. Egads, give me a break Disney on the over-the-top and totally inappropriate political correctness.

It was only when Matthew Broderick, already early on in the movie exhibiting none of the personality characteristics or mannerisms Preston made famous, started "acting" however, saying words and speaking lines like he were tied to a morphine drip, did I start to wonder, what the heck are they butchering a classic for? I kept watching though and when Ferris started to dance around like an 80 year old and sing lines with almost no real emotion or energy or spirit, that I knew this was going to be bad. Matthews' energy level compared to Preston is like a 40 watt light bulb compared to the spotlight on top of the Luxor in Vegas. He butchers EVERY song. His "Trouble in River City" is without a doubt the worst though I think.

The woman who plays Marion the Librarian, while she can sing well enough, is also a horrible miscast. While she sings like a bird (though not nearly as good as Shirley Jones in the original), her acting is generally poor, forced, and her voice is squeaky and her whole "look" nowhere near what it should be. As others have mentioned, the barbershop quartet guys seem much too young, the mayor of the town is played all wrong, although the stuttering kid (played originally by Ron Howard) is okay.

The production values are really about the only good thing about this movie, but almost everything else is wrong. It's hard for me to remember such a blatant bad job of casting here mainly. Matthew Broderick can act, for all we know, he can sing or dance. But he "acts" and sings and dances throughout without any magic or enthusiasm at all. Change the two leads here at least, and ditch the unrealistic and almost insulting political correctness here, and this might've been something good. Though still nowhere near the 1962 version.

Save your money and buy the REAL version, and make a VHS copy or DVD recording of this next time it's shown on the tube. Imho, there really are no legitimate excuses for trying to remake virtually perfectly done originals. Witness the color remake of "Psycho." This whole project should've sat in the can. And don't they do screentests and tryouts for parts anymore? If Matthew Broderick performed in those as he does here, he would've been nixed by any decent casting director, so whaa happened?

Buy the original or so see a live performance. This mostly does unjustice to Wilson's classic.

The Music Man is a True American Classic - Despite This!
I will admit that I'm prejudice when it comes to Robert Preston. Preston had a limited range as a singer, but more than made up for it with stage presence, knowledge of the character of Harold Hill, and great moves that dominated every scene (and he was in nearly every scene). I would be hard-pressed to find someone who would fill the man's shoes. Still, Matthew Broderick seems uncomfortable in his OWN shoes. His awkwardness and gangly movement is disconcerting for me, the viewer. I kept waiting for him to fall down! I know they cast Broderick to attract viewers with his familiar name and his reputation as a musical performer in The Producers, but it's like casting Ray Romano to play Don Corleone in The Godfather because he's Italian. ... Read more

Reviews (482)

Gentlemen prefer blondes
If there were 1/2 ratings, I would have granted an extra half-star if only for the moxie and flair for fun acting that Reese Witherspoon displays in Legally Blonde. An absurd storyline is carried by the actress in a script that fits Ms. Reese tighter than the designer outfits made into a running joke in the film.

Though ably directed and acted by a supporting cast including Luke Wilson and a chihuahua, 5 star storyline it is not. This movie is for fun, not for keeps. Yet, as weak as the foundation may be in Legally Blonde, I found myself smiling at the antics of Elle Woods (Reese W.), a grown up version of Alicia Silverstone's Clueless character. The sorority depictions were frightenly parallel to the one's I recall in college, which only made the stereotype more humourous. And Elle's college entrance video submitted to the Harvard Admission Committee makes the film almost worthwhile on its own.

Men, be not afraid to rent this film with your girlfriend, wife, or boyfriend. Whatever your fancy, Legally Blonde has enough tom-foolery of the collegiate level to keep you laughing. Women, you will only solidify your stature as the significant other who can pick out a movie even your Marine Corp. boytoy will enjoy.

fun despite the weak idea
Reese Witherspoon is Elle Woods, a blonde and beautiful if slightly ditzy college senior whose life is turned upside-down when her rich boyfriend Warner Kensington the Third (Matt Davis) dumps her. With her daddy's plastic, a bottomless wardrobe and a college career based on "Fashion History" Elle is something of a Barbie Doll come to cruel life. Getting into Harvard Law School, and having a promising future ahead of him, Warner sees himself as a future JFK, and JFK isn't supposed to choose Marilyn over Jackie O. Convinced that she still has a chance, Elle pulls out all the stops and manages to crack into the freshman class at school where she sticks out like a sore (and poorly accessorized thumb). Making no friends, and confirming every dumb blonde stereotype ever conceived, Elle is ruthlessly victimized by her seemingly smarter and insecure classmates. Elle wouldn't make it past her first day if not for her inexplicable capacity to dig out the common sense buried under the heady legal theory. Instead, she sort of prospers becoming a success story and more mature person while still being the same cute Elle that only Reese Witherspoon can create.

It's a thin plot, and the tacked criminal trial added at the end seems an excuse to keep a lame idea going, but it works because, like Elle, the script has an endless reservoir of pluck and manages some cute tricks of its own. The dim homilies guiding Elle's sorority lifestyle are bound by a fierce sense of loyalty (people who exercise can't kill people - the endorphins make them too happy), one that the script remains true to. In the end, Elle wins her case because of her loyalty to an accused killer and former sorority sister, one that you'd never think twice about doubting. Neither seem to deserve the attention or loyalty, but manage to win the case anyway. See it if only for Reese Witherspoon.

A film for girls everywhere
I was expecting this movie to be full of dumb blonde jokes, but was pleasantly surprised. Considering I'm naturally dark, and dye my hair as dark as possible, I'm never gonna be blonde, and it probably wouldn't suit me. But I do have what people would call my "blonde moments" where I say/do something stupid. I don't see why brunettes can't be labelled a bit daft at times too! Cos I definitely am!

This movie is carried by a strong cast: Reese Witherspoon, Selma Blair, Stifler's Mom from American Pie, Ali Larter, Thomas Andrews from Titanic, and many more! My faves out of the cast have to be Ali Larter and Stifler's Mom! They stole the movie out from underneath Reese Witherspoon.

What is amazing about this movie, is the sheer amount of time spent on Reese's hair (which looks suspiciously like extensions). Throughout the movie, she has a mere 40 different hairstyles, which sometimes feels like a different hairstyle for each scene of the movie. Reese also wears a lot of different clothes for each scene, a lot of them with something pink in them, which she all got to KEEP after this was finished shooting! Free clothes, alright for some!

Once again, Selma Blair comes across as a bit of an ice queen in her role as Vivian, but you'll be glad to hear, the ice melts before the end of the movie!

What didn't I see coming in this movie? What Victor Garber's character really turns out to be. And trust me, he's not as nice in this, as he was in Titanic.

There is a sequel too, which I'm sure I'll manage to get my hands on eventually. And Stifler's Mom comes back for that too! That's how good her role is! But this is basically a feel good movie, which shows you don't need to change for anybody.

Legally Blonde
Legally Blonde DVD ~ Reese Witherspoon is a funny movie without any real social pretense. Witherspoon is awesome in her depiction of the felmale lawyer in stiletto heals and super feminine approach to life. More women should be like her...

Hilarious comedy!
This movie is one of my favorites. It's a fish-out-of-water comedy about a feminine, ditzy (but actually quite smart) sorority girl, Elle Woods (Witherspoon), who goes to Harvard Law School to get her boyfriend back. She ends up realizing that she's a lot smarter than people give her credit for, and succeeding beyond everyone's expectations including her own. The movie is hilarious the whole way through, and Witherspoon plays her part just perfectly. This is also one of those movies, at least for me, that you can watch over and over again and not get tired of it. I recommend everyone who enjoys comedy to watch this! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler, and Diane Keaton prove that revenge is a dish best served cold. Former college buddies, they reunite at the funeral of a dear friend who took a swan dive onto Fifth Avenue. All three discover they share the same unhappy history of husbands who dove into middle-age by dumping them for trophy wives. Forming a warring triumvirate, they decide to get even, and along the way remind themselves of long-forgotten capabilities. The action gets a little too "wacky" at times, but the gals are great. Portraying an aging actress, Hawn is sometimes a little too flamboyant, but there is much fun to be had in her flashiness, especially when she pokes fun at Tinseltown and her persona. Instead of her usual brashness, Midler stretches herself and shows us a woman who is not just unhappy, but also deeply sorrowful. Not that she isn't quick with a wisecrack, but her expressive face alone tells the story of her marriage. As the repressed and guilt-ridden spouse of a self- involved ad executive, Keaton finds her anger, and her voice, when her psychiatrist (Marcia Gay Harden) oversteps ethical boundaries. Watching Keaton grow from an ineffectual homemaker into a powerful businessperson reminds us that it has been far too long since she has done a comedy. Director Hugh Wilson smartly chose supporting players who each brought something unique to the film. However, he does not maintain the first hour's effervescent humor throughout the film, as the ending is weakened by a softening of the wives' resolve. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (64)

Wives get their revenge and earn strength
Director: Hugh Wilson

Stars: Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler, Diane Keaton, Stockard Channing, Maggie Smith, Dan Hedaya, Sarah Jessica Parker, Victor Garber, Stephen Collins, Elizabeth Berkley

Released in 2001

College friends lose track of each other after graduation until one of them, Cynthia Swann Griffin, played by Stockard Channing, commits suicide after her husband leaves her for a younger woman. Elise, Brenda, and Annie, played by Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler, and Diane Keaton respectively, reunite at the funeral and find that their lives are not as great as they may seem on the surface. The three have a fun filled lunch and discover their middle-aged husbands have dumped them all for younger women. They decide that it is time to quite being mad and unhappy and start getting even. They support each other in this endeavor and find they have strengths they have forgotten about. Elsie, an actress with financial means to back this endeavor is fun and paired with Brenda and Annie make their ex-husband's and soon to be ex-husband's lives miserable. Elsie who is having to split her assets with her soon to be ex-husband as well as pay alimony decides to sell all of their assets to Annie for a dollar. Annie then auctions it off to build enough reserves to buy her soon to be ex-husband's partners out of their share of an advertising firm. The three women find the self-confidence they lost over the years and decide to help other women in similar situations find their strengths and lost self-confidence. Watching these three great actresses get their revenge is entertaining and added bonus is the witty, bitter character Gunilla Garson Goldberg played by Maggie Smith, who has been made wealthy by her several ex-husbands. First Wives Club is a movie that is fun to watch again and again.

Hilarious and Entertaining
Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler and Diane Keaton star in FIRST WIVES CLUB, a movie about three women who's men have traded them in for younger models, and they set out to get revenge. The movie starts when Brenda (Bette Midler), Elise (Goldie Hawn) and Annie (Diane Keaton), all find out their friend Cynthia has commited suicide. At the funeral they meet up again, as they were college friends, and they start hanging out with each other more often. Annie's marriage is in the dumps, she's seeing a therapist, and later finds out the therapist is seeing her husband! Brenda is separated from her husband Morty but is still raising her son, and Elise is divorcing her husband Bill who in turn wants alimony. These women, furious, decide to take a stand and fight back, and they sure do! There are some really memorable moments like when the ladies go to a lesbian bar, when they break into Morty's condo and escape on the window washer stand, and more. Other stars in the movie include Sarah Jessica Parker, Eileen Heckart, Stephen Collins and more. And yes the book is much different, but this movie is still very entertaining. Overall a great movie, one of my favorites.

Funny but over-acted
For a movie with a pretty big idea--that women whose husbands leave them for younger women can regain their dignity, control, and even, in some cases, their husbands--this is a pretty trifling affair. It's embarrassing to listen to Diane Keaton reduce all her acting talent to a 90-minute stream of shrill screams and whines and whimpers. Goldie Hawn's character undergoes plastic surgery, but that's not enough to explain the way she contorts her face throughout the film. And when Bette Midler and the other two get together to burst into song, watch out. You'll probably wince.

Still, this is a funny movie, with a decent heart, a pat but semi-satisfying ending, and a really great cast: Stockard Channing, Sarah Jessica Parker, Elizabeth Berkeley, Dan Hedaya, Balki from Perfect Strangers, the dad from Seventh Heaven, and Maggie Smith all make appearances. You probably shouldn't buy it, but you could do a lot worse than this flipping through channels on cable.

entertaining, but some propaganda
I found the movie entertaining. However, a central plot is that
four women friends from the same college are dumped in their
middle age by their husbands for younger women. In reality, women
initiate most divorces. They get preferential treatment with
ownership of the house, custody of the kids, and alimony.
So, I think this movie is disguising the fact that, statistically,
it's more like a First Husbands Club out there.

Great, Great, Great, movie
I love this movie. Me and my mom saw this in the theater and it was so funny. Me and my mom are huge chick flicks fans. But this is our favorite. We watch this whenever were sad or when we just want to laugh. Goldie Hawn is one of my favorite actresses if not my favorite. So really with the cast that they got, how could this movie go wrong. I didn't give it 5 stars is because it is a chick flick and guys wouldn't like it. ... Read more

Reviews (88)

Almost as good as the original Broadway show...
This has been one of my favorite musicals ever since I saw the original Broadway show back in 1978. The Disney version of this classic show is much, much better than the overblown, overdone 1982 film because it is much more faithful to the stage production, even though there are a few minor plot changes.

I felt that the singing and acting was quite good. Alicia Morton was a great Annie, and Audra MacDonald played Grace Farrel, Oliver Warbucks secretary to a tee. Kathy Bates was as good of a Miss Hannigan as Carol Burnette was in the 1982 version of the film. The only person that I thought was miscast was Victor Garber as Daddy Warbucks. In all honesty, Albert Finney played the role so much better, and with more warmth and compassion than Garber. One of the big highlights in the film (for me, anyway) is Andrea McArdle's (the orignal Annie) cameo in the "N.Y.C." number. Most of the key songs from the stage show are there. However, "We'd like to thank you Herbert Hoover", "Annie", and " A New Deal for Christmas" are missing. And I admit, that I missed them in this production. Check out the CD from the original show to hear these tunes. All in all, this version from Disney is quite enjoyable, and I do recommend it.

A beautiful new telling of the musical legend!
Many people pass off ANNIE as a children's musical, when in actuality it has one of the most sophisticated scores and the book is of a higher standard than of many other shows. It still holds a record of something like the 8th or 9th longest running show on Broadway, and it is a delight among theatre-goers.

This new Disney version stays faithful to the stage score and script, not like John Huston's rambling version back in 1981 (refer to my review for this), and it is a delight to watch. It has that 'theatrical-style' feel to it.

The esteemed cast, the bulk of which are seasoned Broadway performers, include Kathy Bates as Miss Hannigan, Alan Cumming as Rooster, Audra McDonald as Grace Farrell, Kristin Chenoweth as Lily St Regis, Victor Garber as Daddy Warbucks and the lovely Alicia Morton as Annie. Making a cameo in the 'NYC' number as ''Star To Be'' is (oh happy day) the original Broadway Annie - Andrea McArdle.

The cast is sensational, and while I will not bring down the 1981 performers of Carol Burnett, Bernadette Peters and Ann Reinking, they are far more believable in their interpretations.

You must buy this new version of the Broadway smash ANNIE!

There's Nothing Like a Broadway Show
I'm sorry but I think that both of the Annie movies are just theatre wanna-be's. I respect the fact that they are trying to get stars into the films and everything, but don't you think that it would have been a lot better if someone from broadway was playing the roles. Like Idina Menzel, or Christian Chenowith...the best singers are really on broadway.

Almost as good as the original; pleasing to watch!
I thought that this movie is a great version of the classic story. Disney did a great job with the dancing and singing, and the acting was pretty good, too.
Audra McDonald did a nice job as Grace, but I don't think it was logical for Oliver Warbucks (Victor Garber) to marry another race. The first Annie was much more realistic with that issue. Oscar winner Kathy Bates did an excellent job as the cruel Miss Hannigan, and Alan Cumming and Kristin Chenoweth as Rooster and Lily are also good. The Disney version is more cleaner than the original, and it almost matches up to it. This is a great version of Annie to watch with your family!!

real "CUTE"
A great film, fun cute and bright and sunny for the whole family. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In spite of its atrociously misleading packaging, Exotica is abeguiling mystery by enigmatic Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan, in whichpeople and their relationships are not what they seem. What at first appearto be disparate stories of a tormented tax auditor, a lonely pet-shop owner,and a sensitive stripper and her coworkers gradually merge to reveal alarger, interconnected portrait. The sequences involving Mia Kirshner'sschoolgirl stripper are particularly engrossing because of her character'sintelligence and the scenes' deeper subtext. Indeed, Exotica is lessabout stripping than about fragile human relationships, and it is not untilthe truly revelatory final scene that we are able to fully absorb the film'sdeeper meaning. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (51)

A fascinating and highly provocative mosaic
First of all, Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan's lavishly intense film is NOT to be mistaken for "Showgirls," nor for any triple-x movie (although it IS R-rated).
Although the film presents certain elements of mystery (and one must pay extraordinary attention to both detail and innuendo), the intensity of the characters and plot propel the film across several levels. The viewer hangs on every word, both to pick up (almost desperately) clues toward understanding the over-lapping stories, but also because the characterizations are so thoroughly riveting.
Bruce Greenwood displays excellent range as he portrays both a care-free young family man as well as that character in middle age, besought with layer upon layer of tragedy and "baggage."
Mia Kirshner similarly impresses as we see her character at various stages: as a troubled pre-teen, replete with pony tail and braces, and also as both a mature college graduate and, quite convincingly, as an exotic dancer.
Elias Koteas is stunning as an anguished and lost club DJ/poet.
Don McKellar and Arsinée Khanjian are also quite brilliant in supporting roles.
Be prepared to want to immediately view the film a second time -- to do so is not merely repetition but serves as an opportunity to continue to fathom the depths of the characters and the film's unrelentingly passionate intrigue.

Obsession and desire, Atom Egoyan's best to date.
An obsession is not unlike a dream, in the sense that you can find in both a very peculiar stance where sensibility and madness go hand in hand. But any attempt, by man or woman, to tread new roads to and from such places is often futile, simply because the journey to such underminded conditions is always one of self-discovery and self-torture.

Quite possibly his most sucessful movie to date, Atom Egoyan's marvelously written EXOTICA delves deeply into the world of pain and obsession, painting for us a canvas in which the characters and their stories are never static or cold, but organic and contrived. Painfully marred by their fractured lives and by their fears.

EXOTICA tells the story of three very enigmatic and confused individuals. Francis (Bruce Greenwood), an obsessed man who recently went through a very traumatic experience; Christina (Mia Kirshner), an erotic table dancer who has a very special relationship with Francis, and finally Eric the club's D.J. (powerfully played by Elias Koteas), who seems in turn to be obsessed with Christina.

As I was watching the movie, I quickly became enthralled with the story, if for no other reason simply because I was absorbed at how very well portrayed the characters were. It seems that at some point or another we all go through times when our own existance seems to flicker, something breaks inside which gnaws away our sanity. The only way to prevent our destruction is to see ourselves reflected in someone else's life.

This is the story told in EXOTICA. Don't be discouraged by the name, the movie is very enjoyable and fun. I was particularly amazed by Elias Koteas performance. The DVD edition is nicely presented in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1, the video transfer is solid throughout and even though there are no extras to speak of, I think the movie itself is worth its price (or at least a rent). Give it a try, I recommend it.

Shallow to deep.
One has to wonder if those who rated this movie poorly 'got it'. I gave this to a co-worker and he was highly confused at the end because he missed a critical link. For myself, I'm not sure what I expected. I knew I liked Mia Kirshner, and the pick-up of the DVD in a bargain bin was a "what the heck" purchase though I'd read reviews that seemed to promise a dark, disturbing, thought provoking movie.

Well, the packaging, as alluded to in the description, makes this seem like a standard erotic thriller. The addition of much of the action taking place in a strip club only seems to reinforce this as being standard, even shallow, fare. It's anything but. It might not be believable as a story, but the characters themselves are. Not only that, but fittingly enough, the shallowest seeming character through much of the film turns out to be potentially the most complex. It wasn't until after the end credits had rolled, and while still wrapping my mind around the whole canvas of the movie, it clicked as to why the character may have acted in a certain way.

I'll add a disclaimer here for anyone interested in the movie. If you are at all squeamish about the concepts of pedophelia, homosexuality, strip clubs, etc... well, just be aware that you might feel highly uncomfortable. I only plead discomfort to the first and parts were painful to watch even though nothing explicitly happens (and as is the case of the whole movie, nothing is anywhere near as simple or obvious as it first appears).

Highly recommended if you want a thought provoking, dark movie that at times makes you do a mental doubletake.

Don't waste your time with this trash
I was browsing movies on Amazon looking for something new and different to watch, using customer reviews to decide if it might be worth my time or not. When the movie started, I already knew this one was a mistake. I sat through the whole thing (another mistake) and in the end I felt very cheated out of a buck and a couple hours of my life I could of spent doing something else.

The acting, characters, script, and plot were pathetic. The climatic ending that people keep mentioning wasn't a big deal at all. This movie was not artistic as some claim. It wasn't thrilling or suspenseful. It was just a bad attempt at a bad story with bad actors. Move right along to the next movie.

Egoyan's swan Song!!!
O.K. this film sarts off with a elderly Kung Fu instructor that, at the end of his life, realizes that his five students could become evil. Each of the students has become a master Kung Fu fighter and has specialized in one of five deadly techniques. The problem is that the master has no idea who each of the " deadly venoms " are now that they have been able to leave the secret Kung Fu school......oh, wait! This is Atom Egoyan's Exotica I'm writing about. Sorry!

Exotica made me fall into a deep, deep sleep. I had a dream about a real strip club. It was NOTHING like Egoyan's over the top exotic wonderland. In reality strip clubs, strippers and strip club DJs couldn't be LESS interesting. The average strip club is , at best, entertaining. There is nothing exotic or entertaining about Exotica. I wonder if Egoyan has ever been in a strip club? Well, I'm sure he's too cultured for that kind of thing.

5 stars for the the Shaw Brother's Kung Fu classic Five Deadly Venoms! Top notch Kung Fu !!! ... Read more

Reviews (90)

"Captivating Tale of Love, Immortality, and Choices We Make"
Even though I teach middle school, I had not read this book. My students mentioned it often however, and as an instructor of Greek mythology, I became curious about the story when I learned its basic premise was immortality. (I have been told that there was much less a love interest between the teenagers in the book, however this emendation certainly lends a magical spark to the timeless story.) Upon seeing the movie, I can recommend it not only for its excellent treatment of this subject, but also as a film the whole family can enjoy and discuss afterward.

In brief, this is the story of those (the family Tuck) who would seek to live forever. Unlike the mythological Tithonius however, who was granted everlasting life without eternal youth, the Tuck family becomes immortal from the moment they drink of the mystical pool at the foot of an ancient tree--a tree that will lend a poignant and touching climax to the end of the film.

Suffice it to say, the acting is wonderful. High profile heavyweights such as Ben Kingsley, Sissy Spacek and William Hurt give predictable sterling performances. Victor Garber (Alias; Annie) is also excellent as the wealthy father. But Alexis Bledel (Gilmore Girls) as Winnie Foster is simply disarming. She is convincing and superb in her effort to balance her desire for love in a life outside of time, with her responsibility to live the life intended for her. The talent of the cast, as well as the curiosity of the storyline makes for few dull moments, and the conclusion left me with one wet Kleenex!

This is a beautiful film--from the scenery, to the music, to the performances, to the plot. Yes, it might be simplistic and predictable, but it would take a crusty old grinch to say that this ninety minutes wasn't thoroughly delightful, and time well spent.

In the end, the age-old questions remain--is immortality all we would dream it to be? Is it quantity, or quality of life that is important? Does living forever make one unique and privileged, or does it (as Tuck would say) make one merely a rock stuck in a mud bank beside a flowing stream? And where does love fit into this equation? Is being given the love of your life, or loving the life you're given the more appropriate choice? The answer is found in Winnie's final decision on whether or not to drink from the eternal pool--a decision I could not have made.

Much better than the Country Bears!
About 2 to 5 weeks ago, I was watched the Country Bears, and found it a bad film by Disney, and now they have made it up, they made and came with this movie called "Tuck Everlasting". Which is about a girl that meets teenageer that is 104, and I must say that for being 104, that Jessie Tuck looks better good for his age. The girl is 15 years old and her name is Winfred. The Tucks are immortal, becuase they have discorved a a pond, that makes them living forever, even if they fall, and don't get hurt, or shot but not get hit. As the movie opens, Winfred "Winnie" Foster (Alexis Bledel) has met a stranger in a yellow suit, who is looking for the Tucks. Her parents decide to send her to a school that would manners. She doesn't want to go and runs away from home, and his lost in the woods and she runs into Jessie Tuck (Jonathan Jackson), who tells her to get out of the woods and to go home. But she runs, and runs into Jessie's grumpy brother Miles (Scott Barrstow), who takes her to his mom (Sissy Spaey). Who tells Miles to get his father (William Hurt) from fishing, because "he'll" not what to do with Winnie. I would reccomend this movie to you on dvd, if you love movies in "letter-box" fromat, and if you don't, then you will have to settle for the video tape edition, but a word of warning, if you get this on dvd, there are trailers for other movies like George of the Jungle 2 and Inceptor Gadge 2.

Love this movie
I love this movie! it is a great film...maybe better then the book. i cried for hours after i watched this movie (which is a good thing) if you like sad movies you'll love this!!!

Tuck Everlasting
Tuck Everlasting sure is everlasting.The movie isn't completely terrible.It really explores life and death but it takes to long.The whole time I kind of felt bored.The plot is good but I don't think it or the book it was adapted from are all that great.Maybe this just isn't my kind of film but it just took forever to get to the climax and it was only 90 minutes.The acting definetly isn't Oscar winning; the only great performance was by Sissy Spacek.The dialogue is of course compatible to this kind of movie but I still didn't really like it.It was a little better than I thought it would be, though.If you are interested in living forever or dealing with death or your just a kid you may like it more than the rest of us out there.To add to everything else I didn't really like the time setting.Check this one out if you want to be bored.Young Winnie Foster, stifled by the formality of her proper life and domineering mother, escapes into the woods only to get lost.Soon she happens upon Jesse Tuck- a boy full of life and adventure who's unlike anyone she's ever met- and falls in love.The Tucks, a kind and genorous family, have a powerful secret- a spring that holds the magic of everlasting life.And now Winnie must choose to live life as she knows it or drink from the spring.

"Like the Tuck family themselves, this movie just goes on and on and on and on"
-- Larry Carroll, COUNTINGDOWN.COM

the story is a bit thin but some scenes are simply powerful
It was not as great a story or character development as I could have hoped for, but overall I was not dissapointed. The scenery was beautiful, the 2 main characters also were beautiful and they had some powerful scenes between them.

The scene of him helping her in the water because she cannot swim is one of the most romantic and touching few minutes of film I have ever seen. ... Read more

Description

Molière’s timeless comedy stars the incomparable Donald Moffat (The Right Stuff) as the scoundrel Tarfuffe who manipulates his way into the confidence and affection of Orgon, an affluent bourgeois concerned with his own salvation, and whose wife and daughter Tartuffe attempts to seduce. Also stars Victor Garber (Titanic) and two-time Tony-winner Tammy Grimes (High Art). ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Great Show!
I was in a high school production of Tartuffe and had the chance to see the movie. The movie is a bucket of laughs and a good time. It gives you the chance to see a very young Tammy Grimes and Victor Garber as well as a great cast. Its a great show for you theater lovers out there. Great show, great cast, great plot. Just good old fun and good old laughs! Based on Moliere's Classic Comedy. ... Read more

Reviews (117)

Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan give charming and sweet performances!
I still love this movie! "Sleepless in Seattle" is still one of the best romantic films that I have seen since...ever! The performances in the film were top-notch and the storyline was terrific! To me, this film talks about two things...fate and destiny. "Sleepless" focuses on Sam Baldwin (Tom Hanks), a recently widowed father who, because of the death of his wife Maggie (Carey Lowell), decides to move out to Seattle with his son Jonah (Ross Malinger) to start over again. One night, Jonah calls a talk radio show, who asks Sam to come to the phone and explain everything. So Sam sat down and talked about everything that he and his wife had done over the past few years, how he loved her, and such. Sam's story was such a big hit across America that women have been pouring letters of comfort at Sam's home. The story has also reached the heart of a newspaper writer named Annie Reed (Meg Ryan). Annie is single, lives in New York, and is engaged to a man named Walter (Bill Pullman), who is pretty much allergic to everything. After hearing Sam's story on the radio that night, Annie believes that she and Sam are destined to be together, due to typical Hollywood romance from such films as, for example, "An Affair to Remember". And romantic charm and trouble ensues from there on as, for example, Annie goes to Seattle to sort of "spy" on Sam to see what he is like, especially with his son, etc. "Sleepless in Seattle" marks the second teaming of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan from their first hit, "Joe Versus the Volcano" in 1990, and before they starred a third time in 1998's "You've Got Mail", which is directed by "Sleepless" director Nora Ephron ("This is My Life"). And speaking of the director, she directed this film with a lot of heart, soul, and emotion. Nora Ephron's best work to date! "Sleepless in Seattle" has also the absolute best performances of all time from Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. I kind of liked the way that Meg Ryan's hair looked in the film. To me, you don't get to see Meg Ryan with hair like that a lot. I like this film because it is one of those films where two people eventually cross paths continuously, and in the end, they meet each other for the first time and live happily ever after! I really hope that there is a sequel to this film in the making, but if there isn't, then I will still enjoy "Sleepless in Seattle" for years to come!

A Laugh-Out-Loud Funny Charmer
First of all, Sleepless in Seattle IS a chick flick, yes, and there are certainly some stretches of the imagination required as far as plot goes, but the real emphasis is the characters, and that is the strength of the movie...the entire cast is excellent, from Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks to the supporting cast (Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Pullman, Ross Malinger and Robert Reiner). The story and chemistry is charming, but more than that, the movie is hysterical. Everytime I watch the movie again (I've seen it about 5 or 6 times now) I realize how funny it is...Nora Ephron may be the best current writer of real romantic comedies. There are SO many funny little things scattered throughout the movie...even if you don't like "chick flicks," you should watch it because it's one of the funniest movies ever.

Absolutely wonderful!
I first saw this movie when I was in college with my roomate, who knows all the best movies out there. I absolutely fell in love with it, and I went out and bought it immediately. It's ideal if you are single, it gives you hope for finding that perfect someone :), at least it did for me. If you like You've Got Mail, you'll also like Sleepless in Seattle, or if you haven't seen either, they go perfect together!!

great chick flick for chicks
Tom Hanks stars as recent widower from Seattle who talks to a radio show host about his troubles and Meg Ryan plays a recently engaged woman from New York who develops a relationship with Hank's character. The plot is a bit cheesy as well as the lines, but that is how chick flicks are made--cheesy plots and lines. Though most guys will not like "Sleepless in Seattle" unless they enjoy other "chick flicks," most women enjoy this contemporary classic of long distance romance. If you like the movie be sure to check out the DVD, which has many more added features such as a music video and commentary by the director and co-writer.

Sleepless in Seattle
WOW! I LOVE this movie! It's a favorite of all my families. I think this is a great love story and almost anyone would enjoy it. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

For the ones who are wondering...
This review is for the ones like me who were concerned about scary images. Not too many worries here, there's no gruesome cadavers or blood spurts, they only show a close-up of a teen who had gotten shot, but all you see is some blood on one girl's head. There is a scene with a dead body, but it's not presented in a scary "Hollywood" type of way, it's very peaceful, and the dialogue between the two main characters is beautiful here. FYI: the body is not a shooting victim. I actually found that some of the dialogue was more disturbing than the film itself. For example, near the beginning when Busy Philipps asks Erika Christensen if she knows why carnations have become the "funeral flower" and she tells her because back in the old days before they could embalm the body, they would use the flowers to try and "cover up the smell of the rotting flesh," that kinda c