Reviews (48)

Amusing Story. Bland Movie.
"Calendar Girls" is a fictionalized account of the events surrounding the publication, in 1999, of a nude calendar featuring the ladies of the Rylstone Women's Institute of North Yorkshire, England. The calendar caused a media sensation in Great Britain and the United States on account of its photographs of women of a certain age performing quaint everyday tasks in the buff. In the film, Chris (Helen Mirren) organizes the calendar to raise money on behalf of her best friend Annie's (Julie Waters) husband, who is dying of leukemia. "Calendar Girls" dramatizes the challenges of convincing a group of middle-aged and older women to pose nude, garnering support for the project, and coping with the resulting flood of international publicity.

The cast is well-suited to their roles. The characters are all appealing. But "Calendar Girls" takes too much time to get off the ground and moves very slowly once it does. This "dramedy" isn't nearly as funny as it should be. It's just bland. The story of the WI calendar is really more interesting than this film.

As for "Calendar Girls" accuracy, this really is a fictionalized account. The characters do not represent real people specifically, except for Chris and Annie, who are based loosely on real women. Any strife between characters in the film is dramatic license. The calendar's photographer was not a stranger, but one of the ladies' husbands. The calendar was indeed intended to raise money for a local hospital's cancer ward on behalf of Angela Baker's husband, John Baker, to whose memory "Calendar Girls" is dedicated. And a similar 2004 calendar featuring the actresses in this film has been released as a further fund-raiser for charity.

The DVD: Bonus features include two mini-documentaries and four deleted scenes. "The Naked Truth" is a 15-minute documentary about the real story behind the infamous calendar. It features interviews with the women who organized and graced the pages of the calendar and its photographer, following the calendar's story from its genesis to this film's premiere. "Creating the Calendar" is a 6-minute short about filming the nude scenes and photographing the calendar for the movie. Captions are available in English, subtitles in Spanish. And dubbing is available in French.

Quiet and Likeable! Also (gasp) kinda sexy!
I went into watching CALENDAR GIRLS dreading it might be a female rip-off of THE FULL MONTY. No need to fear, because the movie is about a lot more than aping a successful indie formula. The movie centers on a group of women of Rylstone Women's Institute in North Yorkshire, England who through a tragedy decide to raise money for a hospital with their annual calendar. The only catch? These well-aged women are going to pose in the buff with strategically placed items of household drudgery hiding the naughty bits and pieces. And when the calendar comes out? They all have to deal with the infamy that comes along with posing nude. And deal with success as well! Or new found confidence.

It is a story rich dramatically and still just plain funny. The nudity is tasteful, and not all that revealing. Think Dianne Keaton's SOMETHINGS GOT TO GIVE flash, and you get the idea. And Helen Mirren and a STRONG cast give it all a dignified English air that plays well. I really loved this movie. It made me smile widely! And hammered home the message that beauty is in ALL forms. Everybody has a shine to them, and the 50 MOST BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE are the ones with the courage to make fun of themselves and smile all the while. No body doubles here either! Yea for them! Brave women with "bigger buns!".

The DVD is a special treat. You get a documentary on the real life CALENDAR GIRLS who look a lot like their film counterparts. You also get to see the movie cast MAKING the calendar! Okay, maybe just TALKING about making it. Also you get some deleted scenes, and assorted trailers.

I'm getting sunflowers for my house just to remind me of people that always reach for the sun! Very nice image. We need more movies like this -- celebrating wisdom and friendship. And hey - it's just simple fun.

a smart, lovely comedy!!
This movie is inspired by a true story where these middle aged women go in the nude posing for their calendar which becomes a huge success! I really loved this movie for its wonderful acting and it was hilarious!! The whole way I felt like cheering the women on! This movie made me laugh out loud and its a great change from some other funny movies that all they offer is bathroom jokes and other stupid humor. This is a one of a kind smart hilarious movie!!

Marginal, at best
This is one of those small budget Britcoms that is supposed to be hilarious and all the trailer clips suggest that. Problem is it's not very funny, well-acted, or even mildly engaging. It's flat out boring. It is not a female "The Full Monty," as the ad campaign leads you to think. If that were the case I would have loved it. Others can re-tell the plot, but there isn't really much beyond these ordinary women in a small English town do a nude calendar to raise money and all the hinjinx prevail. Except there really are no hijinx. Just the usual stereotypical disapproving neighbors and officials, combined with the always surprising support from the most unlikely (wink-wink) circles. Been there--seen that over and over. It's as if every cliche in these types of movies were rehashed over and over.

Save your money. Frankly, I think the positive reviews on this are the true comedy.

a joyous comedy
One of the most delightful films of recent years, "Calendar Girls," a distaff version of "The Full Monty," is the true story of a group of middle-aged English women who became international celebrities when they designed and posed for a nude fundraising calendar that sold millions of copies worldwide. Julie Walters and Helen Mirren head a wonderful cast, with Walters as a woman whose husband dies of leukemia and Mirren as her best friend who comes up with the idea of the calendar as a way of both honoring his memory and raising money for the local hospital.

The risk for any "feel good" comedy is that it will become cloying, coy or cutesy. Luckily, "Calendar Girls" boasts an enormously witty screenplay and first-rate performances by its highly gifted cast. Each of the "girls" is given her own unique personality so that we see them not just as a group, united in this inspiring endeavor, but as individuals working through their own personal demons on the rode to the project's completion. The women face the expected roadblocks and snafus in the form of "shocked," disapproving voices in the community, but their belief in the rightness of their cause brushes all such problems aside.

This charming film provides more genuine, out-and-out laughs than almost any comedy of recent times. "Calendar Girls" is heartwarming, touching and inspiring - and what more could one ask from a "feel-good" film than that? ... Read more

Reviews (108)

BEN KINGSLEY'S FINEST HOUR ON DVD
Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" is a masterfully told, massively mounted epic motion picture, depicting the life and times of Gandhi, a benevolant crusader for peace, whose shocking assassination rocked the world. Ben Kingsley rightfully took home the Oscar for his subtle but stunning transformation into the title role. WARNING: This is a slow paced movie but well worth the three hour plus investment of your time.
Columbia Tristar has given us a very beautiful print of the film. Colors are rich, bold and vibrant. Contrast levels are good. Although black levels are not always at their darkest, this is relatively forgivable, since most of the film takes place during the day. Shimmering, aliasing and edge enhancement are all present but in extremely minute amounts, leaving one with nothing to do but admire the visual presentation in all of its breathtaking cinematography. The soundtrack is 2.0 surround but well represented. Some of the audio has a tendancy to appear thin or strident but, again, considering its dated fidelity and the source material, it is remarkably well represented. No extras - disappointing for a big time Oscar winner like this. Perhaps we'll get a special edition eventually.

Excellent movie about a 'mover' in this world
Every once in a while this world produces an exceptional human being whose presence makes it a much better place to live in. Such a person was Mahatma Gandhi; the Indian 'radical' whose teachings about non-violent resistance lead to the eventual independence of India from British colonial rule. His teachings have inspired other such movements in the world and his life has been looked up to as a standard which others have tried to emulate.

Every once in a while those responsible for the academy awards have chosen deserving films. This is one of them. Ben Kingsley gives a grand performance as Gandhi, from his youth to his death. The impersonation is spot on; everything from the accent to the gait is so convincing that one could swear Kingsley was Gandhi.

If you are looking for a biography of this man on film, this movie is an excellent source. Condensing Gandhi's life into a few hours is such a great feat, especially when there is so much of this man that could be explored. The movie was filmed in India, with 300,000 extras, so if you like epic films you will definitely enjoy this one. The scenery is authentic and the characters have a reality about them so often lacking in 'hollywood' films. No 'eye-candy' version of a historical event, this is a real movie about a real person.

The DVD extras were ok for a film this old. There is some original newsreel footage which is quite short but still worth watching to see the real Gandhi as he was. Kingsley also gives a talk about how it was being Gandhi, there is also some of the sayings of Gandhi; great candidates for those memorable sayings we all try to memorize to motivate ourselves. All in all a great DVD, the movie is a timeless classic about a great man of the modern world.

Movie does not do justice to the person
Richard Attenborough's movie "Gandhi" was a movie of epic proportion. Mohandas Gandhi was probably the most influential person of modern day India. If one reads any of his biographies or his autobiography, one would find that he was a very complex person. The movie was well directed and showed some of the important parts of the freedom struggle starting from his initiation in South Africa. However, for the sake of marketing, the movie concentrates largely on the european angle and sidetrakes the Indian angle completely.

Gandhi was a person who started a new line of thinking that inspired people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Dalai Lama. He was a complex person who right from childhood was afraid of ghosts and speaking in public. He was a disaster as a lawyer initially. The transformation happened when he saw the injustice happen to him in Pietermaritzburg in South Africa. I wish that the movie had shown the transformation in the person. This was an important catalysis. Most of the people shown in the movie were not important in Gandhi's life, though they were decent actors, such as Candice Bergan and so on. The Indians who associated with him such as Patel, Nehru, Azad and so on are given minor importance.

Some of his important speeches were left out, which are thought provoking. Recently Time magazine had Salman Rushdie write a piece about Gandhi. Granted there is freedom of speech, but I had never seen a more badly written piece about Gandhi than that. Rushdie should stick to fiction - well he is losing his touch in that too. Gandhi had his faults like any human, some of his ideas may not apply in the present day world. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. The sad part is that he is largely forgotten in India itself. Most people in India do not take the trouble to read and know about the real person, what he stood for, his ideals. In fact, I am ashamed to say that South Africa remembers him more than India, even though his is the father of India. Even in the last elections in South Africa, he was used as an icon. However, in India, he is slowly ebbing away.

A soul-conquering fine work of art
Never before have I seen such a powerful work of art. It made me forget the finesse of the technological masterpiece, an advanced Macintosh computer running MacOsX, which delivered the breath-taking scenes in vibrant colors with soul-stirring sound effects. Instead all that stood in my mind was the movie and movie alone. This was a radical change in thought for a person like me who is a avid technology enthusiast. Never before have I been so involved in the scenes of a movie. Every scene and every peice of sound hits the nail right on its head with a powerful strike of the hammer. I must appreciate the dedication of the team and their quest for perfection. Years of their work has produced this masterpiece which mankind can cherish for the eons to come. This certainly is one of the best creations of collective human intellect of superlative degree. The story of the life of a great soul in a soul-conquering work of art.

gandhi-whats the point?
i mean he wasnt that great was he? there are plenty of annorexic people out there. plus its not healthy. throughout that whole movie i was yelling, " GIVE THAT MAN A SANDWICH!" he needs to eat something. I cant tell the difference between mahatma gandhi and paris hilton. in closing WHO LET THE DOGS OUT
WHO WHO WHO WHO.
who let the dogs out-good tune
gandhi-OK flick

i give it ***

GO GANDHI! he is my favorite linebacker in san diego chargers history ... Read more

Amazon.com

Only die-hard Bill Murray fans will likely consider this movie for their home-video library, but it's not without its rewards. You can see why someone as comically astute as Murray would agree to play a dimwitted American who can't tell the difference between improvised theater and a real-life espionage plot. There's certainly plenty of potential for belly laughs, and Murray milks the opportunities like the old pro that he is.Here he plays an American tourist in London who thinks he's been recruited into a street-theater act called "Theater of Life"; actually, he's stepped into a complicated spy scheme that plays like a cross between Hitchcock and the Marx Brothers. Joanne Whalley costars as the femme fatale who may or may not be a double agent, and along the way there's enough comical confusion to foil any number of idiotic villains. The movie stretches its one-joke premise to desperate extremes (Murray thinks he's in a play, so he's oblivious to genuine danger), and 95 minutes is more than enough time to exhaust the comedic possibilities. But, as always, Murray finds a way to mine gold from a few clever bits, and he cuts loose with some inspired lunacy during a climactic scene involving a hidden bomb and a troupe of dancing Cossacks. It's not Murray's finest hour, but give him credit for making the best out of a challenging situation. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Well written story, entertaining
A very clever script with some very well written situation comedy. I tried getting my teenage daughter to watch this, she thought it was extremely stupid, so the audience has to be right. I thought she'd enjoy it. I've watched it a couple of times and still found it entertaining and funny.
Murray plays a hapless American caught up in a ring of international espionage while thinking that he is just playing the part in an audience participation stage play in London. A lessor actor in this film and it would have a a complete dud, but Murray's talent shines and there aren't any dull moments. A scene near the end has him dancing with Russians while unknowingly stopping a time bomb, it is very well choreographed and lots of fun to watch. This movie is a strong recommendation to any that like Murray and his talent of being funny while seemingly not trying to be. It is a good recommendation to any that enjoy clever situation comedy and aren't expecting "What about Bob?" or "Groundhog Day" which this film is not.

A laugh out loud video!!
The first time i saw this movie i was in a movie theater and i couldn't stop laughing! I knew that i had to get the tape so i did. It is a little confusing in the very begining but once you see it a second time it makes a lot more sense. It's about Bill Murray's character who is brother's with Peter Gallagher's character. Bill goes to England(where his brother lives)for Bill's birthday. Peter gives him a ticket to "the theater of life"- a performance you play as the main character. In the performance, it takes you around town acting as if it were real life only there are actors everywhere to help you along the way. It sounds confusing but you'll understand when you see it. Anyway, Bill loves the present but somethng goes wrong. Bill get's mixed up with the wrong people who think he's a killer but Bill thinks it's all part of "the theater of life". but it's not the performance, it's real life! Bill get's close to dying so many times but he doesn't even realize how much danger he's in. All throughout the movie Bill thinks it's just a performance. In the end everything turns out fine and he even get's the girl! The only thing i didn't like was that Peter Gallagher was Bill Murray's brother, they don't look anything alike and Peter's really ugly! But other than that it was a hilarious movie and you're really missing out if you haven't seen it! go see it now before it's too late!

What a hoot!! Too many great scenes to list them all..
Confusion is often funny, but sometimes it can lead to danger. In this film, confusion and danger, coupled with a marvelous cast and excellent comedic script, take us on a heckuva fun trip to London. The whole of the underbelly of the world of duplicitous spies and sneaky secret agents is cut to shreds by a simple, unsuspecting video store clerk from Iowa. Absolutely hilarious, and Bill Murray is his zany best. Joanne Whalley is the cat's meow, and is perfect as Murray's cohort. Just the mix-up of the real and pretend torture doctors is worth the purchase. You will laugh until you can't cry any more tears.

Lori Wants Her Letters........
This movie was a real surprise for me and my wife. We rent a lot of comedy movies and have passed this one up a couple of times thankfully having picked it out just recently and now intending to buy it.

Murray plays a very funny underachiever who just so happens to get involved with international intrigue, yet he thinks he is involved in a one night reality TV program. His straight side kick in the movie is Joanne Whalley playing Lori.

Murray is a crack up throughout the film thinking he is in a movie and thinking that all of the spies and diplomats are actors staying in character.....he is the funniest since Groundhog Day in this. I feel he is better than 'What About Bob.'

Peter Gallagher plays his brother and the funniest interaction he has is with an actual police officer where Gallagher, who funded Murray's intended movie romp, thinks he is talking with an actor and as he gets angrier he just gets funnier.

The movie has a lot of funny scenes that I laughed throughout. I thought the first part of the movie was little slow in developing but as soon as he got the call for what he thought was the reality show, things really took off.

I laughed and laughed as he got chased, shot at, tortured and then all through it he thinks he is in a show.

If there is a movie you want to share with friends for a nice fun evening this it.

Delicious Desert for Bill Murray Fans
This is an enjoyable, lightweight Blake Edwards-style farce that gave me plenty of belly laughs. Bill Murray is such a good comic actor that he takes what ought to be a one-joke pastiche and milks it for every last drop of comedy. I've seen bumbling detectives and secret agent spoofs before, but Murray turns this into something special. I wouldn't rate it as highly as "Ghostbusters" or "Groundhog Day" but "The Man Who Knew Too Little" is enough of an overlooked gem for me to recommend it. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Not Du Maurier and Not On Par With Hitchcock
When I first heard of this production on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre, I was thrilled with anticipation regarding how it would be played. Would it rival Hitchcock's masterpiece? Would it be marketed as a romantic escape?

Unfortunately, althought this version of Du Maurier's classic follows the book very closely and is over 2 hours longer than the original 1940s film, it just doesn't measure up to either Hitchcock or the book. Hitchcock downplays Du Maurier's portrayal of the strange relationship between men and women. Men are omnipotent---women, merely serve. Rebecca, too strong must go. Hitchcock plays up the Gothic touches with fog, music and a weakly played Max De Winter. The nameless heroine gathers strength as Rebecca is revealed to be intrinsically evil. But this is not Du Maurier's 'Rebecca'. In the book there is no win in the ending---the heroine simply remains a caretaker as she was in the beginning of the novel; her charge has changed from Mrs. Van Hopper to Maxim. The couple drifts like sad wanderers from place to place; as Du Maurier puts it, "There is no resurrection." In this adaptation and in Hitchcock, love seems to conquer all---an idea completely alien and misunderstood by most readers of Du Maurier.

First and foremost, the girl playing the narrator is not gauche or dependent enough--she has too much spunk and sparkle lurking behind the lank hair and the school girl dresses. Fontaine was ever so much more desperate to please as I think Du Maurier's heroine was meant to be. Du Maurier doesn't even give her a name. Dame Diana Rigg is an equally austere Mrs Danvers, but her portrayal is much too sad, not malicious enough and definitely suggests a [physical] attraction to her former mistress which seems mournful rather than simply obsessive like DuMaurier's character in the novel or Dame Anderson's character in Hitchcock's film. Charles Dance is not as taut nerved as Olivier, but he passes as an okay Max DeWinter with perhaps a third of Olivier's charm. Still, he comes off as weak as does Olivier in Hitchcock's version---neither fully portraying the strong silent brooding character of Maxim in the book. Lastly, giving Rebecca a voice and a body, is a mistake. Du Maurier's book is so compelling simply because we don't know anything about Rebecca and hence can envision whatever femme fatale we choose--the real Rebecca is a ghost; she remains a mystery to the very end--we don't know if she is really malevolent---we only have Maxim's word--or excuse for his own violent actions. We don't even understand her motives fully even after the production moves to the final scene at Manderley.

Nevertheless, if you simply love everything 'Rebecca', you will at least like this version, but, I guarantee it will provoke you to find a copy of the Hitchcock version at your local rental store or better yet a worn copy of the book at your library!

Certainly awesome
I watched this movie only after I read the book by Daphe Du Maurier several times at different ages. I am glad to say that it was very close to what I had imagined while I read the book. I certainly feel 3 hours are required for doing justice to the book. Though, it would have been much better had they spent more time showing how Maxim de Winter and the narrator fall in love in Monte Carlo. I feel that was too hurried and several details were left out. The last part where Max de Winter tries to save Danvers from the burning Manderley ought to have been avoided as it wasn't part of the story and only added melodrama.

The cast for this second version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox and Diana Rigg couldn't have been better. The perfect English looking Charles Dance is the only one who could portray the reserved, austre and noble Max de Winter. I feel the difference in age between Max De Winter and the narrator was very accurately portrayed in the film. An older, more mature looking man was very vital for this role. Though the book says that Maxim was about twice the age of the young narrator, around 40, I always imagined Maxim to look older than that with all the fear and suffering he had undergone. Olivier certainly was not cut for this role in Hitchcock's version. I think Emilia Fox was also great with her lost, shy look.

I feel this version is probably the closest it can get to the book and the characters. The cast chosen was the best by far.

great !
A film highly recommended for Diana Rigg friends and fans. I like most. Terrific and great play Dame Diana !!

Love this movie but I too wish Hollywood would do a version
I liked this version of the movie much better than the original 1940's version; and it certainly does justice to the book. But I would love it if Hollywood did a version with Ralph Fiennes as Maxim, Jillian Anderson as Mrs. DeWinter (because she has those big doe eyes), Maggie Smith as Mrs. Danvers, and shown as the ghost of Rebecca, Madoline Stowe. The Rebecca in the current version is not mean and brooding enough.

I wish...
if only holleywood would undertake a newer modern version of this film. I've read the novel, and I like that this movie shows us a bit about rebecca. When reading the book I pictured Hugh Jackman as a wonderful Maximilian and Julie Benz as the ghostlike Rebecca with flashbacks to this mystery woman. I know it sounds strange, but I really feel they should remake this film. Maybe get Tim Burton to do it or something? :)
It was overall dissapointing. I hope they shall redo this someday. My friends agree with me on the casting though if it should ever be made. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Hysterical!
THE TALL GUY has been a favorite of mine for years. I take great pride in being a fan of this "guilty pleasure" film! I try to turn people onto it as often as possible.

THE TALL GUY, first and foremost, is very British in its humor, which means there is irony, surrealism, and jokes that don't depend on insults (Americans *love* the insult-joke).

THE TALL GUY has the funniest sex scene (Goldblum and Thompson) that I've ever seen. And as others have mentioned, the ELEPHANT! musical is hysterical. I cried the first time I saw the musical numbers ... it's that hilarious.

At heart, THE TALL GUY is a sweet romance. But its British sensibilities and backstage humor (Goldblum's character is an underdog actor) lifts it above an average screwball comedy. And Emma Thompson is very charming as Nurse Kate! One forgets after all of her serious Shakespeare and Jane Austin roles that she is quite a comedienne.

So enjoy THE TALL GUY! And remember: "Somewhere up in heaven there's an angel with big ears."

Early work from Curtis the movie scriptwriter
Richard Curtis, eventual architect of 'Four Weddings', 'Notting Hill', 'Love Actually' and bits of 'Bridget Jones', kicked off his filmwriting career with this 1989 debut.

It shows its youthfulness. Just as 'Four Weddings' had at its core a string of sketches based on weddings Curtis had attended (but very skillfully linked by a romantic story), so 'The Tall Guy' appears to have started with the idea of a pastiche musical based on the Elephant Man, around which Curtis wraps a romance between a supporting actor and a nurse.

Curtis's great buddy from Oxford, Rowan Atkinson, is brought in to play a control-freak comedian -- no type-casting there, then -- but there are a few ex-Cambridge people too: Emma Thompson, Mel Smith etc. Jeff Goldblum is good as the lead, but there's no evidence that the script was specially written for him in particular or an American in general.

This film is perhaps now best known for the slapstick sex scene between Thompson and Goldblum, which manages to be (slightly) erotic while also revealing a basic truth about the domestic tidiness of all nurses I have known.

Many of the standard Curtis plot elements appear in a formative stage for this film: the early sexual encounter, followed by the break-up, followed by a finale in which the protagonists make a grand declaration of true love in front of a large crowd, the pop video sequence etc etc.

I suspect this is now a budget-priced DVD because Curtis is slightly embarrassed by it. But it's 88 enjoyable minutes of good, largely clean fun. As ever, Emma Thompson is the most convincing actor on the screen. Fifteen years on, she talks frankly about her varicose veins and growing old. It's probably handy to have a film which she can now show her children and say "This is what I used to look like before anything drooped."

Soon after making this, Curtis co-wrote the brilliant 'Blackadder Goes Forth' series for Rowan and friends, which was one of the comic masterpieces of the 1980s. Clearly outstanding at TV scriptwriting, Curtis may have felt after 'The Tall Guy' that he hadn't proved himself on the movie screen. But the movies were where the real money was (for writers), and five years later, Curtis perfected the formula with 'Four Weddings'.

The Tall Let Down
I've been experiencing Jeff Goldblum fever for some reason so I've been grabbing at all of his movies. The Tall Guy is the number one reason you shouldn't buy a movie from just reading a few reviews and seeing a few scenes. It's terribly misleading.

I tried to give the film a chance but it wasn't easy. I am someone who enjoys intelligent humor and I love brit comedies as much as American comedies. Humor is humor but the humor was not in this film for me. Rowen ( better known as Mr. Bean ) was impressive and Jeff Goldblum gave Dexter King all he could but it was still as the Brits say...a bloody bore.

The plot was limited. Okay what's so great about a tall out of work actor when there's no useful information spilt about the character? I found it tedious the FIFTH time Jeff Goldblum rode down the narrow London streets on his bike. Point is...the film was going nowhere and that's exactly where it went. The actors did well except for Emma Thompson who was way too old to act so naive. Her character gets upset when Dexter cheats, yet the first thing she wanted to do was sleep with HIM a couple of days after they met. Isnt't that the pot calling the kettle black?

There were a lot of loopholes and snail scenes that dragged on and on for no reason. Usually Jeff Goldblum's lamely charming, but he made me more tired of Dexter than any of the other characters.

This film had no substance and even less of an effect. Don't waste your time on this one. No matter how much Jeff fever you may have.

Good solid british comedy
I admit that I purchased this movie as a Rowan Atkinson fan. While his parts are small 20 minutes, and at times mirror his work on Mr. Bean, he is clearly the standout performer in this video. He plays an excellent jerk!
Emma Thompson, playing a straight-forward nurse, is charming, and give a similarly lively performance. There are a couple or fairly racy lovemaking scenes with Emma and Goldblum, so it's not a movie for children, but it is pretty tame fare other than that.
The movie itself centers on the transformation of Jeff Goldblum, and has some inventive writing when dealing with the struggles of becoming an unsuccessful actor, but pretty standard predictable fare when dealing with romance.
The movie, with an 80's soundtrack and look, is a great dose of nostalgia, a gentle dose of comedy, and I highly recommend it as a "guilty pleasure" or "Brain-candy". While you won't see alot of Mr. Atkinson, you will get a decent entertainment value.

Standing tall!
When I first saw this movie about 10 years ago, the primary reason was because Emma Thompson starred in it. 10 years later I have watched it again and have found there is an additional reason to view it: it's genuinely FUN!

The plot is not overly creative or original, but the film is set in London and is full of laughs. It's a Romantic Comedy - British style! This is one of Jeff Goldblum's earlier movies, before he was a really big name.

And if you're looking for women who are beautiful, intelligent AND talented in the acting department, look no further than Emma Thompson! To my knowledge, this film contains her the lone nude scene of her career [although I could be wrong on this one]. That in itself is enough reason to buy this DVD!

As Goldblum plays a struggling actor, people in the theatre community will likely get some extra chuckles from this film. However, it's a film that's also recommended for everyone else who enjoys a good RC and it's very couples-friendly. Oh, and did I mention it stars Emma Thompson??? ... Read more

Reviews (29)

it's the movie, not the book that's being reviewed...
I have never read the novel of Moll Flanders, and besides, that's not what we're reviewing anyway. We're reviewing the movie itself. From my unbiased opinion, I think it was a great movie, well executed from the cast members. The little girl was an astounding actress for her age, and I'm quiet surprised that I haven't seen her in any other movies. Robin Wright did very well, because, I take it, Moll is a very challenging part. Moll is a multi-faceted character and I think any actress would have a very hard time pulling off. So congradulations to Wright. And, as usual, Morgan Freeman pulls off a wonderful performance. Stockard Channing is also very good at being evil, so the part suited her well. All in all, it's a good film to rent when all of the modern stuff seems like trash.

Where's Defoe's version?
I liked the movie. Don't get me wrong. However, this version of Moll Flander's tale deviants so dramatically from the version written by Defoe in the 18th century. Instead of our heroine, his the early version being the victim of money's intense seduction, of trading her morality for money and compassion for commodification, Densham's version of Moll Flanders is a frosting-type Cinderella whose beauty and innocence give her her just reward, money. I'm not exactly sure what the director, screen writer is trying to say here. That virtue isn't it's own reward, but that with luck and good looks, eventually you'll get the cash you need to own a estate in the Bahamas?
Either way, the movie's romance hooked me. I love to see true love conquer all.
It was a good movie.
I just wouldn't try to watch it and compare it to Defoe's version.

Not Moll Flanders at all
If you are a fan of period piece movies and only care about the movie, not the book, this is a nicely done period piece movie. It is nothing like the version of Moll Flanders starring Alex Kingston which I also liked very much. I have a huge collection of period piece movies and am glad I added both versions to my collection.

Read the book, but don't cast this movie aside!
I first read the *book* Moll Flanders when I was in eighth grade, and I loved it. Then I saw the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation of the novel, and loved that. When I saw this title at the video store, I thought I'd give it a try.

First off, as other reviewers have stated, it is nothing like the novel save the name of the main character and some of the "adventures" she has. HOWEVER, as a story it is not bad. Take a movie adaptation like "The Scarlet Letter" (with Demi Moore) or "Queen of the Damned" (with Aaliyah)--those are horrible adaptations of great books. This movie, however, is a good story in its own right, and not really an adaptation at all. The acting is good, the sets and costumes are pretty, and the plot, while not life changing, is moving and interesting.

My advice: 1)Read the book. 2)Watch the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation. 3)Watch this version, but keep an open mind and don't expect to see the same story that you read in the novel.

An enjoyable film
Personally I prefer the masterpiece theater version to the Moll Flanders story, but I don't believe that this one should be cast aside. Yes it doesn't follow the book, but for what it was written to be, it was excellent. The acting, costumes, and sets were wonderful. I just watched it last night as a matter of fact. Stockard Channing brings radiance to the screen as always. There is much to be appreciated. If you want better accuracy to the story, buy the masterpiece theater version. If you have an appreciation for great acting and art direction, buy both. ... Read more

Description

Critic Michael Medved hailed this international award-winning drama about a young boy's spiritual quest "a film of uncommon grace and substance." ... Read more

Amazon.com

David Attwood's fresh and thrilling BBC adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles grabs the viewer by the throat from its opening scene. The plot of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous story should be familiar: Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxburgh) and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart) take on the case of Sir Henry Baskerville (Matt Day), hoping to protect him from the terrifying fate that has befallen his family for generations. But if you think you know how the story ends, think again.

While Jeremy Brett remains the definitive Holmes on screen, Roxburgh is also outstanding, as are Hart as an unusually passionate Watson and Richard E. Grant as the neighbor Stapleton. Trivia note: Roxburgh continued his take on the Holmes legend in 2003's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. --David Horiuchi ... Read more