Amazon.com

Rarely has The Merchant of Venice, one of Shakespeare's most complex plays, looked as ravishingly sumptuous as in this adaptation, directed by Michael Radford (Il Postino). In a decadent version of renaissance Venice, a young nobleman named Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, Shakespeare in Love) seeks to woo the lovely Portia (newcomer Lynn Collins), but lacks the money to travel to her estate. He seeks support from his friend, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons, Reversal of Fortune); Antonio's fortune is tied up in sea ventures, so the merchant offers to borrow money from a Jewish moneylender, Shylock (Al Pacino, Dog Day Afternoon). But Shylock holds a grudge against Antonio, who has routinely treated the Jew with contempt, and demands that if the debt is not repaid in three months, the price will be a pound of Antonio's flesh.

The Merchant of Venice is famous as a "problem play"--the gritty matters of moneylending and anti-Semitism sit uncomfortably beside the fairy tale elements of Portia and Bassanio's romance, and some twists of the plot can seem arbitrary or even cruel. The strength of Radford's intelligent and passionate interpretation is that he and the excellent cast invest the play's opposing facets with full emotional weight, thus making every question the play raises acute and inescapable. Irons is particularly compelling; kindness and blind prejudice sit side by side in his breast, rendering the clashes in his character as vivid as those in the play itself. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (38)

"How Sweet the Moonlight Sleeps"
This is, generally, a very satisfying filming of a very problematic play.Director Radford, who also adapted the screenplay, deserves credit for his bold choices in casting and for his not shying away from some of the more troublesome aspects of the text.Is Pacino a successful Shylock?I think so, although by way of Brooklyn.He is especially powerful in the famous courtroom scene, which otherwise comes dangerously close to being exploitative on the screen.There is much to recommend here, including a stellar supporting cast.Few actors can hold their own next to Pacino, but Lynn Collins comes close.After an unfortunate entrance as the young lawyer (she looks uncomfortably like Sonny Chiba), Collins makes us forget the incongruities in her role and attend, instead, to Portia's masterful polemics.The quality of makeup is not strained!(Collins, by the way, is an actress from Texas, but this does not become an issue.She has been linked romantically with Keanu Reeves, her costar in "Il Mare."Perhaps these two will at some point treat us to a film of "Anthony and Cleopatra"?--another of Shakespeare's plays that has been criminally neglected by Hollywood.)Other actors worthy of mention are MacKenzie Crook and Ron Cook as the younger and older Gobbos, and Kris Marshall and John Sessions as Gratiano and Salerio.Heather ("Kinsey") Goldenhersh as Nerissa and Allan Corduner as Tubal are also fine.Several up-and-coming young actors appear in supporting roles, including Tony Schiena, Julian Nest, and Tom Leick, who is soon to be seen in "House of Boys," with a screenplay by J.T. LeRoy.

I have given the film 4 stars, but I would like to give the DVD itself 5. Watching the film, I had many questions for the director--for instance, why are certain scenes deleted, while others are out of sequence?--and I'm happy to say that most all of these are answered in the delightful director's commentary, for which Michael Radford is joined by Lynn Collins.I learned a lot about the rationale behind certain casting and directorial choices and came to appreciate the film itself better as a result.For example, the director has choreographed certain scenes to reflect a love triangle among Antonio, Portia, and Bassanio, something that is heavily debated in Shakespearan criticism.Radford even gives us a rationale for his having asked the actresses playing prostitutes to appear with their breasts exposed!See this film, certainly; it has many qualities to recommend it, not the least of which are a lovely soundtrack by Jocelyn Pook and location filming in both Venice and Luxemburg.But, to get the whole experience, see it on DVD and then watch the director's commentary.

Not Bad
Good sets.Good costumes.Al appears to be reading from cue cards off camera in some scenes, although I think he plays a believable part. I wish Jeremy could speak up a little. No subtitles in English, only French; kinda dumb isn't it?

Pacino and Shakespeare save this movie from itself
Shakespeare's lines will carry any movie above the waterline, and the same can be said of Pacino's acting. They both make this movie presentable and even excellent at times. However, the angle of the movie seems to be one of contradiction to the text, beginning with the introductory text prior to the film's dialogue (text from the Director NOT Shakespeare). This text attempts to excuse the very play itself for its characterization of Christians and the Jew, Shylock. If the play needed an intro, Shakespeare would have written a prologue. It certainly works to bias the audience in a way. The other attempt to do this is several scenes where the "Christian" characters are carousing in a bawdy house with a bunch of half-naked prostitutes. Clearly, the director attempts to make a martyr of Shylock and hypocrites of all the non-Jew characters: however Shakespeare's text is what it is. The nudity is utterly unnecessary and detracts from the integrity of the play--plus it cannot now be shown to young people.

Other than those detractions, I think the film is excellent. The trial scene is superb and brings the tension of the moment to life. Besides Pacino the other actors do a fine job. Unfortunately, though I am a lover of Shakespeare, I would not want to watch this again.

Author of "Shakespeare on Spirituality: Life-Changing Wisdom from Shakespeare's Plays"

gratuitous nudity
While this film is a relatively accurate and well acted version of the Shakespeare play, it has nudity in it where none is called for. This makes it unusable in the American classroom and cheapens the play itself.

Great production of a play that is hard to like!
This is an outstanding production of the one work of Shakespeare that is the most difficult to like.It is impossible to get around the anti-Semitism.This production tries very hard to put the anti-Semitism in context and I think to tone it down, but in the end it is impossible to eliminate it.To some extent Shylock is being punished for being vindictive and not showing mercy, but it is impossible to ignore that in the end the play seems to celebrate Shylock's foced conversion to Christianity.

Al Pacino's performance is disconcerting as he seems to be playing Shylock with a New Yawk accent.But Lynne Collins is truly oustanding as Portia.This version of Merchant really shines in the comic portion of the story where Portia masquerades as a man and successfully entreats Bassanio to give up his wedding ring (which he had earlier promised Portia he would never part with).This is one of the few Shakespearean productions I have seen where a woman masquerading as a man is actually credible.

The settings, costumes, and photography are all spectacular.I found I was able to focus on the positive elements and not get bogged down with the more distressing parts of the plot.But I sympathize with those who find the anti-Semitic aspects of the story too distressing. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Not an ideal choice for younger kids, this hip and violent animated feature from Disney was nevertheless a huge smash in theaters and on video, and it continues to enjoy life in an acclaimed Broadway production. The story finds a lion cub, son of a king, sent into exile after his father is sabotaged by a rivalrous uncle. The little hero finds his way into the "circle of life" with some new friends and eventually comes back to reclaim his proper place. Characters are very strong, vocal performances by the likes of Jeremy Irons, Nathan Lane, and Whoopi Goldberg are terrific, the jokes are aimed as much (if not more) at adults than kids, the animation is sometimes breathtaking, and the music is more palatable than in many Disney features. But be cautious: this is too intense for the Rugrat crowd. --Tom Keogh

How good-looking is the DVD restoration of Disney's popular animated film? Take a look at the serviceable but dull film clips incorporated in the plethora of extras and compare them to the vivid gorgeousness of the film presentation. This "special edition" also adds a 90-second song ("Morning Report") that originated in the lavish stage musical. To Disney's credit, the original theatrical version is also included, both restored and featuring two 5.1 soundtracks: Dolby Digital and a new Disney Enhanced Home Theater Mix, which does sound brighter. As with the Disney Platinum line, everything is thrown into the discs, except an outsider's voice (the rah-rahs of Disney grow tiresome at times). The excellent commentary from the directors and producer, originally on the laser disc, is hidden under the audio set-up menu.

The second disc is organized by 20-minute-ish "journeys" tackling the elements of story, music, et cetera, including good background on the awkward Shakespearean origins at Disney where it was referred as "Bamlet." The most interesting journey follows the landmark stage production, and the kids should be transfixed by shots of the real African wildlife in the animal journey. Three deleted segments are real curios, including an opening lyric for "Hakuna Matata." Most set-top DVD games are usually pretty thin (DVD-ROM is where it's at), but the Safari game is an exception--the kids should love the roaring animals (in 5.1 Surround, no less). One serious demerit goes to the needless and complicated second navigation system that is listed by continent, but just shows the same features reordered. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (339)

Well worth your hard earned money
This new two disc set for the Lion King is yet another masterful DVD production job by the Disney folks. The video and audio quality are top notch, with plenty of choices how to see the film (both original and extended). There are an amazing amount of extras included on disc two, it will take some hunting to find them all, and quite a bit of extra time to view the entire contents. A few are overly self promotional, but there is so much stuff here, just skip to the next item if that bothers you. Some of the games are actually fun too.

With both Lion King and Sleeping Beauty being newly released on DVD right now, if you can only get one of them, there is no question this is by far the better choice. The impressive animation, the story, the fantastic sound, the extras are all superior in this Lion King package. This still isn't my favorite Disney release (Roger Rabbit will always have that honor), but maybe top 5--certainly top 8.

Lion King Platinum is well worth the investment for your DVD collection. Your family will get many years of enjoyment from it.

The Lion King
The first time I ever saw "The Lion King" was on September 14th 1995, the day it came out on video. Strangely, I went to all of Disney's releases from "The Little Mermaid" to "Aladdin" (including rereleases of their older classics) but missed out on "The Lion King". Silly me. "The Lion King" is a masterpiece. The film is visually amazing. Some scenes stand out in particular; such as the wild-beast stampede and the opening sequence. The movie wouldn't be completed without the powerful score and songs, composed by Hans Zimmer and Elton John, respectively. The Oscar-winning "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" and the ever-popular "Circle Of Life" are all here. The characters in this movie have also become wildly popular, especially Timon and Pumbaa. The villain, Scar, is the ultimate villian: evil and deceitful, yet wit and sarcastic. In this 2-disc special edition, the film looks like a video-game, in terms of sharpness and clearity. You won't believe of how smooth the image can be. "The Lion King" is a movie that deserves all the praise and success that it had gotten.

Earns its place among the old Disney classics
Animation films are incredibly tricky. Adults(or just mainly uptight people view animated films as kids only. However kids see them as great pieces of film that they "get". For once, Disney gets it right. This was really a powerhouse film when it came out and held the record for the biggest animated film of all time(until recently when a so-so film about finding a fish called Nemo came out).

Simba is a young lion in the Serengeti(they call it the Pride Lands though) who just can't wait to be king. However, he's a mischievous little cub who gets into trouble a bit easy. When a terrible tragedy strikes, Simba exiles himself where he meets a warthog and meerkat and develops a carefree lifestyle. Now an adult, he returns to the Pride Lands to reclaim the throne from his evil uncle, Scar.

Sounds a bit like Hamlet huh? But you won't care. Many impossibly catchy songs, funny moments and jokes and words that even appeal to adults(do you really think a kid would understand "illustrating the differences in your royal mangerial approaches"? Exactly.)

Voice acting is top notch, animation is absolutely gorgeous, and it's done by hand by the way, none of that Finding Nemo/Toy Story/A Bug's Life CGI stuff. There's a reason why this is considered the best Disney film but you owe it to yourself to find out why.

This is NOT a violent movie for kids
I'm sorry, but if you found this movie to be too violent for kids over the age of five, then you're robbing your children of a valuable experience. Yes, there is death. Yes, it is not a safe and simple death. But kids CAN handle it. An evil man killed a great man. It's not a theme that kids should enjoy, but it's one that is of particular resonance to us as Americans. This movie is simple, beautiful and moving- seemingly one of Disney's last treasures. While the Broadway show may be even more moving, this movie has the power to move us. I hope you'll see it if you haven't. I hope you'll let your kids watch it if you haven't. And I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I have. Humbly submitted, -Matt Calcara, Overland Park, KS

Best movie of all times
I really love this movie it was so cute and the songs were great I gave my neice this movie when she was born and she watches it all the time and she is 7 years old now Thanks to everyone who created it your the best ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

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

Reviews (5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Fill a bowl with alpine strawberries, break out the Château Lafite (1899, of course), and bask in this benchmark 1981 British miniseries based on Evelyn Waugh's classic novel. Adapted for the screen by John Mortimer (Rumpole of the Bailey), this impeccable, nearly 11-hour production mesmerized American viewers during the course of its PBS run in 1982. In his breakthrough role, Jeremy Irons stars as Charles Ryder, a disillusioned Army captain who is moved to reflect on his "languid days" in the "enchanted castle" that was Brideshead, home of the aristocratic Marchmain family, whose acquaintance Charles made in the company of an Oxford classmate, the charming wild child Sebastian. Anthony Andrews costars as the doomed Sebastian, whose beauty is "arresting" and "whose eccentricities and behavior seemed to know no bounds." The "entitled and enchanted" Sebastian takes Charles under his wing ("Charles, what a lot you have to learn"), but vows early on that he is "not going to let [Charles] get mixed up with [his] family." But mixed up Charles gets. He becomes a friend and confidante, not to mention a lover, to Sebastian's sister Julia (Diana Quick). Meanwhile, the self-destructive Sebastian's life spirals out of control. Brideshead Revisited boasts a distinguished ensemble, including Laurence Olivier in his Emmy Award-winning role as the exiled Lord Marchmain, Claire Bloom as Lady Marchmain, and the magnificent John Gielgud as Charles's estranged father. Grand locations and a haunting musical score make this a memorable revisit of an irretrievable bygone era. For those who scheduled their weeks around the original Monday-night broadcasts or those visiting Brideshead for the first time, this boxed set release will be, as Charles rhapsodizes at one point while strolling the castle grounds, "very near to heaven." --Donald Liebenson ... Read more

Reviews (41)

Great TV drama
This is a beautiful television production. Nothing I have seen captures so well the manners, dress, language and attitudes of upper and upper-middle class Britain in the twenties and thirties.

The acting is superb, the script even better. Based on the novel by Evelyn Waugh, John Mortimer's dialogue wastes not a word and uses pauses and silences to extraordinary effect.

As a portrayal of a family and its entourage this 11-part series bears comparison with the very best, even perhaps the Godfathers I and II, and with top notch photography to portray the stunning sets - on an art deco-drenched QEII, at Oxford, Castle Howard and at a Venice Palazzo - this could be the ultimate TV production of all time.

But perfect as it is technically, Brideshead has, for me at least, a couple of problems. The first is, the sheer improbability of the main plot. Essentially, the central figure and narrator, initially rather boring Charles, makes friends with dashing Lord Sebastien Flyte at Oxford (after the latter vomits through Charles' window), and finds himself immediately taken into the bosum of Flyte's highly aristocratic family; ultimately Sebastien's ravishing sister Julia falls in love with him and he comes very near to inheriting the family estate. The Flyte/Marchmain family is portrayed as charming, but also deeply and somewhat offensively dismissive of anyone they consider beneath them: Julia becomes quite vicious about her husband Rex, once she has tired of him. Lord Marchmain, a rather feckless former alcoholic and wife-hater, at one point muses on Neville Chamberlain who at that moment was doing his best to avoid world war "knew him. Mediocre fellow". I just can't believe that this family would have given tuppence for Charles, a mere middle-class architectural painter, far less virtually adopted him.

The second problem is that Charles is not even very likeable. He drifts through the film looking bored or worried and acting self-righteously. He cheats on his wife and generally bad mouths her, prefers to consort with his lover than go see his two year-old child who he's never actually seen due to a long trip abroad, and does little to actually help his dear friend Sebastien (who has descended into alcoholism) except frequently tell us morosely and self-indulgently how much he loved him and what a sacred love it was.

The cause of these problems surely goes back to Waugh himself and the original novel, which was part autobiography, part wish-fulfilment. Waugh was partly Charles, and like Charles, Waugh wasn't always lovable. The upper classes were Waugh's favorite subject, his bread and butter, and his vice. He was irresistibly drawn to them and wanted them to love him and confide in him too. Sometimes they did, because he was a brilliant society novelist, not just a good architectural painter. But not quite as much as everybody, from servants to Lord and Lady Marchmain, appears to love Charles.

However, I think this only makes the whole production more interesting. And such is the charm of the brilliant cast, which includes Jeremy Irons in the lead along with Olivier and Gielgud in majestic supporting roles, I suspect many people will consider my low opinion of the characters quite misplaced.

Well, it's about time!
Well, it's about time. One of the best (in my opinion, the best) of the British mini-series has finally made it to DVD. Although not perfect, the transfer is very good indeed, and a vast improvement over my ancient tapes.

My only (minor) complaints involve the sound, which is occasionally a little muddy; and now and again the dialogue seems ever so slightly out of sync with the actors. Also, there is no close captioning or English subtitles.

But forget that and think of what we're getting: an excellent adaptation of Waugh's fine novel; first-rate performances (keep a special eye out for John Gielgud, who gives what must be one of the funniest performances ever put on screen); glorious location sets and period costumes which can be appreciated fully now that their colors can be seen.

There are a few extras on the disc, and a small booklet with some interesting information. But it's the show that's the thing here, and it gets the treatment it deserves. Highly recommended.

British drama at its best
This must be one of the alltime classics of British drama. Saw it on TV when it was aired, bought the VHS and when released on DVD, bought it on DVD. Well, that must be saying something. It is one of my favourites. I think this must be one of those productions where you can say in hindsight that you would have done it in exactly the same way. I do not have higher praise to give. Shame the DVD release does not give extras and is really badly done. One would have thought that a high profile production like this deserved a better fate.

Et In Arcadia Ego
Brideshead revisited, Evelyn Waugh's portrait of a world trying to come to terms with the obliteration of what for its inhabitants were absolute certainties, by war and its aftermath represents a mountain of almost Himalayan proportions for any would-be adaptor, so much so that it's surprising that anyone was ever mad enough to try. Luckily for us though John Mortimer (more widely celebrated for "Rumpole of the Bailey") was indeed mad enough to give it a go. What he came up with has over the intervening years come to be seen as one of the finest adapted screen plays ever set before the viewing public.

Remaining remarkably faithful to the spirit of the book, Brideshead Revisited is told from the prospective of the painter Charles Ryder (Jeremy Irons). From a decidedly upper middle class background, when we first meet our narrator, Charles is an officer in the British army at the outbreak of World War 2 whose general disillusionment is exceeded only by his distaste for army life. From this present we are taken back twenty years by Charles' reminisces to his first term at Oxford University at the beginning of the 1920's and to his developing relationship with the aristocratic and charmingly dissolute Sebastian Flyte (Anthony Andrews). Supported by a truly superb cast of characters including, Jane Asher, Diana Quick, Clair Bloom, Nikolas Grace, Sir John Gielgud and in what was to be his final performance Sir Laurence Olivier. The acting is just what you would expect from such an accomplished bunch, as close to perfection as can ever be obtained.

As absorbing as the story is, it is almost overshadowed by other aspects of this production. Shot on location at Castle Howard, Yorkshire (the home of the then chairman of the BBC George Howard, even though this production was made by the BBC's rival Granada Television), Oxford, Venice and aboard the cruise ship the Queen Elizabeth II. The location filming has a beauty that at times can be truly breathtaking, with a lushness and sensuality that is a perfect foil for the decadence of the Sebastian and his circle.

Just as in Waugh's original text, the whole atmosphere of the piece is redolent with nostalgia. This takes two forms, the most prominent from the beginning is Charles' nostalgia for his youth and idealism, his feeling that his life could be what he wanted it to be, the friends he knew, his time with the Flyte family and his love for Lady Julia. Secondly and perhaps most importantly is nostalgia for the world of the Victorian and Edwardian upper classes with its certainties and its view of Britain as the centre of the greatest Empire that the world had ever known. Post World War 1, it was rare to find an aristocratic British family who had not suffered the loss of a Father, Son or Brother in the trenches and this longing for a world which was as "irrecoverable as Lyonnesse" was all too real for many people of all classes and backgrounds.

In this story of the rise and to a certain extent destruction of a single man, Waugh has given us a metaphor not only for the British aristocracy, but for the wealthy and socially mobile wherever and whenever they may be. I remember once discussing the novel with my Father and he expressed the opinion that while Waugh may not have loved the aristocracy as such, he certainly loved the life of an aristocrat. In many way's Brideshead Revisited reminds me of Edward Elgars' Cello Concerto, possessing the same kind of painful beauty combined with the most agonising sense of grief and heartache, but in the final analysis it is this love that colours both the book and this adaptation, rendering it as sublime as the memory of a summers afternoon and just as unattainable.

An intriguing mini-series
I came across this mini-series completely by accident. The episode descriptions sounded interesting, and I am a fan of British period drama, so I decided to give it a try. I was really suprised at how much effort went into it--after taking a peek at a few chapters of the novel, I found that it's an almost word for word adaptation. The characters are all well developed and fascinating, but none is more intriguing than the tragic Sebastian. In addition to the story, the scenery and the performances given by all involved make this mini-series one to remember. ... Read more

Description

Rodrigo Mendoza (ROBERT DE NIRO) was a violent soldier-for-hire in 1750s South America. Now he is a man of peace serving the Rain Forest Indians he once enslaved. But armies of Spain and Portugal threaten the lifestyle and safety of the native peoples. Now Rodrigo may have to pick up his sword and musket once again. From the producer of Chariots of Fire and the director of The Killing Fields comes a powerful epic co-starring JEREMY IRONS and graced with dazzling Academy Award-winning cinematography, set to a memorable music score and scripted by the Oscar-winning screenwriter of A Man for All Seasons and Doctor Zhivago. ... Read more

Reviews (158)

Theodicy or Corrupt Politics
The Mission

The Mission directed by Roland Joffe is the story of the struggle between theocracy and theodicy. Ironically the church has the mission to bring theodicy to the world and it does this through the message of God's Love and Forgiveness. It tries to accomplish this through the sending out of missionaries, in this case the Jesuit priests, to tell the story and bring others to the knowledge of God's Love and Forgiveness. Tragically politics and greed for power in the hierarchy of the church (in this case the Roman Catholic Church) brings about a situation where the people of God are killed supposedly in the name of God. This story opens and ends with Cardinal Altamirano (Ray McAnally) dictating a letter to the Pope informing him of the events that had transpired after giving church missions in South America over to the Spaniards and Portuguese. The nature of the setting is beautiful. Views of the waterfalls are breath-taking and spectacular.

The message of theodicy is played out in the story involving two main characters Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) and Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro). Father Gabriel brings theocracy to the Natives of South America. At the beginning of our story Rodrigo is a slave trader who undergoes a traumatic conversion experience and serves those whom he had sold into slavery before. His story of transformation is one of heartache, murder, repentance and extreme penance which he imposes upon himself. It is the forgiveness and acceptance of those who he former hunted that sets him feel to serve both God and the Natives. Another film that shows a similar vein of acceptance after tragedy is the classic movie Hawaii (1966) based on James Michener. Rev. Hale accepts the Native Hawaiians as he begins to mellow in the aftermath of his losses. In Rodrigo's case is his acceptance by the tribe that helps them to fight against the imposed theocracy of the Cardinal later on.

At issue here, in spite of the beautifully portrayal of conversion to Christianity of the Native people of South America, is the imposed will of governing forces of politics around greed ownership of land. Yet this was done under the auspices of the Church as God's Will, which is called theocracy. The people of the land had no say, they were the conquered, to be exploited and were considered as chattel, for them there was not theodicy. Their willingness to share and work for the common good of all, even though a principle of Christianity was considered a threat to the economy of others with political clout. Because they would not give up that which they had worked for, they were condemned to death. When Cardinal Atlamirno orders them to leave the Mission; they wanted to know why? His answer was that they had to submit to the will of God. Their answer was had God changed his mind? They were doing what they had been taught was God's will for them. Theodicy was not served as there was no justification in this case.

The Mission portrays the mission of Christ
The Mission is a powerful movie with a powerful message about sin, redemption, and love. It probes deep into the evils of the Catholic Church in Spain and Portugal in teh mid 18th century. Robert De Niro brilliantly portrays Rodrigo Mendoza, a dynamic character who transforms his life to a murderer who trades slaves to a Jesuit priest who fights for those seemingly 'enslaved' natives - the Guaranese. Jeremy Irons ixquisitley plays the role of a truly Christ-like figure. Father Gabriel is the epitomy of compassion, lvove, and understanding. With an incredibly written screenplay by Robert Bolt (who also wrote A Man For All Seasons), the Mission is an incredible film which explores the depths and beauty of morality and life ont he path to Jesus Christ.

the beauty and the horror of the catholic church
i think tom keogh's a bit 'off' kilter and it echoes the reviews that came out when the film was released.
the charge of emotional vacancy has since been rendered somewhat mute by the films growing status.
now admittedly, the overriding emotional sense that most people seem to experience when seeing this is one of anger, rather than one of tragedy and ,yes, that is partly due to our never really getting to know the indians who are, predictably, massacred.
we are emotionally more jolted upon seeing the murder of the priests who we have gotten to know.
that aside, i think joffes direction works because what he is attempting to show, and succesfully does so, is both the beauty and the horror of catholicism.
there is a touching beauty upon seeing deniros character finally reaching his muddy penneance,and in the scene where he cooks a steaming stew for his fellow priests.
perhaps one of the most beautiful, simplistically effective moments is when deniro narrates first corinthians 'love is not puffed up'.
yes, the conclusion is all too predictable. not just because we know the history, but because as much as we all can see the beauty in the church, everyone is also well aware of its ugliness.
i am suprised that the catholic church showed its support of this non flattering film, which shows, perhaps, a certain amount of theoretical penance on its part.
one of the last scenes which shows two naked indian children aloft in a boat after the massacre is an example of a picture telling a thousand words.
in one sense mr keogh is correct in recognizing an inherent coldness in the film but i think that is a realization of the harrowing cold heartedness that catholic church has shown in its history, which paradoxically is unified with its undeniable beauty.

This Sucks!!!!!! Very Very Sucky and Boring
I just watched this movie in Morality class and it is a really boring movie that just drags on and on. How does end by every one including De Nero and Irons (major characters) along with everyone else. There is only one movie that pulled off having all the characters die in it and that was Glory. I don't under any circumstances think anyone should see this movie unless you have a boring life or just sad than see it otherwise see Glory a much much better movie except different plots.

Emotionally Wrenching, Enchanting Film
Not for the squeamish, "The Mission" explores the duality of Europe's presence in South America -- the salvation brought by the Jesuits and the condemnation brought by "civilization."

Roland Joffe, the director, pulls few punches. The film opens with the dictation of a letter to the Pope by a prominent religious figure, Altamirano, who has just undergone the events that will transpire in the film, and we learn that these events are not pleasant: "the local savages are now free to be enslaved by his Holiness . . ."

These events "were brought about" by the horrifying martyrdom of a Jesuit priest, who had journeyed to the "uncivilized" lands of the Indians above the falls (and what falls!). The local Indians, apparently rejecting his Christian teachings, crucify him and toss him into a river . . . a river that soon flows to the falls, and the descending cross is one of the most haunting images you will ever see on film.

In response, another Jesuit priest, Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) heads above the falls, and uses his music (score by Ennio Morricone of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" fame) to win the trust of the locals. Soon he is preaching the Word of God among them.

Unfortunately, the slaver/mercenary Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro) is hunting the Indians for slavers. He ominously warns Gabriel about the futility of building a mission among the Indians, and he seizes several.

On his return to "civilization" below the falls (the dusty town stands in marked contrast to the lush greenery above the falls), Rodrigo learns that his beloved Carlotta does not love Rodrigo, but has fallen for Rodrigo's younger brother, Felipe (Aiden Quinn). Rodrigo, far from a reasonable sort, kills his brother shortly thereafter in a trumped-up quarrel. Distraught, Rodrigo eventually agrees to do his penance above the falls with Gabriel and his fellow Jesuits (including a young Liam Neeson).

Following a tortuous climb above the falls with his lodestone of arms and armor, Rodrigo finds salvation and seeks to become a Jesuit. The mission above the falls takes shape, and all seems to be right with the world.

Of course, this is not to be. The slavers need their slaves, and they exert enormous pressure against the church -- the Catholic Church is not as strong as it once was, and the militant Jesuits are becoming a nuisance by sapping the supply of slaves (apparently it is too inconvenient to enslave Christians, so the slavers argue that the Indians are monkeys without souls -- nice).

Altamirano agrees to visit both the local mission (a gorgeous, mammoth structure complete with farm and Indian priests) as well as the more primitive mission above the falls . . . which is even more impressive despite (and perhaps because of) it's remoteness.

But, politics being politics, the missions are doomed and the Indians will be enslaved. Rodrigo and the younger priests decide to fight, leading to one of the more disturbing battles you will see on-screen. It's not "Saving Private Ryan" in its horrors, but it is emotionally wrenching to see the Jesuits and the Indians fight such in such a foregone conclusion.

Even more gut-wrenching is Gabriel, who chooses a non-violent response. In a pitch-perfect performance, Irons emobodies the Jesuit commitment to the simple words of Christ . . . not that it does him or the Indians much good in this world.

A haunting spectacle and far from a feel-good movie, "The Mission" deserves full marks for its depiction of a common conflict (Europe versus the New World) in a different setting. A top-notch cast and a wonderfully shot film make this one for the video library. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

A Beautiful Vacation
In this 1996 film, Liv Tyler makes her stunning debut. Set to a soundtrack that is a good mix of quintessentially '90's music (a la Portishead and Liz Phair) and retro classics (like "My Baby Just Cares For Me" and "I'll Be Seeing You,"), this film takes both Liv's character, Lucy, as well as the viewer, on a journey into mystery and enchantment. Lucy embarks on her journey to Italy after the death of her mother, a famous poet and artist. She travels there in search of greater knowledge about her mother, who spent a brief few weeks there one summer. But what Lucy really uncovers in Tuscany are the answers to secrets in her past. And, as the film goes on, she discovers more and more about herself, and the woman she is to become. This film is a great, slowly paced meditation on sex, love, art and self-awareness. When Lucy finds out that she was "conceived" in the olive groves of the artists' villa there, her curiosity deepens and the search for her birth father becomes one of the main goals in her journey. Faced with the loss of a future with her mother, Lucy is looking towards the past for information about those she loves, for knowledge about herself and where she came from, and for hints about where this might lead her as she takes on the life of an adult.

The film begins with shots of Lucy sleeping on the train on her way to Tuscany. There is even one devilish strategic close-up shot of her jeans which is perhaps explained later in the film when it is revealed in a comical exchange between Lucy and Jeremy Irons' character that the beautiful 19 year old Lucy is a virgin. Unbeknownst to Lucy, she was being taped on her journey by a fellow passenger on the train. But he gives her "beauty" back to her in the form of the videotape. Her fate is still in her hands. From there, the film follows several slow, melodic plot lines, one of which is the attempt to find the perfect first sexual partner for the young and much-loved Lucy.

Liv plays a perfect beauty here. She is innocent, touching, bright, curious, and passionate, and as the film goes on, she takes a cue from the artists at the villa and becomes and more free in her expression, more comfortable in her own skin. But she is also careful. She wants her passion to be shared with someone worthy of it, someone who gives as well as takes. It takes a while for her to find out who that perfect catch is, but as in life, the story is what happens while she is waiting for the "pay-off."

Her curious habit of striking a match to each finished poem and burning it up seems to say that she is not yet confident in her artistic abilities, that she wants to keep some things sacred, private. She is cautiously awaiting sharing herself on a deeper level with those whom she grows to love.

Jeremy Irons' character, a man struck by illness in the most beautiful of places, is a nice offset to the virginal beauty of Tyler. Together, they bring the film full circle from youth and glowing health to the natural course of death and dying. The attention they pay to one another is mutual. Lucy in this way is wise as well as youthful.

The countryside in this film is magical. The vineyards of Tuscany, with the glowing sun above, are lovingly captured by Bertolucci. The film is as much an ode to youth and innocence, and the inevitable loss of it (which I think Bertolucci is saying can also be beautiful) as it is to the Italian countryside.

Others in the film who have gone on to receive wide acclaim and appear in such movies as Shakespeare in Love, Elizabeth, Swept From the Sea, and The Mummy are the two British actors Joseph Fiennes and Rachael Weisz.

gorgeous at every turn
If you watch this film for nothing else, soak in the beauty of the setting.
While I enjoy this film for both its plot and its artistic/aesthetic qualities, I have to admit that it is at its most stunning best when it comes to its cinematography. what a gorgeous backdrop for a virgin coming-of-age story! the plot may be a bit tired, and the characters too well known, but the twists that are supplied are enough to make it engaging. Liv Tyler is, of course, gorgeous and mesmorizing. The Italian and British actors that flank her almost eclipse her, but as her debut film, she does truly shine.
There are several scenes that are physically intriguing, but I most enjoyed the entire "party" sequence.... some odd, yet stunning filming.
Let's face it, everyone in this film is beautiful to look at (even Jeremy Irons as a dying man). You begin to lose interest in Lucy's (Tyler) quest at some point, but once the answer is revealed it is still somewhat satisfying.
I can highly reccommend this film to anyone that is into gorgeous scenery, lovely and easy story lines, and has and eye for the pleasing aesthetic so many films lack these days. Nothing earth-moving... but a VERY pleasant movie experience!

it's my favorite, but not for everyone
you may not, but i love this movie. the characters are solidly interesting and well-played, the storyline is simple but itriguing, and it has simply beautiful scenery.

Good movie but needs subtitles in parts
I really like this movie. The scenery is beautiful and the movie's focus on the interactions between a variety of characters in the Italian countryside is interesting. I would rate it higher except for one thing- quite a bit of the movie is in Italian and there are no subtitles for this dialogue. This really doesn't make sense, especially considering the vhs copy that I use to own did have them. The parts in Italian aren't just snippets of dialogue either- some are entire conversations. If you've seen this many times with subtitles (and know what they're saying in Italian) I would definitely buy it. If not, it's still a good purchase but be aware that you're missing quite a bit of the movie.

What about "no stars"?
As an Italian (who teaches Italian in HS and college in the U.S.) I really looked forward to a good film after one of my students recommended this one to me.

As a professor, I can sit through a lot of boring stuff, but this movie was so awful I couldn't even finish it. The scenery is nice but after watching this film for over an hour I found it to be pointless. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

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

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

Reviews (20)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exodus I; BA History EWU

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

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

Well done, and well worth the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<=====>

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

Reviews (122)

O lente currite noctis equi! O softly run, nightmares!
It is impossible to make a faithful (legal) movie of Nabokov's novel. However, this is very good approximation of it.

Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert, and captures the kind of clueless social fumbling and bumbling which is a large part of the character in the novel. Humbert is not comfortable around people of any age. Domenique Swain, in her first role, pulls off an acceptable version of the title character, both vulnerable and crafty. Although Frank Langella is no Peter Sellers, his rendition of Clare Quilty is much more realistic and true to the novel - even the over-the-top death scene with the ballet-like movements and red spit-bubble is almost straight from the book. A real problem was casting Melanie Griffith as Charlotte - unfortunately she was completely wrong for the part - being too shrill and light.

The cinematography was excellent. The feeling of travel - 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book, and was well represented in the movie.

Beautiful score by Morricone, who also did the well-regarded "The Mission" score.

For all the good things in the movie, the same three things in both the Lyne and Kubrick versions bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
1. No mention of first wife. He was not always just into nymphets.
2. No mention of second wife, Rita, (and taping the goodbye note to her navel so she would find it).
3. The last page and a half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

The title cards at the end detailing the demise of the characters was a cheap out in both versions of the movie. Had there been a narration of the last page over, say, a scene of Humbert writing in jail (which in the novel is where the book is written in 56 days of captivity), I'd give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD has a lot of extras including a commentary, rehearsal footage and 8 deleted scenes.

Nothing replaces the book, and I suggest the "Annotated Lolita" version which has 140 pages of notes, helping with the nuances in the complex, convoluted novel.

Lolita 1998
Although Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a good film adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's superb novel, it contains fatal flaws. First I will say that the cinematography is glorious and the score by Ennio Morriconne lush and romantic. I expected Jeremy Irons as the obsessed Humbert Humbert to turn in a mind blowing performance. Unfortunately, he stands around looking glum most of the time. Dominique Swain as the nymphet Lolita does have several impressive moments, but ultimately is unconvincing as she comes across as nothing more than a 90s brat. I will say though that the relationship between Humbert and Lolita does have its very powerful moments, just not enough of them.

I don't hold these faults to the actors. I think Adrian Lyne, the director is responsible for the films flaws. For one thing, he seems to want to make Lolita look as unattractive as possible every chance he gets. She takes out her retainer before performing oral sex on Humbert, and is frequently seen munching on bananas and getting milk mustaches. Also in one scene, we see Lolita sitting diown, laughing as she reads a comic book. The camera moves away to reveal that Humbert is making love to her. This and other scenes make the relationship between Humbert and Lolita repulsive, and if you're going to make a film based on Lolita, their relationship can't be portrayed as disgusting. The audience must be made to feel the love that Humbert has for this girl. It only partially succeeds. Irons also fails most in the ending scene where Lolita tells Humbert that she never loved him. Irons merely cries for two seconds and leaves. James Mason in Kubrick's version is much more moving. I also have a problem with the fact that Lyne seems to have duplicated the Kubrick film shot by shot in that scene.

My last qualm is that this adaption is nearly completely devoid of humor, which is an essential aspect of Nabokov's story. Melanie Griffiths gives a fine performance as Charlotte Haze, but she is given far too little screen time. Frank Langella as Quilty is also quite amusing, too bad he only gets ten minutes to show it. Thus, when a 17 year old Lolita reveals to Humbert that it was Quilty who put her away, we don't care. It should be a revelation, but it is not. Quilty's death scene offers an infusion of black humor, but it is too little, too late. Jeremy Irons last few scenes as an emotionally broken Humbert are very moving though.

I give this movie three stars because for all of its faults, it is involving and does deserve to be seen and compared with Stanley Kubrick's 1962 adaption. Even though it falls short when compared to it.

Adrian Lyne, you do not compare to Stanley Kubrick
The original 1962 Kubrick version of this movie is so much better, he actually captured the essence of this film. The remake is completely cheesy; it pales in comparison. Shame on those who think this wannabe movie is better or even compares to the original.

A FASCINATING STORY OF OBSESSION
It is interesting to compare this movie and its predecessor, to "Pretty Baby."

Some critics claim "Lolita" is a true love story. I disagree.

Dominique Swain is beautiful and incredibly sexy; and Irons wants to possess her. Realistically, this can not be, so conflict, and ultimately death, ensue.

In "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields is stunningly beautiful, adorably so, but not sexy, although she becomes a child prostitute.

While Swain obviously knows exactly what is on men's minds, Shields portrays a child playing at the sex trade.

Ultimately, her photographer-lover lets her go on to a normal childhood, just as earlier he freed the bird trapped in the whore-house. This is love.

Athough both films are visually beautiful, in "Pretty Baby," Sven Nyquist's cimematography is transcendentally so. His shots of Brooke Shields posing for her photographer-lover are like peering into the tender, throbbing core of life itself.

As vexing as ever
Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Footnotes in movie books are likely to reduce this swashbuckling adventure down to a simple description: it was the first movie to star Leonardo DiCaprio after the phenomenal success of Titanic. As such it automatically attracted a box-office stampede of Leo's young female fans, but critical reaction was deservedly mixed. Having earned his directorial debut after writing the Oscar-winning script for Mel Gibson's Braveheart, Randall Wallace wrote and directed this ambitious version of the often-filmed classic novel by Alexandre Dumas. DiCaprio plays dual roles as the despotic King Louis XIV, who rules France with an iron fist, and the king's twin brother, Philippe, who languishes in prison under an iron mask, his identity concealed to prevent an overthrow of Louis' throne. But Louis' abuse of power ultimately enrages Athos (John Malkovich), one of the original Four Musketeers, who recruits his former partners (Gabriel Byrne, G&eacute;rard Depardieu, and Jeremy Irons) in a plot to liberate Philippe and install him as the king's identical replacement. Once this plot is set in motion and the Musketeers are each given moments in the spotlight, the film kicks into gear and offers plenty of entertainment in the grand style of vintage swashbucklers. But it's also sidetracked by excessive length and disposable subplots, and for all his post-Titanic star power, the boyish DiCaprio just isn't yet "man" enough to be fully convincing in his title role. Still, this is an entertaining movie, no less enjoyable for falling short of the greatness to which it aspired. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (168)

As much fun as the book...
Movie adaptations of books are prone to disappointment - But not so with this film adaptation of "The Man in the Iron Mask," the third book in the Musketeer trilogy by master Alexandre Dumas.

Unlike the earlier "Three Musketeers" released by Disney (featuring Oliver Platt, Charlie Sheen, Chris O'Donnel and Kiefer Sutherland), which was aimed at a younger audience, "Iron Mask" is aimed at a more sophisticated adult audience. It aims past the raucus swashbuckling (although there is plenty of action to satisfy) and strives toward deeper character development in an almost introspective manner. From d'Artagnan's severe sense of duty to Aramis' penitence to Athos' alternating joie de vivre and ennui to Portos' fatherly love, with an underlying religous tone, the "Iron Mask" underscores the human struggle toward virtue and a supernatural code of morality.

The cast, including Jeremy Irons, Gabriel Byrne, Gerard Depardieu, John Malkovich and DiCaprio) is superb - with the exception that Malkovich's characteristic American accent seems out of place juxtaposed to the more British and French tinge of his fellow musketeers; and, more importantly, that the young DiCaprio (who has since matured) has yet to 'come of age' as an actor in this movie. The direction by "Braveheart"'s Randall Wallace is outstanding, with good cinematography and composition, well-planned pacing and a well-written and edited screenplay adaptation of the work.

Of course, the credit to the success of this movie is that the original work by Dumas is a page-turner literary classic! I highly recommend reading the complete trilogy: "The Three Musketeers," "Twenty Years After" and "The Man in the Iron Mask."

For hands-down the best translation of a Dumas work to film, I highly recommend "The Count of Monte Cristo," featuring the excellent Jim Caviezel.

Not Perfect, but Interesting
This movie is not unlike its central character(s) -- twins separated at birth, developing in two different directions. There's the movie for the squealing teens -- basically Leo DiCaprio, in all kinds of costumes, doing his cute-as-a-button routine as both hero and villain. Then there's the movie for everybody else -- a somber, complex story full of superb middle-aged actors who finally find honor and redemption at too high a cost. The two sides of the movie do fit together -- DiCaprio is a surprisingly good actor when he has the likes of Malkovich and Gabriel Byrne feeding him his cues -- but the fit is never perfect. The old guard side of the story is slow-paced at times, because it develops a personal plot line for every single Musketeer, but it gets there in the end. If you like the movie the first time, a re-watching will bring up new and interesting nuances. The best thing in the film (if you're not female and 17) is John Malkovich, whose version of Athos jumps believably from homicidal obsessive to loving father fi