Description

Nominated for eight Oscars in 1986, including Best Picture, and winner of three (Costumes, Art Direction and Adapted Screenplay), A Room with a View is the film that defined Merchant-Ivory as the masters of the romantic period piece.A brilliant adaptation of E.M. Forster?s novel, A Room with a View tells the story of the coming of age of Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham-Carter).Longing to burst free from the repression of British upper class manners and mores, she must wrestle with her inner romantic longings to choose between the passionate George (Julian Sands) and the priggish but socially suitable Cecil (Daniel Day-Lewis).Boasting a brilliant supporting cast, A Room with a View is one of the most romantic of romantic comedies ever filmed. ... Read more

Reviews (114)

Merchant/Ivory bursts onto the scene
One of the most charming films of the last century was this chamber love story. Extremely literate and intelligent, this Victorian story is easily accessible as an extremely well versed John Hughes could easily write the simple boy-meets-girl storyline. Fortunately for us, he was unavailable and the resulting film, made outside the Hollywood Studio system, avoids many current clichés and uses smart character to propel the story. Well, this is a Merchant Ivory film so propel might be too big a word. There films are usually soft character driven stories with a lack of speeding cars, ricocheting bullets or clever profanity. If you can tolerate small, romantic character pieces, this is one of the best. Great performances by Denholm Elliot, Maggie Smith and Judy Dench sturdily support the love triangle of Daniel Day Lewis, Julian Sands and the phenomenal Helena Bonham Carter. With beautiful classical music and nice cinematography, this view is a pleasant one. The DVD has a shaky video transfer and sufficient audio. It offers no extra material.

ELEGANT, THOUGHTFUL, FUNNY...A MASTERPIECE YOU NEED TO OWN!
This exquisite classic of Merchant-Ivory is sensually explores the struggle between the tight exterior of the British upper crust and the seething passion that lurks just beneath in the increasingly powerful middle class. You've seen a movie or two for sure that veer around such themes, but very few films have captured this combination of class struggle and personal liberation any more evocatively!

Our protagonist is a young, passionate and repressed Miss Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter in possibly her best role ever) who exemplifies this unspoken inner-outer conflict. As she struggles between what is expected of her, to marry the effete and obnoxious Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day Lewis in a richly textured performance), and what she really wants, to be with the yearning, romantic George Emerson (a soft and unfocused Julian Sands) Miss Honeychurch must juggle class concerns and personal desires.

As with any Merchant Ivory product, the all-round cast is vivid and intriguing. Maggie Smith never leaves a dull moment in any of her movies, a credo she maintains here as well as Lucy's nervous and confused escort -- for which she received a well deserved Oscar. As George's bewildered and sweet father, the marvellous Denholm Elliot steals every scene in which he appears. Lastly, Simon Callow as the ebullient, robust Reverend Beebe captures all that is good and true about humanity.

A word for the DVD. The cinematography in this movie sparkles, and the DVD does complete justice to Ivory's camera skills -- the shots are so pure you will want to taste the dew resting atop the grass in the sumptuous English gardens.

What a complete movie, full of life, love and hope! Highly recommended for your collections, you'll watch this more than once.

They do not come better than this
James Ivory's "Room With a View" is a tour de force. Adapted by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala from the novel by E.M. Forster, "A Room with a View" is a shining example of Merchant-Ivory's ability to achieve maximum quality and opulence at minimum cost. It shows the life of Lucy Honeychurch starting from Italy, going through England and ending in Italy. This is a thoughtful movie that requires one to understand the standards of England then to realize that it is fighting against the set rigid style of life. This style of life is eternal and can be seen in movies like "Guess who is coming to dinner". Denholm Elliot raises his son to not care about anything but truth and beauty. The acting and screenplay is wonderful. Daniel Day Lewis does a superb job as Cecil. Judy Davis is superb as the novelist, Eleanor Lavish as is Maggie Smith.

Even the humor in the movie is unusual. When the English chaplain in Florence, Mr Eager shows a chapel and mentions, "Remember that this was built by faith in the full fervor of medievalism", it prompts, Mr Emerson to say, "Faith indeed. It simply means that the workers were not paid well." The movie has understated humor that is refreshing compared to the usual slapstick. Scenes were the brother and sister are together are especially funny.

A lot of people found the movie too slow. Well, this is not a cop movie, it requires one to think about what goes underneath each person. The movie is based on one of the special books that breaks down class distinctions, though it is subtle and dignified. I personally felt that this was the best movie of the year and easily bet "Platoon" in its class. A winner of three Academy Awards, "A Room with a View" is not what one could call fast-moving, but fans of the Merchant-Ivory team will enjoy luxuriating in the film's leisurely pace and stimulating cast of characters.

One of my favorite films!
I saw this film when it first came out, in the theater, and it has remained one of my favorite films. It was the first film I bought when I got a VCR. This is one of those elegant Merchant-Ivory productions (which also include Maurice and A Passage to India, other E.M. Forster adaptations to film) that sets the late Victorian/early twentieth century world in upper- to upper-middle class England in such gracious light.

The stars of this film include Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy, the heroine, and Julian Sands as George Emerson, her free-spirited suitor, who shocks everyone by doing such risque things as running around without a jacket, or kissing someone (willing) in a field of poppies. The official suitor of Lucy is the stuffed-shirt Cecil Vyse, whose personality seems like it is jammed in a vise. There are great performances by Judi Dench (as a conventional free-spirit, one who likes to be freespirited but not at the expense of reputation), Rupert Graves, Simon Callow, Denhom Elliot, and an outstanding performance (as always, she just has to walk on the set and the film gets an extra star) by Maggie Smith, as the gossipy and fretting aunt and chaperone to Lucy, who eventually comes round to recognizing and rejoicing in the true love of Lucy and George.

The sets are beautiful, the costumes all very much a part of the period, as are the small touches that make up the style of English society that Forster was trying to expose and celebrate in different ways both at the same time. The music is enchanting, with the glorious opera piece "O Mio Bambino Caro" sung by Kiri te Kanawa.

Are you serious?
I heard such wonderful things about this movie and was really looking forward to seeing it. I had a couple friends over to watch it and out of the four of us I was the only one left awake to see the end. I was so disappointed. The movie was too long and left me feeling cheated at the end. So gald I didnt buy it. Rent it first before buying... ... Read more

Amazon.com

On regular television, punctuated by frenetic commercials, the leisurely pace of the horror miniseries Rose Red probably felt grueling; but on its own terms, the effect is like settling into a long book full of detail--a book not unlike those of Stephen King, who wrote the script. The story (about a researcher into the paranormal who takes a team of psychics into a haunted house) recycles themes that King has used before--a telekinetic girl, a house with its own consciousness--but for his fans, the familiarity is probably comfortable and even enjoyable. The cast (including Nancy Travis, Julian Sands, and Melanie Lynsky from Heavenly Creatures) give committed performances, and the special effects are television-grade but used pretty well. Most of it doesn't make much sense, but at its best Rose Red is absurd and creepy at the same time. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (119)

"Some Houses Are Born Bad"
Rose Red was N Xcellent piece of work by the master of horror, Stephen King. When I found about the movie's premier last year, U would not believe how Xcited I was 2 C it. It was worth getting Xcited over. The special effects R amazing and the ghost make-up is stunningly scary. In fact, the whole story-line was incredibly horrifying.

Nancy Travis was absolutely fantastic in her role of Joyce Reardon. Matt Keeslar was pretty good in his role of Steven Rimbaeur, only because his acting was a little dry. Matt Ross was really agitating in his role of the Post Cognitive, Emery Waterman. I thought that Julian Sands was awesome in the role of telepathic Nick Hardaway. Kimberly J. Brown was really wonderful as the autistic, yet telekentic Annie Wheaton. Judith Ivey (one of my favorite actors inth film) was incredible in role of the automatic writer, Cathy.

If N E body is looking 4 a good Stephen King horror flick, check out Rose Red. It's a real Scream.

Stephen Kings Haunted Abode.
The Chilling Tale of Dr. Joyce Reardon an obsessed psychology professor who commissions a team of psychics and a gifted 15 year old autsitic girl, Annie Wheaten, to literally wake up a supposedly dormant haunted mansion.....ROSE RED. Thier efforts unleash a myriad of spirites and uncover horrifying secrets of the generations whom have lived and died there.
This movie has lots of extras from a complete abc documentary, to design artwork, to a diary, a making of documentary, and production commentary. Dolby Digital 5.1
Not the best stephen King Movie.....yet not the worst.

was expecting MUCH better
If you're looking for a good haunted house movie, pass this one up. Its overly long and totally disjointed. The obvious places for commercial breaks don't help. None of the characters are sympathetic in any way. And the ending is neither satisfying nor cathartic. It just ends.

Again, if you want a GOOD haunted house movie, watch 'The Haunting' (1963) with Julie Harris or 'The Legend of Hell House' with Roddy McDowall.

Fantastic movie...Stephen King strikes again!
Well, Stephen King did an absolutely fantastic job writing this story for the production of this movie. Even though the movie is 4 hours long, the movie didn't bore me for one second. I really enjoyed this, especially Annie, the little autistic girl. I thought she was a very good touch to the story line. I would recommend this movie to anyone who's out for a good thrill.

Scared the s**t outta me!
I thought I had seen so many horror movies that I had desensitised myself to fear and shock. I can honestly count on a single hand the number of movies that have actually frightened me, and none have done it as thoroughly as Rose Red. Let's face it, the storyline is flimsy, and the acting is atrocious but it has such a powerful aura of suspense that even a shot of trees seems scary. For four hours I sat sweating and white-knuckled, gripping my seat. Don't think I could do it again but it was worth it. ... Read more

Reviews (62)

It's a literary high
Cronenberg's version of Naked Lunch is a brilliant combination of Burroughs' novel and Burroughs' life. He blends the true story of Burroughs life (and his reason for writing) with the surreal dark-comedy 'routines' of the novel until they become one story. The story is a quiet hallucination featuring exterminators, addiction, typewriters in the form of insects, typewriters that grow genitals, a global conspiracy of intelligence agents, the drug trade, homosexual ambiguity, writer's block, accidental murder, and literary paranoia. None of these elements is explored completely. Instead, Cronenberg touches on each one until they form some strange, underlying logic.

This edition of the DVD has enough extras to make it the only version of Naked Lunch you'll ever have to buy. (They won't release a bigger, better edition later.) The BBC documentary is okay. It's about 45 minutes long, giving Cronenberg and William Burroughs a lot of time to speak. (Burroughs is particularly good, with a dry sense of humor and a habit of saying obvious truths that make people uneasy.) The second disc also has stills from the special effects team, showing how the various creatures and organic typewriters were developed.

But it's the first disc --- the movie itself --- that makes it worth buying and watching. The special audio track, shared by Peter Weller and Cronenberg, adds a lot of useful background information. The film itself is bright and sharp, a perfect example of DVD clarity. I highly recommend this DVD to anyone who is interested in the best films of the 1990s. Naked Lunch didn't make as big an impact in theaters as it did in book stores, but it should have.

"It's time to do our Wiiliam Tell Act"
Talking slithering strangely sexual typewriters, addicts of cockroach-exterminating pyretheum powder (who like to breath on cbugs and watch them die while on it), thick-fluid sipping mugwhump creatures, an assortment of strange parasitic characters to represent the sinister parts of you you never knew ere there, and a high as a kite protagonist to narrate it all. What more can I say? This is both a brilliant representation of William S. Burrough's no-holds-barred dark imagination and director Cronenburg's as well, both with the twisted audascity to take all these horrific atroscities of reality and fantasy and breath eroticism & mystery into them...

Impossible to describe or even explain (almost but not quite as incomprehensible as FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS), the movie is not exactly a telling of the book Naked Lunch (even though some characters, namely the vile mugwhumps, show up) as it is a telling of Burroughs writing the book and what he may have imagined while writing it.

THe film starts out with the main character William Lee and his even more "creepy" (if anyone in the Burroughs line ever wanted to label what's inside themselves) wife, Joan, are addicted to the roach powder pyretheum, which Lee obtains thru his job as an exterminator. After playing a drunken William Tell act with his wife and blowing her head off so to say (which actually happened to Burroughs and his wife, and is said to have sparked the writing of Naked Lunch), he escapes to Tangiers, Mexico (with a "ticket" which actually appears to be a syringe). There he flows into a seemingly hallucinatory Interzone--a place populated by all the things mentioned above and tons more weirdness. He also meets the wife of a bisexual author who looks almost identical to his wife...and they engage in a particularly freaky sexual practice in which a typewriter tries to join in. If I say any more, the plot will be totally given away, so just watch, and compared to all the elaborate twists and turns on this unreal path to hell, I've said very little.

Great performances from Roy Sheider (who plays Dr. Benway, another character direct from the book), Paul Weller as Lee, Judy Davis as Joan and the other Joan, and Robert A. Silverman as a truly unique black centipede meat salesman with a disquieting manor (the black centipede meat, as well as Burroughs' thoughts on how centipedes controlled many Interzone lives, were from the novel). You'll either be completely confused or completely tripped out of yr. mind, but you won't leave the film unchanged...just like Burroughs' writings.

welcome to interzone!
In my opinion, Cronenburgs best film, or at least that i've seen. Amazing movie, Peter Weller (robocop) does an awesome job too. One of those joints you pop in the player and are thinking about it a week after you've viewed it. Runaway to Interzone with talking typewriters, giant sea centipedes, and the innermost sanctum of paranoia, bizarre eroticism, delusion, hallucination, and beautifully depressing schizophrenia. It's something else. Tough movie to describe, definitely required viewing for anyone with oddball tastes like mine and a good respect for a true artists unique vision (in this case two artists, Cronenberg and Burroughs). p.s. (just don't ever try the William Tell party trick)

Out to Lunch
If you're going to watch this film then you pretty much already know what you're in for. Take Cronenberg and Burroughs, mix them together and you've got yourself a pretty weird film. And it is weird, but it's also so much more. It deals with addiction like no other film has. Specifically how addiction effects the creative process. This is far from youre average nice Saturday night film viewing, but it's a real treat nontheless. Criterion has once again done an amazing job. I'd be surprised if there's ever a better release of the film.

David Cronenberg's Very Best
Before you even try to watch this movie, realize that David Cronenberg's films are among the most bizarre and perplexing films you will ever see. If you like your films to stick to traditional narratives and standard plot devices you will probably hate 'Naked Lunch' (and any other David Cronenberg film you chance to come across). If, however, you are extremely open minded (as in, "I'm open to watching a movie where people have sex with typewriters that turn into giant insects") you may find yourself addicted to Cronenberg's surreal style of film making.

'Naked Lunch' follows the story of a bug-exterminator-cum-secret-agent who...you know what, forget it...because the plot in 'Naked Lunch' isn't really what this movie is about. I'm not going to say that the movie is plot-less (it's not), but the story (an insane organic blend of sections from Burroughs's novel and episodes from his life) exists mainly as an alibi for Cronenberg's signature style of subconscious imagery; more specifically, for his metaphoric exploration of writing as an erotic addictive binge to "exterminate all rational thought." If that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, don't blame me. The fantastic thing about this movie is that it has a twisted logic that is entirely of its own making, and it sits with you. 'Naked Lunch' is a film that is difficult to deal with. It's a movie that I love, and I don't know if that's going to come across in this review. But, 'Naked Lunch' is nothing if not ambiguous, and that's what makes it great art. ... Read more

Reviews (65)

"The wind whispers of fear & hate. The war has killed love."
There are films that continue to haunt you long after the end credits fade away. There are films that horrify you because of the gruesome imagery that bombards you while you sit in the darkened theater. And then there are films whose haunting and horrifying nature is magnified even more because it is based on events that actually happened. Such a film is Roland Joffe's "The Killing Fields."

"The Killing Fields" chronicles the journey of two friends who find themselves swept up in the revolution in Cambodia during the 1970s. As the Khmer Rouge comes to power, New York Times writer Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) and his assistant Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor) witness firsthand the transformation of Cambodia's cities and countryside under the new regime. As the situation becomes more dire, Schanberg finds himself in a difficult situation - he knows Pran will run afoul of the new government once the Khmer Rouge completes their takeover but Schanberg still needs him to finish his duties for the New York Times. Both men hope for the best but when Pran attempts to leave the country, he finds that his window of opportunity has disappeared and he is trapped in Cambodia.

"The Killing Fields" is a film that pulls no punches. Watching Pran trying to stay alive from day to day is a sobering viewing experience. While its story explores the broader political implications of the rise of the Khmer Rogue, the true drama revolves around Pran who embodies the personal suffering of all of the regime's victims. While Waterston is outstanding, this is a film that delivers it message through Pran, and Ngor is more than up to the demands of his role. His performance is honest to the point of heartbreak. This film is not easy to watch but it is a worthwhile journey for those with the courage to sit through it.

Mankind Destroying Itself
The Killing Fields is absolutely one of the greatest films on war and genocide ever made. The story centers on a renowned reporter named Sidney Schanberg and his assistant and translator, Dith Pran. Sam Waterston and Haing Ngor, respectively, star in those roles, plus John Malkovich as Sidney's photographer. Ngor simply is Dith, and he won an Oscar. Waterston had been a nobody before this film, and he was so good as Sidney he received an Oscar Nomination. The story goes like this: during the Vietnam war, America had planned and executed bombing operations in Cambodia. This movie starts during those times, and we see the horrifying aftermath of one of those bombings. Yet the insanity inspired by this bombing leads to a revolution and the creation of a new regime, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot. Soon suspected subversives are being led into reeducation camps. Sidney tries to get Dith out, but Dith decides to stay and send his family to America. Soon, there is no escape, and Sidney must leave Dith behind. As soon as he gets back he looks for Dith and tries to find a way to bring him out. In Cambodia, Dith is not doing well. He has been put in a camp. Our first glimpse of him is that of a diseased, jaded, starving man. He sees his countrymen being killed, he sees hate and fear, he sees Hell on Earth. What is going to happen? Will Dith escape or succumb to the forces of evil? You will have to watch this film to find out.

The cover says that "Every so often, there is a film that is destined to be talked about and remembered for years to come". The Killing Fields is the definitive experience on the Khmer Rouge holocaust. The violence is harrowing but never in excess, the film is unforgettable.

War Drama about Cambodia
Most war movies from the 80's are about Vietnam and sometimes the horrible events in Cambodia are snowed under.
'The Killing Fields' is about the friendship between NY Times Reporter Syd and his Cambodian interpreter and later friend. When the western journalists flee the country they try and get him with them by forging a passport but it fails and Tran stays behind. He gets caught by the Khmer Rouge and forced to work in slavery, by not letting known he speaks English he survives and escapes and finds his friend Syd again.

The movie is great and emotional. Some scenes are awful but lifelike. Though shot in Thailand, the scenery is beautiful. The acting is fine too, the man playing Tran won an oscar. His own personal life is very closely linked to the events in Cambodia too and this movie is also in part about him. He unfortunately got killed in the late 1990's, possibly by the Khmer in LA.

THIS IS THE BEST CHEERLEADER MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!
THIS IS THE BEST CHEERLEADER MOVIE EVER, AND IT'S ONE OF MY FAVE MOVIES NOW. I FIRST SAW THIS MOVIE AT MY BEST FRIEND KIM'S HOUSE ALSO, SAME WITH 8 MILE! I LOVE THIS MOVIE, IT'S REALLY GOOD. MY FAVE SCENE IS WHEN TORRANCE AND HER FRIEND'S BROTHER ARE IN THE BAMBOO CAGE SUSPENDED OVER THE PUNJI PIT. WELL, I HIGHLY RECCOMEND YOU BUY THIS MOVIE TODAY! ITS WELL WORTH EVERY RED SINGLE CENT OF YOUR MONEY!!!!

Tragic and touching, but long-winded
Although there are mostly 5-star reviews here, this is not the type of movie to have posters with less than stunning reviews (except the political posts). This movie is obviously well-made and well-received (7 oscar nominations and 3 wins), but I found it to be too long at 141 minutes and it did not really hold my interest.

Director Roland Joffe said he interpreted the story as a love story and not a war movie, and indeed that seems to be the way he presents it. Playing John Lennon's "Imagine" at the end was a bit on the sentimental side, though.

I've watched it 2 or 3 times and just had a hard time sticking with it. There is almost enough material to expand into 2 movies.

DVD has a nice commentary, a short text-based blurb about actor Haing Ngor, a list of awards, cast/crew blurb, setup options and a trailer. ... Read more

Description

Starring Uma Thurman (THE AVENGERS, PULP FICTION), Gerard Depardieu (THE CLOSET), and Tim Roth (ROB ROY), VATEL is based on the true story of an ordinary man, a decadent king, and the woman caught between them! In the west of France, Prince de Conde has a scheme to save his bankrupt province: he'll regain the favor of King Louis XIV with a weekend of spectacle and merriment. The plan's success rests with Vatel (Depardieu), the one man who can deliver sumptuous food, elaborate amusements, and all-out decadence fit for this king. But in the midst of it all, Vatel catches the eye of the beautiful Anne (Thurman) ... and places himself in direct competition with the King! Visually stunning and grandly entertaining, it's a motion picture you must see to believe! ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Spectacle
"Vatel", is a beautiful film to watch, with the staged entertainments providing the cinematography for a story that tries to keep up with the visual displays. Seventeenth Century France is the setting for this true story of Vatel, the master steward that is charged with entertaining the King during his visit to his employer's home. Gerard Depardieu plays Vatel and is supported by a wonderful cast including Uma Thurman, Tim Roth, Julian Glover, Timothy Spall, and Julian Sands. Roth's character is a bit reminiscent of the insouciant character he played in, "Rob Roy".

This costume period piece is one of the better that I have seen. The DVD includes a mini documentary specifically on the costuming that is well worth watching. I do wish they offered as much insight in to the entertainments that were created by Vatel. Even the food is remarkable with the detailed creation of flower arrangements and vases made entirely from candy that are indistinguishable from their living, or crystal counterparts.

The story goes beyond pure spectacle to include unrequited love, and the same displays that are so spectacular, also are portrayed as such egregious excess that the invention of the guillotine is very understandable. The pampering of the King is shown to a level that goes beyond absurd to almost obscene. The hundreds upon hundreds of people that are exploited for the most outrageous frivolity for the royal court's amusement foretell of the day the peasants will destroy the caricatures the King and his court are.

The causes of tragedy in this film are many; there is love, and also the realization of what it is people are used for as opposed to what they believe they create. There is an illusion of control and responsibility that once dispelled is devastating.

The story is not the strongest, but the beauty of the film makes it a very worthwhile event to watch.

A vivid rendering of royal extravagance
It's 1671, and the King of France, Louis XIV, is looking for a general to carry war to the insufferably insolent Dutch. One of his nobles, the Prince de Condé, wants the job, thinking such royal favor will relieve his chronic impoverishment. The Prince's strategy to entice the sovereign's attention is ... well, to throw a lavish party, of course. VATEL is Condé's master of the kitchen and entertainment planner for the big event, for which the King, his Queen, and a large coterie of sycophants will descend upon the Prince's country estate to be lavishly fed, housed, and amused for several days. The expense and bother of it all will be staggering.

Gérard Depardieu, Julian Sands and Julian Glover play the roles of VATEL, Louis XIV and Condé respectively. Additionally, Uma Thurman plays Anne de Montausier, the King's favorite "lady-in-waiting". ("Waiting for what?" would be an obtuse question.) And, Tim Roth has the role of the creepy Marquis de Lauzan, one of the monarch's carousing buddies.

The best elements of this outstanding film are the opulent costuming and production design. Indeed, the culmination to the King's entertainment is a sensational "live event" that is itself an eye-popping spectacle within a spectacle. Depardieu, relatively unknown to American audiences, gives a bravura performance as the over-worked, hard-pressed and self-sacrificing major domo struggling to make his boss look good on a shoestring budget. (His contribution to the alleviation of Condé's gout is particularly heart wrenching.) Roth, in a style he does so well, is exquisitely slimy as the villainous Marquis. Thurman is fetching as a young woman not yet too debased to not want something better out of her life.

In my opinion, VATEL should have won an Academy Award for art direction if nothing else. Visually, it's a truly sumptuous piece. The viewer will leave the screening disgusted at the extravagant excesses of past royalty, but certainly impressed with the flash of their presentation.

Not such a swell party
The biggest French box-office disaster in recent memory (it lost more money than Heaven's Gate, wiped out the massive profits of Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar and nearly took Gaumont with it), this pretty much completes Roland Joffe's unbroken post-The Mission run of box-office and artistic failure. While not as bad as The Scarlet Letter, it's also not as much fun. Unfortunately, this is the kind of film Martha Stewart or Delia Smith might appreciate, but few others will.

It all starts off so well. So well that I was wondering why this has such a bad reputation, but it quickly becomes apparent that it really is just a film about a lavish three-day party seen from the point of view of the caterers. The fact that the party is thrown for the Sun King gives it plenty of visual opulence, but the lack of substance becomes more and more apparent as it drags on towards the third day - it's definitely one of those parties that goes on way too long and which you should have left much earlier while it was still in full swing. When one of the characters kills themselves because there aren't enough fish to go around and the script strains to turn it into an act of revolt against a world where nobility of the spirit counts less than accidents of birth, you know that someone's reading a little too much into it.

Gerard Depardieu looks alarmingly unhealthy throughout, Tim Roth gives a very bored reprise of his Rob Roy party piece and the wooden Uma Thurman is borderline disastrous/vaguely competent (the scene where she stops the wind by force of will is one of the most laughable pieces of face pulling in recent years). The supporting cast fare better - mostly Brits like Julian Glover, Timothy Spall, Richard Griffiths and Julian Sands. Shot in English, it is very odd to note that Depardieu is dubbed for the odd few words (but rarely full sentences) by another, very British sounding actor. Maybe he was too ill to make the ADR sessions.

It is lavish and you can see where the money was spent, you just can't see why.

(A version of this review appeared in Movie Collector magazine)

A fine spectacle, but paper-thin story
I have a soft spot for custom dramas. I enjoy all the lavish customs, the meticulously researched sets and the witty and elegant banter unachievable in non-celloid life.

With that said, I didn't like Vatel, which had all of the above qualities. This is due to a lack of remotely serviceable story.

Louis the 14th is visiting the estate of Prince de Conde, who hopes to wrangle an army commande from the king to pay off his heavy debts. His faithful steward, Vatel, is charged with ensuring that the King's visit will be memorable one. Vatel is a genius in all the arts of housekeeping and entertaining, a veritable 17th century Martha Stewart. Of course, when the House of Bourbon come a calling, the word "entertaining" acquire a whole new level of meaning. Throughout the movie we are treated to one dazzling set piece after another of Vatel's epic efforts.

Unfortunately, the highlights are overshadowed by very underwhelming story and characters. The central romance between Vatel and the lady-in-waiting generate less electricity than a AAA battery, and is implausible to boot. Bobbing along in the movie is a theme of a decent man standing up to a world of corruption. But with most of the filmmaker's effort focused on the lavish parties, it quickly gets lost amidst all the fireworks, ice-sculptures and food-preparation.

Of course, all that is pretty enjoyable to watch. Your eyes will have a feast, but it's mostly empty calories.

The dignity's triumph against the decay
A brave and overwhelming movie. Ronald Joffe (a true master director)(The mission) describes carefully the efforts and creative virtues of Vatel, a true artist in the sense of that Jean Renoir statement: The art is not a job; it's the way you make that job".
All the corrupt and decadent atmosphere that surrounds the Kingdom and the Court of Louis XIV are shown through a powerful script and very brief but also bitter dialogues, and an amazing employment of the visual and corporal languages.

The direction is first rate , the astonishing visual angles are supported by a descriptive style, breathtaking "travellings" , monumental images and a superb cast. Depardieu show us once more why he's a living legend and one of the top twenty actors in the world; the exquisite and exceptionally gifted and beautiful Uma Thurman gives probably the most powerful performance in her career and obviously Tim Roth, amazing as always.
Watch this film. You'll be widely rewarded.
You'll feel and experience that special rapture , a trademark of the masterpieces ... Read more

Amazon.com

Clever and original, this horror film directed by Steve Miner (Forever Young) stars Julian Sands as a 17th century warlock who escapes the gallows and is transported--along with the witch hunter who brought him to trial (Richard E. Grant)--300 years into the future. Runningloose in contemporary Los Angeles, Sands's supernatural monster sets about reuniting the scattered portions of a Devil's Book that will reveal the true name of God and thus destroy mankind. In a great twist, the last bit of the book is in a very interesting place: the grave of Grant's character, who has enlisted the aid of a woman (Lori Singer) in a hurried effort to stop imminent disaster. Genuinely involving, Warlock is aided immeasurably by sharp performances from the equally eccentric Grant (Withnail and I) and Sands (Naked Lunch). Miner invents his way through a kind of simultaneously new and old horror tale, and the results are taut, fun, and surprising. The DVD release features Spanish and French subtitles, cast and crew information, and 2.0 Dolby surround sound. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Sands is diabolical !
A very entertaining piece of movie you shouldn't take to serious but enjoy. Julian Sands is playing a male witch that's been sent by the devil himself into the future to combine the single pieces of his unholy book, The Great Grimoire. Followed by a witch hunter named Redfern that seeks to avenge the death of his beloved wife, Richard E. Grant turns out to be a great counterpart for Satan's Son Sands. Lori Singer as the young woman that's supposed to help Redfern though she's first very sceptic about everything supernatural is just a grey mouse compared to the smashing acting of Sands & Grant. Another negative point about that movie that has could done a lot better is the large ammount of grandmommy superstition that could have been left out if you ask me (though it gives some funny phrases, but it's mostly more anoying than entertaining). But still - this is a movie you should check out if you like to know what the comming of the devil's son could be like (and DON'T think of Adam Sandler here). The scene where Sands yells at god after knowing his true name has become one of my favourite movie scenes ever. They couldn't chose a better one.

And don't waste too much time with the sequel as it turns out to be a teen horror movie. Great acting from Sands still, but the plot is flat and a whimpy Bud Bundy look-alike is no counterpart for the devil like Redfern/Grant was.

Get the original and unleash the witch !

A very entertaining flick!
When a 16th century warlock is saved from being hanged, he is sent to the 20th century to piece together the 3 pieces of a satanic bible that can bring about the end of days. Somehow the very man that caught the Warlock the first time, finds out what has happened, and goes after the Warlock. Very entertaining to say the least, Julian Sands does a terrific job as the very evil warlock. The reason this movie gets 4 stars instead of 5 is because it relies to much on your basic cat and mouse plot, where they find the bad guy, only to lose him to a twist of fate, this happens a few times and then their is finally a big fight at the end, where of course the good guys win, and thats exactely what you see in this movie. Only the standard stuff, nothing really groundbreaking here. Some really sick and twisted stuff included here (ex. A child is literally skinned alive so that his skin can be cooked and eatin by the warlock so he can fly,and a man gets his tongue bit off by the warlock) This isnt really what you would call a full blown horror movie, its more like a supernaturel thriller. Like I said before nothing groundbreaking, but defiantely worth the price of rental, or maybe even worth buying. Rated R for: Violence

16th century visions of witchcraft brought to life
First, this is a really fun movie. It's not too horribly gross, (except maybe for the scene with the tongue), and it's not very creepy, or too scary, It's also not at all a comedy, though it is a bit tongue-in-cheek (in more ways than one). It's just, well... Fun!

If you've ever read any books about witchcraft, or seen old woodcuts of people's visions of witchcraft during the 16th century, you'll recognize the themes and images in this film. You'll get the witch hunter holding onto the flying warlock with a rope, nails being driven into footprints, the whole bit... And you really should look up the traditional main ingredient of the infamous flying ointment before watching.

This film works from the premise that everything in the old witchcraft books is literally true, and it plays out in a very entertaining, visually distinctive way. It was well-researched enough to really make the premise work, without being so slavish as to detract from the plot. The warlock is every bit as evil as the old books would have it, and is most definitely in league with The Devil Himself.

And I've got to say it: Julian Sands is just plain COOL.

inspiring to me
This movie have meant a lot to me over the ages. Sands best film ever (with Phantom of the Opera as second). He have a great carisma that is unusual when thinking of all mainstream-actors that is out there. And when a movie also deal with my favorite subject it's even better. I myself own a copy of the Grand Grimoire (it isn't that hard to find it as in the movie!) and The Key of Solomon. Too bad they use the name Book of Shadows (which is widely used today as a general term for a witch's personal spellbook), but in general people don't know such things. Anyway, I think it still is one of my favorite movies even if it's old. Go and see it and get inspired! But do not follow the Left Path though :-)

A Religion-Based Horror Film Worth Watching
The entire religion-based horror genre (exorcist, bless the child, ninth gate, etc.) has always bored... me. It seems they are always very slow paced and are nearly always written by people who have no idea what they are writing about.

I have found two exceptions to this, one being Stigmata, and the other Steve Miner's Warlock.

Warlock is not terribly original, nor is it incredibly well written, but its sure a fun ride. My biggest problem with the film is Julian Sands playing the title character. We are supposed to believe this skinny, geeky-looking, long haired blond is scary. HA! That's funny. But if you can get passed that the story is pretty cool. Satan's son is sent into the future to gather pages from the satanic bible (which if put together can undo creaton). Along with him comes a 16th century demon-hunter, played excellently by Richard E. Grant. Sands takes residence with Lori Singer and her gay roommate, who is soon killed by the warlock in a most spectacular manner. More killings ensue (including J.T. from Step by Step as a little boy!)
The film combines comedy, action, and horror brilliantly and never lets the audience get bored.

I reccomend this film to anyone looking for a fun friday night with a taste of blood. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

"A little party, then MEXICO!!"
The more people say they hate this movie, the more I love it.
But I must warn you, this is not the uncut version or even the director's cut. To get that you need to find the Laserdisc collection that came with commentary, extra "dirty" scenes(which are great btw) and the package-only 24KT musical score by the wonderful Graeme Revell. I really loved the music composed for this film, and it's terrible that this is the only way you can obtain this great score. The commentary is quite insightful, J Sands pops in for a bit to chat about it with Jennifer. For her 1st film, I thought Jennifer did a superb job handling everything from the actors, to the lush sets, editing, etc. Fenn, Paxton and Sands are all in prime form here, I really couldn't ask for anything more!!
Enjoy, and scream for "HELENNA!!"
DMSR

Whatever Happened to Julian Sands?
Poor guy got stuck in this movie. That's what. After watching A Room With A View I immediately bought Boxing Helena. Big mistake. Even renting it would have been a waste of money. I heard from friends it was a horrid movie but I was going to watch it with an open mind. At least if it was bad I could stare at Julian Sand, hear his wonderful accent ane be content. No....this has got to be the worst movie made. Some of the scenes were downright laughable. When Sherilyn Fenn get her legs run over by the car....the way the scene played out made me and my roomates burst into laughter.

Couldn't control my giggles at Bill Paxton with a mullet overacting in every scene. Julian Sands character was such a wimp. In his case, hamming his performance up might have been better in this movie. Didn't care for him at all, even with his sexy accent. Sherilyn Fenn, I was wishing Julian Sands character would take our her lungs.

(...)

The ending....it could have been ten times better without that silly dream sequence.

And don't get me started on the sex scene. Julian Sands kissing HElena Bonham Carter at the end of A Room With A View was ten times sexier than the scene in Boxing Helena.

If I could give it less than 1 star I would. I wondered why after seeing A Room With A View, how come I haven't seen him in anything else. After watching garbage like Boxing Helena I understand. Must try and find another good Julian Sands movie now, if there is one to be had besides A Room With A View. Boxing Helena was not it.

Haunting and evocative film
Approximately 3/4 of the way through this film, there is a wonderful scene between Julian Sands' character and the Fantasy Lover/Nurse played by Nicolette Scorsese. The background music is from Enigma's Sadeness Pt.1 and this one scene alone makes viewing the entire film worthwhile.
On an entirely different note, this film boasts small supporting roles by, of all people, Art Garfunkel(Simon & Garfunkel)and Kurtwood Smith(Red from That 70's Show and Clarence Boddicker from Robocop). What a world!!

A DUD!
First and only time director Jennifer Chambers Lynch (daughter of David Lynch) tries following in daddy's foot steps, the result is a faulty misfire of a movie without an ounce of quality or value. To add insult to injury the performances are just as bad as the direction. Passing on this script and project was the best thing Kim Basinger ever did. Was it the director's fault, the actor's fault? Well maybe. But I think the whole promise was a bad idea.

Buy This Now
This is an amazing movie in every way. After watching it, I want to find a girl with no arms or legs to date! Hot! ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Don't miss this romantic very entertaining comedy!
"Impromptu": What a dry sounding name for such a lively movie! When this film was in theaters in 1991, I gave it little notice (even if Siskel and Ebert loved it). Then several years later the whole Jane Austen craze hit, and I was seduced into giving period pieces a view. Not to mention Hugh Grant had become all the rage in "Four Weddings and a Funeral."

Period piece + Hugh Grant = giving it a view.

I LOVED IT.

First of all, if you are expecting a calm, quiet, "polite" film, you will be surprised. This film is based on the real life of Madame George Sand, the scandalous 19th Century French novelist, played brilliantly by Judy Davis. Sand is no Jane Austen creation: She uses the f-word (though not to excess), has sex with whom she chooses, and is more likely to wear pants (which required permission by the French government at the time) than dresses. She is also charming, romantic, and intelligent.

Her friends are the famous artists of the time: painter Eugene Delacroix and composer Franz Litz (amongst others, including Litz's conniving lover, played by Bernadette Peters). As a result, this film is far more of an unrepentant romp than anything you would expect for the time and place (though this film is far from ribald-- I believe it earned its overly cautious MPAA rating of PG-13 for the aforementioned, infrequent use of the f-word). Emma Thompson gives a positively hilarious performance as a provincial society "title tart." Mandy Patinkin, does equally as well as the ex-lover (and novelist Malfie) of Sand.

Hugh Grant plays the composer Fredric Chopin. He is the polar opposite of Sand. Chopin is a man who is as delicate and refined as any French court ladies of the day. This, of course, appeals to the tougher-than-nails Sand, who finds Chopin's music to be the "voice of God." Chopin is rather troubled by the romantic attentions of such a woman, and a comedy of errors ensues.

This movie is especially appealing because it has all the romance of the best Jane Austen film adaptations, while having such a wonderfully (dare I say) feminist character as Sand. Not that anyone will read any "message" in this film; you will be too busy being entertained.

This film was out of print for some time, and I paid $100.00 for my copy as a result. Don't make the same mistake I made. Buy "Impromptu" now while you can. It is a film worthy of many repeated viewings.

Eccentric novelist pursues composer in romantic comedy
"Impromptu" is a delightful historical romance about the long, tumultuous love affair between composer Frederick Chopin and novelist George Sand. It is not a biography, for the movie's script takes great license beyond the basic dates and places. The affair might have happened this way, but most probably did not. None of this much matters, though, because the movie doesn't pretend to be strictly accurate historically and because it does a good job of capturing the spirit of the times and of its characters.

Judy Davis is marvelous as George Sand, a brilliant, eccentric woman who eschewed the social mores of her time. Already tired of her current lover, she is more determined than ever to dump him after she meets and falls in love with Chopin, nicely played by Hugh Grant. Chopin is portrayed as being a rather shy, morally upright [and uptight!] man who is taken aback by Sand's assertive nature and odd habits, which include dressing like a man most of the time. Undeterred by his thwarting of her advances, she pursues him relentlessly, almost getting him killed in a duel in the process. Playing an active part in all these goings on - sometimes for Sand's quest, sometimes against it - are Chopin's great friend Franz Liszt [Julian Sand] and his lover, Marie [Bernadette Peters]. Both Sand and Peters have substantial supporting roles, as do Emma Thompson and Mandy Patinkin. The cast alone makes "Impromptu" worth seeing. Also enjoyable is the soundtrack, almost all of which is taken from Chopin's works.

As history, this movie is dubious. As entertainment, it's first rate. It reminds me somewhat of "Emma", in that it is more comedy than drama.

George Sand And Chopin: Romantic Comedy
This 1991 movie directed by James Lepine is an absolute charm. It's a romantic comedy, it's a historical piece and a colorful introduction to the music of Frederic Chopin, Franz Liszt and the life and writings of Madame George Sand Aurore Dudevant. The romantic comedy is well-written, the actors are doing top-notch performances and the music is heaven. I don't know yet if there is a soundtrack but it's likely there is and it must be beautiful. George Sand was the pen name of the feminist writer Aurore Dudevant who scandalized proper Victorian society in the 19th century by dressing as a man, smoking cigars, abandoning her wealthy and respected husband to live the liberal lifestyle of a bohemian writer of novels. She had many lovers, including Alfred De Musset (who is played in this film by Mandy Patinkin)and her most famous lover, Frederic Chopin. It is their love story that this movie focues on. Stars Judi Davis as George Sand, Hugh Grant as Chopin and Bernadette Peters as the Countess Marie D'Agoult. I will not give away the answer. But Chopin, though he never married Sand, was greatly influenced by his knowing her and his most productive period of composing piano music came after their heartbreaking seperation. Chopin died young of tubercolosis. It's very possible that he loved George Sand but I'm thinking that for Sand, no man was really ever good enough for her. After all, she was the embodiment of the feminist, independent single woman who did'nt really need marriage or love.

Judi Davis is doing an Oscar winning performance as George Sand, who is ultimately a woman who belongs to no one and who lives life to the fullest. She has raised children to be as creative as she is and taken full responsibility for her children as well as for her elderly mother. Bored of the dull life after her divorce from the father of her children, she takes her current lover to the French countryside. There, she is invited by a wealthy hostess to her estate. The drama heightens in a soap opera sort of way when none other than Alfred De Musset the poet and ex-lover of Sand shows up. Her jealous boyfriend, Malfitte, challenges him to a duel. Meanwhile, Sand has fallen for Chopin, who is her polar opposite. While she is free, intense, devil-may-care and very healthy, Chopin is reserved, emotional, sensitive, refined and suffering of bad health with tubercolosis. Their relationship is accurate to truth but not in the way the film depicts. The disaster that happens in the country estate, comedically produced, never really happened. Bernadette Peters delivers a terrific performance as well as the scheming and bitter Marie D'Agoult, whose own marriage to Franz Liszt after having many children with him, including Cosima who later marries Richard Wagner, but that's another story and even another movie. This is a well-done movie with lots of charm and witty scenes. I especially enjoyed the entire portion in the country estate, in which the artist Delacroix, Franz Liszt and Chopin discuss over dinner the existence of God in front of a priest, put on a satirical farce play that ends badly and Sand's adorable children who are always finding some excuse to play with explosives and dynomite.

Superb
This is an excellent film which depicts with some humor and intrigue the life of Chopin. Hugh Grant and Judy Davis play fantastic parts. One actually gets a feel for the era in which Chopin lived. The music is stupendous and invites an even greater appreciation for Chopin's talents.
Thoroughly enjoyable!

i have loved this movie since london, 1990
where i first saw it on screen at a local cinema. wit, grace, charm, and granted yes, somewhat affected performances, but still a sweetness manages to come through. love & music, eternal muses, are showcased in their manic, most evocative forms here & are captured in all their energy & wit of an era of change, challenge & growth culturally...thought the 1960s were a time for pushing boundaries? it has nothing on the 1830s/40s for experimentation & artistic endeavor. watch the movie! ... Read more

Reviews (27)

I got everything except for the psychiatrist
Mercy was a movie that was released on HBO. Thus, I found it to be a "hotter" than anything that is usually released in the theater. Therefore, most viewers would probably compare it to a lesbian Basic Instinct with the post-violent scenes of Seven.

This movie could have been far more ugly and brutal had we had to witness the deaths of the victims. Instead, we only had to view the aftermath. Ellen Barkin did a tremendous job of playing a homicide detective with the brains, intuitiveness and, dare I say, spunk. Really, I loved her chasing after the bald bad guy. Barkin showed physical dominance, as well as brains as she tried to get into the lives of these potential lesbian victims in order to find her killer.

Peta Wilson's character Vickie Kittrie was a dark, hurt, yet successful woman. She made you see how awful the effects of sexual child abuse often comes back to haunt adults. This character is not at all like Nikita, so if you're expecting your USA Network hero, it's not one to watch.

However, I think that this film could have happened without having Julian Sands character at all. All you know about the Sands character is that he sleeps with his patients and likes to dress up as a woman. I'm not sure how either of those facts really improves the film.

Overall, I think the script was satisfactory and that the cast really played their parts very well. Harris did a good job here on gutting the underbelly of a dangerous, sexual underground of some deeply disturbed, rich people.

erotic in a lot of ways but that doesnt help it
some steamy scenes in this movie with Peta Wilson and Ellen Barkin....Wilson has a nude scene where Barkin is watching her from other window..you know the scene where she gets shot for fake and then rubs the blood off the window...sexy scene. Julian Sands also stars..he's ok but some of the stuff down it and it gets really boring after awhile

You Decide!
I really can not make up my mind properly about Mercy, and it did offer me a slight dilemma reviewing it,
On the plus side, there is Peta Wilson, playing a lesbian who is into SM and who has an erotically charged scene with Ellen Barkin. So as far as erotic/thriller genre is concerned this is somehow a new twist.
On the down side, it is very badly filmed and scripted, a poor imitation of Dressed to Kill without the Hitchcockian atmosphere or De Palma's able direction. And it has also poor Julian Sands with yet another bad role, as bad in fact as his role in Boxing Helena, and this is no easy feat to manage, but he did!
So you can watch/buy this movie for Peta 'lezzing' it up, not a bad thing in itself,yet you can also be excused for using the word 'Mercy' only to be spared such mediocrity in the future..You decide!

better than the novel
i was interested because i had read, several years back, the novel on which this was based, which was imperfect but exciting enough in its way. there are all kinds of flaws... which the film faithfully recreates. but the performances are very good, so it's not bad at all for late night video fare. ellen barkin and peta wilson are especially good.

THIS IS COMPLETLEY ASININE ...
After hearing about this movie and hearing all the decent reviews about it. I really was looking for something exotic, Boy was I wrong! I can't make excuses or even try to make this out of something that was well put together. First of all there were alot of characters in the movie that were extremley irrelevant. I think what the writer was trying to do was put as many screwed up suspects in the movie as he could. Most of the characters were never main characters nor had depth in their character. There was one character/suspect/witness named Vickie. She was the closest to a main character and was the only person other than Helen Birkin that kept the movie interesting. And Vickie looked like a big ole "Drag Queen" that had two many psycological problems. She was a lesbian that was extremley promiscuous and very bold. But don't get excited people, even her character was limited and restricted. She had two good scenes the one with Helen Birkin the seduction that didn't go any where. And there is other scene where she blatantly walks in a strangers dressing room in a store and gives her pleasure. And even Vickie was pointless in the film because her character was eventually terminated, Go figure that? And the shrink basically served as a outlet to introduce more unnecessary sick characters, I guess, so that you can hear their stories as well. The only real tension or interesting plot was between the character witness Vickie and the cop(Ellen Birkin) that was it. Even that turned for the worst because, all the build up to what was supposed to be an attraction or seduction turned into a fiasco! So people if you are looking for lesbian action forget it, because it isn't here. They play it up and they disappoint you in this film. Then most of the women in the film were very hard looking and tired looking. I don't know what the directer was trying to convey in this film? Then the killer turns out to be someone that really didn't have a huge role in the film. And what is even more of a kicker Helen nor the cops never even had this person as a suspect. And what is even more of a kicker there wasn't any contact between the killer and the main characters. And the reasoning for the murders in the killers eyes was completley uproarious! The shrink which is played by (I forgot the guys name)he had no right counseling anyone because he was very strange himself. He was just as sick as the rest of the people in the movie. The ending was just completley stupid and uproarious ! Because there wasn't a previous relationship or connection between Helen or the Killer. So when Helen finally met up with this person there wasn't any tension or surprise! I don't know what this movie was meant for, but it definitley left me unsatisfied! If you are looking for a real sensual experience I recommend Blood Thirsty, Serpents Lair, Kate's Addiction, Body of Evidence, Poison Ivy 3 The New Seduction, Bound, Embrace of the Vampire, Damage, Habit,Life force,Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive,Basic Instinct (Uncut) and No strings Attached. These are very exotic and sensual films that have purpose and make sense! The only thing this movies serves as a lesson on child abuse and people with mental problems. The homes and location of the movie was gorgeous but that is it! And even that leaves question? How ... is a detective going to maintain and live in a mansion like that? Any way buy this one at your own risk........

Arish ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Not quite a Million Dollar Dud, but lacks Wim and vigour
Written and co-produced by U2's Bono and directed by Wim Wenders, MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL is more a movie for film students to analyze and nitpick over than for casual viewers.
In one of his most bizzare (and best) roles Mel Gibson plays FBI agent JD Skinner, who is investigating the suicide/ possible murder of a billionaire (Tim Roth) in a run down hotel. He must try to deduce who the killer is among the hotel's bizzare guests. He enlists the help of the victims mentally ill best friend Todd (Jeremy Davies) to be his partner. TomTom also is one of the hotel patrons and he drags his equally unwell girlfriend Eloise (Milla Jovovich) into the picture. Among the suspects are a John Lennon wannabe, complete with Liverpool accent (Donal Logue)and a wacko American Indian, Israel "Geronimo" Goldkiss (Jimmy Smits). Other familiar faces to appear among the guests include Amanda Plummer and Julian Sands. But what Skinner doesn't realize is that Todd has set him up and is getting the guests to throw all manner of red herrings into the investigation.
MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL has an effectively dark noirish setting and aspires to be a modern day SUNSET BLVD. or MALTESE FALCON but it misses the mark. The first half of the film is stylish but icy and pretentious, the second (and more absorbing) half gives the viewer the chance to have more involvement with the characters. It's still worth a look, but it requires patience on the viewer's part. DVD extras include deleted scenes, interviews with the cast and crew and commentaries from Bono and Wim Wenders.

See it for yourself..
I find it interesting the mixed reviews for this movie. I will agree with most in that it's not a movie for everyone. I'm an indie film maker and I appreciate this movie for many reasons.

Of course many find the plot "too complicated" or "boring" but most of you should realize that those are the people that love movies where all the hard parts are spelled out so you don't have to think. This movie is thought provoking and after a few viewings you begin to pick up on more of the plot.

I can't possibly find why many have said the acting is horrible, Milla Jovavich and Jeremy Davies play very creative and supportive roles to each other. It's obvious it's not Mel Gibson's best role but the script wasn't written for him to be the leading star. If anyone would take the time to look into more of the story behind this film (other than the DVD extras) they'd appreciate it more. The atmosphere and tone set in the movie create a chilling emotion, which the music matches quite successfully. If you're a fan of U2 then you should appreciate the soundtrack, although it's a lot less complex (than any other U2 stuff) and something to listen to on a rainy day, it's good music. I listened to the music before I saw the movie and I enjoyed it.

Overall the movie is good. It's not the best movie I've ever seen but I really like the mood you get from it. In my opinion you should see it for yourself. If you're really scared about wasting a few hours then maybe you should find other things to do with your busy life than watch movies. Maybe you'll see it as a waste time maybe you'll love it, but atleast you've seen it.

FELLINI IS BACK!!!!
"The Million Dollar Hotel" is truly a movie about the magic in every person's life. A group of freaks, junkies, mentally deficient people, [prostitutes], people without money, people without expectations, etc. In other words, the other side of the coin of the "American Dream". Yet, just like in a Fellini movie, we are made to watch, and somehow understand them, and like them and love them. They are much better adapted to their "underprivileged" world than we are to ours. They have the magic of life in them. This movie is a great Love Story in many different levels. It is also, a movie about friendship, passion, greed, jelousy, hate, revenge, etc. On a personal level, on a HUMAN level. Certainly it puts us ("The Privileged", with our diregard for others, our consummerism, our wars, our weapons, our fears, our hatreds)to shame.
Another great movie by Wim Wenders. May he continue showing us that deep down we are better than we can see us in a mirror. We need his magical mirror to de the trick!

a beautiful portrait of humans
I really think this movie is great, but I don't think most people would. The love story between Jeremy Davies and Milla Jovovich is just so sweet and quiet. To be honest, I think that was the best thing about the movie, the realtionship of these two characters that was so moving. This movie just portrays the fragility and emotional complexity of people so beautifully.

Wenders' romanticism at its best
This film combines Wenders' great romanticism and his loving, if not uncritical glances toward Americans--their sickness, loneliness, and lovingness. First time I saw it, I thought it was a somewhat commercialized (or Americanized) version of Wenders' earlier work, "Wings of Desire." Second time, I got into the story and felt it's real. It is such a powerful and smart movie that strings love, sadness, and their once-ness in life together. Music by Bono is also great. If you like Wenders, it is a must-see. If you do not like Mel Gibson in his usual role, then you will find it amusing. At any rate, do not trust the ad. on VHS/DVD... They say something like "everyone has a secret," trying to present the film as a Mel Gibson detective story. It is not a detective story, but much more than that! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Most horror movies depend on giant monsters; Arachnophobia getsjust as many thrills out of creatures only a few inches long. A scientist(Julian Sands, Warlock, A Room with a View) who's hunting avicious new species of spider in Venezuela unknowingly ships one back tothe U.S. It ends up in a small town where a new doctor (Jeff Daniels,The Purple Rose of Cairo, Something Wild) is trying toestablish a practice. When his patients start suddenly dying, Danielssuspects spiders--but no one takes him seriously because he's had a phobia about spiders since childhood. Arachnophobia builds a slow butrelentless sense of menace and creepiness, mixed with a sneaky satire ofsmall town life. If you're squeamish about spiders, this will get underyour skin. Also featuring the ever-dependable John Goodman (The BigLebowski, Barton Fink) as a comically zealous exterminator.--Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (24)

One Bite And... Blleeaaagggcckk!!
ARACHNOPHOBIA takes a simple fear of spiders and magnifies it into monstrous proportions! While studying rare insects in deepest / darkest Venezuela, a scientist discovers a new, deadly, species of arachnid that is extremely aggressive. This eight-legged, super-pest is also resistant to the toxic fog that brought it down from the trees to be studied. It bites a photographer, killing him almost instantly. When his body is shipped back to the US, no one notices that there's a little hairy stowaway in the coffin! Thus begins our tale of terror in small town america. Dr. Ross Jennings (Jeff Daniels) has just moved into the same town with his wife and kids. Not only the same town, but the very house that is ground zero for the coming spider invasion! The south american mega-spider has mated with a common housespider, producing offspring even deadlier than itself. The brood fans out, going house to house, striking unwary citizens. The spiders themselves are the best bugs I've ever seen in a movie. They seem to be trained to act menacing. Whoever the "bug-wrangler" was, did a superb job of getting them to "act" smart. The camera work also adds to their appearance as both intelligent and scary. Can Jennings overcome his fear of spiders and stand up to this tiny army of death? Check out John Goodman as Delbert McClintock, exterminator extraordinaire! He's a riot! ARACHNOPHOBIA was an unexpected hit when it was released, and remains a solid example of horror / comedy. You'll never look at those webs in the attic / basement the same way again! Highly recommended...

One of the scariest movies ever made!
There stands Jeff Daniels, holding a shovel, ready to strike at the predators that would do his family harm. Only minutes before, his family is running up the stairs, as if trying to escape something massive and deadly. What's ironic about the situation in "Arachnophobia" is that there are no gruesome monsters or devilish people running amuck in the small town setting, but instead, a simple fear is given a whole new name as innumerable tiny spiders begin a rampage that makes for one of the best movies of 1990.

"Arachnophobia," which, appropriately defines a fear of spiders, presents us with a plotline that pits man again nature, calling attention to the horror movies of the old days while taking its title and creating an immense amount of tension and suspense with unique story twists and some nicely added comic relief. I did find the movie to be predictable in places, but that didn't stop me from having an enormous amount of fun with it.

The movie begins in Venezuela, where an expedition into the tropical forests leads to the discovery of a previously unknown species of arachnid. A photographer along for the ride is bitten by the spider and dies of convulsions, yet the cause of death remains unknown to everyone else, and so the body, along with the stowaway spider, is shipped back to his hometown of Canaima, where a new doctor is also moving in.

Having moved from San Francisco to begin a practice in the small town, Dr. Ross Jennings, with his wife and two children, is dismayed when he learns that the previous doctor has decided not to retire. Beginning a practice of his own, he starts out with one patient, who is bitten by a deadly spider which was spawned in the barn in the backyard of Jennings' house. This, along with many other deaths, raise questions about the circumstances of the deaths, and as the facts are slowly revealed, the tension becomes increasingly delicious as the arachnids begin taking over the town.

The mark of a truly good film is its ability to stay in touch with a certain message in its title in order for it to make sense. "Arachnophobia" is magnificent in its achievement of this goal, taking the minute fear of spiders and turning it into something quite suspenseful. This is done by placing a spider in almost every scene, and centering that specific part of the story around something that has to do with it, or them. One minute we see a lone creature, and the next there are thousands of them crawling across dry grass, up walls, and sometimes, on people.

And these aren't the textbook spiders who merely hunt their prey from their spun webs and await some unsuspecting insect to fly into their trap. These arachnids are hunters, out for a taste of any kind of blood they can lay their fangs on. They are fast and unrelenting, vicious and brutal, and altogether extremely scary.

The story is a well-spun (pardon the pun) piece of work which presents its elements well. The beginning takes things in stride by introducing us to the characters fluidly, and then slowly builds up to a heightened amount of suspense by placing those characters into extreme situations. We can care for what happens to the characters because we know who they are: Jennings' fear of spiders is presented, which comes into play with his confrontation with the spider.

The spider makes a truly marvelous enemy, and Ross Jennings is an equally engrossing hero in the final act. Played by Jeff Daniels, his stand-off with the queen spider is just as good as any modern-day action sequence you'll see. We have a slight idea of what is going to happen, but Daniels' acting not only brings out the immense fear in his character, but keeps us at bay, wanting more until the climax reaches its peak. And to allay some of the tension comes John Goodman as an extremely hilarious exterminator who jumps in to save the day in his own little way.

"Arachnophobia" does many different things for me: it certainly makes me think twice before reaching into my popcorn bowl, putting on my shoes or a football helmet. But, it also is a great ride, with lots of thrills and even more chills to please all. Fear will never be the same again!

Arachnophobia (1990)
Director: Frank Marshall
Cast: Jeff Daniels, John Goodman, Harley Jane Kozak.
Running Time: 110 minutes.
Rated PG-13 for arachnid violence and language.

In true Spielberg-formula fashion, director Frank Marshall (who produced many of Spielberg's works during the 1980's) creates a tense, atmospheric thriller that has enough scares and laughs for two movies. A deadly South American spider is accidentally braught to a small, country town--the spider proceeds to kill of many of the inhabitants and gives birth to hundreds of venomous spawn. Small-town doctor Jeff Daniels, who happens to be horrified of the eight-legged beasts, must conjure up enough strength to save his community, and more importantly his family from the threatening bugs.

John Goodman is down-right hilarious as the Rambo-esque terminator, using a splendid script to invoke many laughs throughout the picture. Daniels is equally good as the tormented M.D., running around like a petrified girl scout at the beginning of the film, but ultimately encounters the mother-spider for the showdown of all man vs. spider showdowns. A fun, exciting scare fare that is actually viewable for most of the family due to its fairly low amounts of violence and profanity.

lives up to its name
If ever a movie deserved the title arachnophobia, it is definitly this one. I saw this when I kid, and still have a huge fear of spiders, thanks to this movie. Although really fearful of spiders, I love this movie because it plays so beautifully into it. The last 15-30 minutes will make anyones skin crawl, and I definitly recommened this to anyone, even those with arachnophobia.

Terrifying movie!
I still get the heeby jeebies when watching this movie even after so many years after first seeing it and having horrific nightmares for days afterwards even though I've grown to appreciate spiders more nowadays. The reason this movie is so able to scare is because of it's suprisingly realistic nature of dangerous spiders with extremely toxic venom being able to be transported to different countries.

In this case, a species of spider from South America hitches a ride aboard a ship and ends up breeding with the domestic house spiders in the United States and the hatchling spiders start killing residents of a small California town and time is running out to stop the spiders from spreading and breeding with more domestic house spiders and enabling this dangerous species to spread all over the United States.

This is a really terrifying and very well thought-out movie of immense proportions. It truly demonstrates why it's a very bad idea to bring 'alien' species to other lands other than their own native habitats.

Go and get this movie if you want a scary but fun ride. Arachnophobes though should steer clear. For everyone else, welcome aboard! ... Read more

Amazon.com

At turns both mesmerizing and frustrating, Mike Figgis's 1999experimentalfeature interweaves an audacious dramatization of the Adam and Eve myth withautobiographical vignettes from the director's life. In Figgis's goldenrendering of the Genesis tale, the first humans are a black man (FemiOgumbanjo) and a white woman (Hanne Klintoe), who emerge one day, fullyformed, from a lake, and regard each other with playful wonder. Theydiscover, like children, their anatomical differences, and explore thesurrounding green paradise until coming upon the tree of knowledge. From thisthey eat and almost instantly reevaluate one another with a steely lust. Thustheir, and our, fabled fall from grace ends in the mire of sexual possessionand walled-off feeling, a tragedy that Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) usesas a touchstone for the contemporary story of a filmmaker named Nic (Julian Sands). Nic's own youthful experiences with various kinds of formativehumiliation, including finding his teenage girlfriend in bed with his bestfriend, are presented as flashbacks meant to resonate with his maritalunhappiness today. Less clear are other moments out of time that don'tparticularly connect with Figgis's major theme, especially an odd developmentin which twin sisters (both played by Saffron Burrows), each unaware of the other's existence, have a fleeting, worlds-are-colliding encounter at anairport. Figgis also reaches into a grab bag of Nic's other old sorrows,things that don't uniquely inform or enhance the film's point, and muddiesthings up a bit. But the sheer hubris of marrying a myth with a memoircarries the day here, and Figgis leaps the hurdle of potential self-parodywith a certain courage. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (26)

thinks it's more clever than it is
The film itself, on an aesthetic level, is quite stunning and beautiful, but the non-linear narrative, which weaves in two modern (? ) tales with an inventive representation of Adam and Eve starts to unravel a bit as the story progresses--which is unfortunate, because the film does such a subtle job of telling a story without spelling it all out for the viewer. My only strong reservation is that the funeral scene characters were never woven back into the narrative concerning J. Sands--a frustrating omission that derails an otherwise compelling essay on the issue of desire, sex, love, and loyalty. But it's definately interesting and beautiful to watch.

paradise lost
You've got to admire ambition. The Loss of Sexual Innocence is a meditative, impressionistic, mostly dialogue-less, deeply beautiful and aggressively non-linear exploration of various forms of innocence lost--or shattered. The chopped-up plot structure at first is confusing, but as the threads start to come together the parrallels drawn and metaphors presented are provocative. A film that makes its audience really think ought to be appreciated in our age of brainless blockbusters. Though it is best to keep in mind that there is no solid main point, no overall meaning you're meant to find in the film. In the end it is more like a piece of music than a story: weaving themes in and out, leaving the audience to form their own opinions and interpretations. While it doesn't succeed with flying colors, it is certainly w