Amazon.com

Geoffrey Rush is in bravura form in his shape-shifting performance as one of the cinema's great chameleons:Peter Sellers. This higgledy-piggledy biopic races across the high and low points of Sellers's adult life, pretty much sticking to the standard explanation (endorsed by Sellers himself) that his genius for mimickry and impersonation was the result of lacking a personality of his own. Sellers's monstrous treatment of wives and colleagues is balanced by his childlike enthusiasms, all nicely captured by Rush. As for the re-creations of Sellers routines from The Goon Show or Dr. Strangelove, Rush gives it a game and sometimes inspired go. Other characters are as incidental as they seem to have been to Sellers himself, with Miriam Margolyes (as Peter's grasping, goading mother) and Emily Watson (patient first wife) especially good. Charlize Theron is Britt Ekland, with little more to do than adopt a Swedish accent. The events chosen to illustrate Sellers's neuroses seem random--from a drawn-out infatuation with Sophia Loren to his feud with Blake Edwards--and the film piles up until Sellers's heart finally gives out. This middling life story could have made, and deserves, a great documentary. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Funny bio-pic
Genre: Bio-pic, Comedy, Drama

Genre Grade: C+

Final Grade: B-

This movie didn't keep me interested very well, I kept wishing it would hurry up and end. After the first half of the film you hate who Peter Sellers was so much that you just hope he'll have a heart attack and die. The film redeems itself somewhat in the end, but not enough to leave a lasting effect on me. The film, however, was very well made and the screenplay was excellently written, though on the boring side.

Geoffrey Rush does an excellent job at capturing the character of Peter Sellers - during some moments of the film (such as the Dr. Strangelove re-enactments) you truly think you're watching footage straight from the original.

I did enjoy finding out what kind of horrible man Peter Sellers really was (I won't go into details as not to ruin it). It makes me respect him as an actor much less, but it seems the awards knew about his true self as well because he only won one major award in his life, and that was very early in his career. For me, I will just have to remember him as his four characters from Dr. Strangelove and Inspector Jacques Clouseau from The Pink Panther.

The Many Faces of Peter Sellers.
The Life and Death of Peter Sellers is a captivating biopic of a legendary actor who had been able to play many memorable characters in film, but have lost his own character in life. Peter Sellers is brilliantly portrayed by Oscar-winning Geoffrey Rush(Shine), who had turned in a multilayered and powerful performance. It's amazing that he could do so many impersonations. This film chronicles the family life, relationships, and career of Sellers.

Peter Sellers worked in radio before making his transition to acting in films in Britain. His first wife Anne is played by multiple Oscar-nominated Emily Watson(Breaking The Waves, Hilary and Jackie), who managed to steal some scenes, and appeared in mostly the first half hour. Sellers is an emotionally unstable man, and his relationship with his family is quite volatile. His overwhelming passion for acting made him neglectful towards his family, and he divorced his wife when he tried to pursued his co-star Sophia Loren(Sonia Aquino, who is a total SL look alike).

He eventually make his crossover from Britain to Hollywood, and he was a sensation with his debut film The Pink Panther in which he played a supporting role that allowed him to steal the movie. During his rise in Hollywood, he takes the advice of psychic Maurice Woodruff(Stephen Fry) and pursued a bombshell actress Brit Ekland(Charlize Theron), who would become his second wife. Their marriage didn't last long dued to personality differences.

At the peak of his career, he worked with famous directors including Blake Edwards(John Edwards) and Stanley Kubrick(Stanley Tucci). His last sentimental dramedy Being There garnered him an Oscar nomination.His personal life was a disaster, and he emotionally abandoned his unconditionally loving mother Peg(Miriam Margolyes). He was did cocain and hadcasual sex with many women. We also get see a lot of his on set filming experiences.

Even though I am not familiar Peter Sellers' work, because his films were made in '60s and '70s, but after seeing this movie, I am probably going to check out some of his best movies.

Rush Shines as Sellers
Peter Sellers is my all-time favorite screen comedian.I'm familiar with his early Ealing work to "Being There".I approached this film with great skepticism because I did not think it possible to recreate his unique genius.Geoffrey Rush would not appear to be the ideal choice to play Sellers.He neither looks or has the vocal patterns of Sellers.During the initial stages of this film it's hard to overlook this but as the film progresses Rush slowly morphs into your mind that he is Peter Sellers.It's not so much in the recreation of Sellers' famed film roles but in his depiction of his personal life.To those unfamiliar with Sellers he was a manic-depressive.Sellers creativity was unfortunately fueled by his insecurity and self-loathing.Where I think this is an important film is not so much as biography of Sellers but as a vehicle to shed light on the personal hell that life is for the clinically depressed, where, in this case, you happen to be the world's most famous comedian.Though this film is essentially a showcase for Rush, the supporting cast is uniformly superb.Where do I begin?Kudos to Emily Watson, Charlize Theron, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Miriam Margulyes, and Stephen Fry.Director Stephen Hopkins directs this film stylishly but I do quibble with some of the film's continuity problems.Some of the events are chronologically out of order.For instance, "The Pink Panther" was made after "Dr. Strangelove".Also, a scene attributed to "The Pink Panther" was actually from "A Shot in the Dark".They also utilize The Clash's "Should I Stay or Should I Go", a song that came out two years after Sellers' death.

"Life is being someone else"
In order to dutifully engage in this arty, surrealistic biography it probably helps if the viewer has some prior knowledge of Peter Seller's acting and the contributions that he made to screen comedy. Because without this knowledge the film could well seem overly opaque and unclear as it tends to rely on a patch network of events that are well paced, but that sometimes come across as being rather obscure, and hard to follow.

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers manages to sustain interest most of the way, mostly due to the remarkable performances, but the combination of an unsympathetic central figure and a strange, eccentric narrative style, makes for an ambitiously told life story that doesn't really cut it. The movie paints a complex, intelligent, and artistically ambitious portrait, which centers so deeply in Sellers' mind that it really only paints, half the picture.

The annoying inclusion of movie scenes within movie scenes, where Geoffrey Rush as Sellers breaks character to become Sellers' mum, dad, or even Anne, his wife commenting on Sellers, all draws too much attention to itself and becomes a sort of distraction from the main story.

The movie begins as Sellers (Rush) is shifting into film after radio's The Goon Show, moving from wacky costar to leading man. His ambitious, dictatorial mother Peg (a terrific Miriam Margolyes) won't stand for him settling for second best, and certainly won't allow him to stay at home looking after the children, which she views as "women's work."

Peg deliberately pushes Peter into the movies with the rest of the story covering his roller- coaster career, from the making of Dr Strangelove, and the Pink Panther movies, to his aborted attempt at James Bond, and his unbridled passion to make Being There. Throughout, we manage to get a glimpse of his working relationships with Blake Edwards (John Lithgow) and Stanley Kubrick (Stanley Tucci). The story also covers his physical problems, his emotional dysfunctions, and his troubled domestic life, involving his marriage and children with Anne (a stunning Emily Watson) and Britt Ekland (an equally stunning Charlize Theron).

This is a masterful performance by Rush who interprets Sellers as a kind of perpetual, selfish child. He gives us a portrait of a tortured, and physically and emotionally abusive genius, who was so deeply immersed into his characters that he virtually disappeared; a man so obsessed with his identity that he found it impossible to relate to those around him. Severely spoilt and mollycoddled by his Mother, Sellers expected women to unadulteratingly fawn over him. But he just can't handle hearing the truth, and when Sophia Loren (Sonia Aquino) tells him to "go home to his wife" he reacts with a strange mixture of sexual rebellion and juvenile violence.

The colours and textures of the 50s, 60s and 70s, are inventively captured and a good job is done of recreating scenes from Sellers' movies along with constant references and sight gags. But the insertion of the fantasy sequences, while impressively showing Sellers gradual slipping grip on reality don't always work, such as when his mother is forced to have lunch, not with her son, but with Dr Strangelove.

Watson and Theron are absolutely sensational as Sellers' troubled, abused wives (Theron is almost unrecognizable as Ekland, and she proves that Monster was definitely no fluke). Most of the best scenes are when Rush effectively plays off both actresses.

This is a funny, romantic and ultimately tragic story that feels a little stretched, episodic, and ultimately overly ambitious in its artistic intentions. The movie is clever enough to let the characters grow on us, but as it goes on it all comes kind of exhausting and just little too much to handle in a 2 hour film. Mike Leonard May 05.

Who is Peter Sellers and Why is Acting Like That?
Paraphrasing a famous line serves as a summation to this excellent study of Peter Sellers, one of Hollywood'smost popular and beloved comedians: for all the public masks there were many more private ones that until now never seemed so cogent.

Peter Sellers (a brilliant Geoffrey Rush who is such a fine actor that he doesn't try to impersonate Sellers, rather interpret him) was one strange man.His foibles in life are more interesting than the fascinating characters he created on film, characters that are still being imitated by such actors as Steve Martin, etc.He was a disturbed man, with a more than bizarre relationship with his mother (Miriam Margolyes), his directors Stanley Kubrick (Stanley Tucci) and Blake Edwards (John Lithgow) and abusive relationship with his wife Anne (the always superb Emily Watson) and his tryst with Britt Ekland (Charlize Theron).

At times in this rather cumbersome script the film loses focus with a too heavily weighted angst that besmirched Sellers life.His abominable behavior patterns and generally inappropriate responses to those who would make him a star, while expertly crafted by Geoffrey Rush into complete credibility, are not relieved by sufficient moments of comedy, moments that made this actor famous in the first place.

The acting is uniformly excellent, far better than the script would suggest, and the glamour of the 1960s excesses is well captured though degenerate to see again.But for all that, this is a well-done look at the life of a comedic genius whose screen presence was probably the only real thing about him.Grady Harp, May 05 ... Read more

Reviews (79)

Definitely worth seeing. Worth owning? Questionable.
Dustin Hoffman is a living legend. You can read any of the other excellent reviews here to get a good idea of what the movie is about, so instead I'm going to give you 'the truth as I see it' about why you should see this movie.
Obviously, Dustin Hoffman plays the role of David wonderfully. Susan George does a good job, although it would have been nice for this intended town hottie to have a pretty smile along with her pretty physique. But I guess that's the catch 22 in selecting a British cast, especially from that day and age.
The controversial rape scene in this movie, is almost paralyzingly disturbing. (Yes, paralyzingly...I don't care if it's not a word.) It's disgusting really. It was also very confusing for me, because of the fact that she was saying no, but the viewer actually does get the impression that she doesn't mean no. She kisses her 'rapist' and pulls him closer, and she invites him in in the first place, and then tells him not to leave. A very awkward occurrence. When the second guy rapes her, we understand clearly that she does not want him, but still she seems to have some strange bond with the first guy (apparently and ex-boyfriend or something) as they have a sort of strangely mutually understanding chemistry throughout the movie. This was one of the most disturbing scenes in any movie I've seen recently. It doesn't help that all the while we get up close facial expressions from her, showing a sense of horror and disgust, but at the same time thrilling satisfaction.
Basically, she gives in very easily when there is any sense of punishment as a consequence of resistance. She is trapped in a kind of school-girl mentality, playing childish pranks and teasing the men by showing her breasts and underwear to them. I'm guessing this is related to the way she was treated when she was that age. David, on the other hand, is a controlled, maturing man, trying to focus on his work. He doesn't give in so easily, and although some have said that he plays the role of mouse time and time again until he finally emerges as a 'real man' in the end of the movie, I personally feel that he is not the timid guy everyone thinks him to be, but rather that circumstance does not allow him to show his manliness (for example, when his wife brings in the bowl of milk with the beers). He is more confused than anything because he doesn't believe there is any real reason to confront the hooligans, until the execution of Kitty.
Anyway, like a lot of other people I was very confused by the ending. The implications of David defending his house, his wife, his honor, and his sense of manhood by protecting a man that actually was guilty of murder (albeit accidental), raise a whole other topic of discussion.
The violence, with the exception of the rape scene, is pretty tame according to today's standards, but the psychological horror is in full throttle here. This is a thinker's horror/suspense (not horror in the conventional sense of the word) movie.
The laughter of the crazy hooligan was really annoying to me. I'm sure many people will disagree with my views on the movie, but I think it's important to look at the movie for what it IS, as well as what it means.
I'm definitely glad to have seen this movie, and would highly recommend it, but I don't believe I'll be adding it to my collection. I might see it again one day, but movies this disturbing and confusing aren't usually on my list of favorite flicks to cuddle up to late at night.

PEACENIK HOFFMAN GOES BONKERS
In 1971 Sam Peckinpah's controversial STRAW DOGS was censored by the British Board of Film Classification. The cuts made it even more provocative than Peckinpah intended. Consequently, Straw Dogs was labeled by the media as an obscene, misogynistic piece of filmmaking. Regarding the uncut American version, even the esteemed Pauline Kael said it's "the first American film that is a fascist work of art."

"Straw Dogs" stands as one of Peckinpah's best, and a reminder of the ongoing struggle between an artist's freedom and suppression by the powers that be. But more than that, it's a brilliant and harrowing exploration of man's primitive animal nature and its implied, inherent violence.

The transfer's clean and sharp. Extras include an 80 minute look at Peckinpah's films and a new interview with Susan George, who talks about her daring, controversial performance of a woman who for a few brief moments seemed to enjoy being raped.

What does "Straw Dogs" mean? Is it from the saying: Behind every coward's eyes burn straw dogs? If so, what does that mean? What are "straw dogs"?

Another thing. Recently (of this writingt) Dustin Hoffman has made a point of speaking out about certain military operations to free brutalized, oppressed people. Personally, I'd rather not know what an actor thinks and feels about politics. However, in "Straw Dogs" Hoffman shows what it takes to fight evil aggression. His screen performance will outlive his words.

Recommended.

HORRIBLE!!!
I agree with another reviewer in that you'll either love this or hate it. But I think most people will hate it. (Note: I have nothing against violence in films, and I liked the Kill Bill movies.) The main problem here is that almost every character in this film is utterly unlikable, and terrible things happen to the two characters who are likeable. But even that wouldn't be so bad, if the film had a message.

Dustin Hoffman's character is a whiney, wimpy, and mean spirited person who, when he finally decides to act, he does so for all of the wrong reasons & defends the wrong person. I end up hating him MORE than the bad guys.
I rank this as the most unwatchable movie I have ever seen, even below "Short Cuts".
However, if you liked "Short Cuts", you'd probably like this, and vice versa.

A Remarkable Film Which Stands the Test of Time.
This is a really interesting film on many levels. It's not perfect; but, few works of modern art are. Nevertheless, this work stands the test of time. Firstly, one of the most remarkable things about this film is the absolutely Hitchcockian editing, which is remotely primitivistic, but strangely compelling: the editing engenders a peculiar ambience to the film right from the beginning brawl scene in the pub. Then, from the denoument sequence--which begins with the equally primitive church function and runs through to the climax and epilogue--the editing is nothing less than fine art. Secondly, the sets of the pub and the farm house are very convincing and interesting in their own right: there's plenty to look at. Also, the outdoor scenes with the ocean in background and the Cornish village all have the verisimilitude of realism. Thirdly, the soundtrack is not at all bad. Fourthly, the acting is good: of course, Hoffman is nothing less than brilliant; Peter Vaughn is excellent as the burly boorish Englishman; and Susan George isn't bad: she begins weak, but by the middle of the film she's quite okay, and from the denoument mentioned above, she's fine. Also, David Warner as the half-witted cripple is excellent--though not given notice in the credits. Lastly, the story is fairly well formed and possibly plausible--though that's no recommendation for fiction! It is possible in realistic or naturalistic fiction that a university professor might get a grant and take a semester or even a year off to do research; and this professor might want to go to some remote European destination where his wife has ancestral property by the sea, to get away from it all to do his thought-work; and it is possible that this professor might have married the woman out of sexual attraction, fully knowing that she had much less education than himself and was his intellectual inferior. But the plot has a quasi-classical form of characters with flawed personality traits; tension and contentious issues; incident follows upon incident resulting in a shattering climax, followed by an ambivalent coda. What more can one say?

Another amazing masculine character study by Peckinpah.
It's not at all hard to see the connection between Peckinpah's two greatest movies: Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch. Both are studies of what it means to be a man, a look at the masculine and sometimes violent male nature. Basically, Straw Dogs is about an extremely timid American intellectual who decides to escape the Vietnam-fueled violence of the USA by moving into the small English town where his wife was raised. However, the man soon realizes that violence is pretty much omnipresent, when the men he hires to fix up his new home begin pushing him and his wife around. I won't give away the ending, but if you know Peckinpah you can probably guess.

of course, most people will probably want to see the movie for its infamous rape scene (which got the film banned in the UK, where it was filmed). Not only is the rape graphic, but the victim actually appears to enjoy it; at least at first. Here I must disagree with the lengthy rant of a prior reviewer when I say that the rape scene is not simply an exercise in mysoginy, but rather helps to show just how immasculinated the main character has become. Throughout the first half of the movie we see his wife slowly flirting with the contractors (at one point even letting them see her topless). This suggests quite obviously that she has become so disgruntled with her husbands lack of backbone that she is actively seducing the very masculine contractors, and the fact that she enjoys the rape is simply the logical extreme of her desire to have a truly "manly" partner. Of course, those who've seen the movie know that eventually she's punished for her covetry of man's aggressive nature.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. In fact, I'd suggest you get it ASAP, since the Criterion version has been out of print for months now and won't likely be available for much longer. You need a strong stomach to watch it, certainly, and the pace is very deliberate, but those who have patience and put effort into understanding the meaning of the film will be very well rewarded. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Star-crossed lovers, feuding family, royal plots, noble destinies,and salt-of-the-earth heroes. No wonder R.D. Blackmore's romantic classichas been a perennial favorite. Amelia Warner (Michael Caine's innocentchild bride in Quills) is Lorna, the beautiful young brunette"queen" of the feral Doone clan in this latest adaptation, a handsome 2.5-hourco-production between the BBC and A&E. Theonce noble line now lives out of a swamp fortress and preys off the localfarmers and tradesmen, but the family patriarch (Peter Vaughan) has hatched a plot to win back his title and his land. Handsome John Ridd (RichardCoyle) swears vengeance against the Doones when they murder his father, but he falls for Lorna, and the rakish, ruthless Doone scion (Aiden Gillen, whoswaggers through the drama with a perpetual sneer) refuses to give up hisclaim on the girl without a fight.

This is the kind of British romanticadventure that decries the tradition of nobility and privilege while rewardingits heroes with those very privileges, all within a grand framework ofmelodramatic twists, thrilling battles, and chivalrous heroics. Director MikeBarker creates an appropriately larger-than-life world at once pastoral andsavage for his little epic--shot in the verdant British countryside, where alush forest green permeates every outdoor scene, while the dusky interiors glowwith candlelight--giving in completely to the sweeping emotional melodrama atthe core of the story. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (22)

A Promise to Keep
Fortunately I was able to catch this originally when it ran on A&E and was so captivated I pre-ordered both the video and DVD. The video version differs only slightly from the DVD; the color is not as good. That's it. Overall it's a very good purchase at a reasonable price for such an excellent film.

Fans of A&E's lush romances like Pride & Prejudice, Victoria & Albert, and Emma will enjoy Lorna Doone. It's a blend of romance, adventure, mystery, and something of the sinister, with a Romeo & Julietish twist. The acting is stellar, particularly in the casting of Aidan Gillen as Carver Doone. He completely overpowers the screne whenever present and makes a loathable and yet empathetic villain. Richard Coyle is doubly good as the heroic John Ridd, and Amelia Warner proves she can play leads effortly as the spirited but puzzling Lorna.

It's a film my entire family enjoyed... there was enough romance for the girls, some action scenes for the guys, and enough lush English countryside and magnificent costuming for one and all. Rent it, buy it, borrow it -- see it.

Romantic Predictability...
A & E's production of R.D. Blackmore's novel of forbidden love between two hostile families is lushly filmed, action-filled, and surprisingly dull. Yes, there are a few surprises here and there; however, the story runs into predictable territory come the last hour and a half, and the characters become too melodramatic to be considered real.

The star-crossed lovers do play off each other well, embracing the invisible struggle surrounding their union. Amelia Warner (Lorna Doone) gives the right amount of innocence against ambition, creating a lovely, yearning picture of a woman finding her way into the world. Her love (John Ridd), played by the ravishing Richard Coyle, battles endlessly for her deliverance from a power-hungry family. Scenes of swordplay, gun fighting, and warring words dominate the film, along with the green and black tones of the Doone's aura. Their home and demeanor is cold and dark, in stark contrast to that of the Ridd's. Yet despite these dynamic action and aesthetic backdrops, I found myself jumping ahead at various points simply because I was already ahead of the film itself. The characters, though well played, were standard stock-acting fare. Aidan Gillen's performance of Lorna's rejected suitor was extremely cartoonish. Each time he was told he should give up his pursuit of Lorna, he would restate his devotion to her then stomp away like a child. I kept expecting him to grab a skateboard along the way, riding off to his pouting place.

I will say that the romantic standard of hero/villain/heroine is not an easy foundation upon which to build an unpredictable storyline, especially when given a rather caricature-esque setting. Yet director Mike Barker does his best with Adrian Hodges screenplay, and makes a film for inspired romantics. Although it is predictable at most points, the tale does give the audience the desire to rise in hopeful bliss for two souls so like their own. Lorna and John may be of a different time, yet love burns deep in all of us, no matter the age or circumstances. If it is to be, there is no death for love. Lorna and John teach us this, as we rise.

A Weak Link
I got this DVD as part of the A&E Literary Classics Romance Collection, and it's one of the few weak links in that otherwise superb box set (a must for lovers of period films and literary adaptations). Lorna Doone is a fun little romp through 17th-century England if you're willing to lower your standards for a few hours, but in all honesty it's really just a clumsy, formulaic Romeo and Juliet tale.

The main villain is a sneering cardboard cutout. The central romance is unbelievable: Lorna is never fleshed out (and is no great beauty, either, to be frank), so you never see why John falls in love with her--unless it's just simple infatuation because of the "forbidden fruit" factor. You just have to take the whole relationship on faith since it rarely feels real or compelling. On top of that, the clumsy direction makes a total mess of the fight scenes: there's no sense of focus, pacing, momentum, or drama. (There are little historical anachronisms, too, like John's sister wearing the kind of modern eyeglasses with side bows that hadn't been invented in the West at that time--no big problem, obviously, but sloppy and distracting nonetheless.)

On the bright side, this version of Lorna Doone (many have been filmed over the years) features a few memorable performances, like the droll Michael Kitchen as Judge Jeffreys. Plus, there aren't a whole lot of period pieces focusing on 17th-century England; most choose the Middle Ages or the 18th or 19th centuries. So, at least the time period is refreshing.

2.5 stars.

A disappointing departure from A&E's high standards.
We are fans of period films and have enjoyed many A&E and BBC productions. Instead of getting swept up in the drama of Lorna Doone, however, we spent our time mocking the film. I think that poor directing is to blame. Why were we forced to see the same cheesy "vertigo" shot of water in the canyon below every time a character walked on the narrow ledge by the waterfall? Why were all scenes shot in the Doone valley incredibly dark and hard to see, even when the action was taking place in the middle of the day? Why were the Doones and the people of the adjacent town so unfamiliar with one another when it seemed to take approximately 15 minutes to walk from one settlement to the other? Why was Lorna always clean and neatly-dressed, while every other resident of the Doone Valley appeared to have minimal acquaintance with bathing facilities? Why did John and Lorna fall madly in love after exactly two encounters twelve years apart?

The film tried valiantly to fit many of the book's plot points into a two hour movie, but the gaps in character development made for awkward leaps. The actors did a fairly good job with tough material, but even good actors can't overcome strange sequencing of events and cheesy, predictable dialogue.

Exciting the whole way through
John Ridd's father was killed by the Doones-a band of ruthless outlaws who had threatened and stolen from the townspeople. John (Richard Coyle) watched his father die, and vowed he would get revenge for their evil deeds. He falls in love with a sweet and beautiful maiden, only to learn that she's a Doone. Lorna (Amelia Warner) is a granddaughter of the Doone's leader, and she is expected to marry the future leader of the Doones-her cousin Carver Doone (Aiden Gillen). John finds himself in a difficult situation-he not only loves a girl that his family will hate, but he must fight Carver, who is just as determined to marry Lorna. The characters find themselves battling with issues of loyalty. This is a great story based off R.D. Blackmore's classic novel. I would highly recommend it. ... Read more

Reviews (70)

Subtle and Lovely
This is not a fast-paced, action-packed, Hollywood kind of movie. It's more akin to reading a book than watching a film. That is not to say that this is at all dull or boring.

Remains of the day is a lovely, and even tragic at times, movie about love and the more sweeping themes of life and death, among the reserved and proper English class of housemaids, butlers,and the multitudes of servants employed by large country houses in the early half of the 20th Century.

The story revolves around Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson as the heads of their respective sexes in the household and the deep affection they have for one another, but that Hopkins cannot exhibit. Thomspon's character is outgoing and a bit too modern for Hopkin's somber and traditional disposition.

The story tells of their meeting, and then follows an older Hopkins as he remembers his younger days and Thompson, as he travels to see her one last time.

A Masterpiece from Merchant Ivory Productions!
From the very beginning of the opening titles, set against the backdrop of the English countryside and exquisitely complimented by the music of Richard Robbins, you get the reassuring feeling that you are in for a cinematic treat. Well, 134 minutes later, your reassurances are confirmed, and within this time frame this movie manages to span the full range of emotions with such grace and dignity that you are certain you have seen one of the great motion pictures. Oscar winners Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson reunite (first paired in Howard's End) with the acclaimed Merchant Ivory film making team for this extraordinary and moving story of blind devotion-to-duty and forsaken love. Hopkins stars as Mister Stevens, the perfect English butler, an ideal carried by him to perfectionist lengths, as he serves his English master, Lord Darlington (impeccably played by masterful James Fox). Lord Darlington, like many other members of the British establishment in the 1930s, is duped by the Nazis into trying to establish a rapport between themselves and the British government. Thompson stars as Darlington hall's housekeeper, a high-spirited, strong-minded young woman who watches the goings-on upstairs with quiet disbelief. Marvelously well acted by a supporting cast that includes, among many others, Christopher Reeve as American Congressman Jack Lewis and then newcomer Hugh Grant as Lord Darlington's Godson, Mr. Cardinal, this movie captures on film a bygone lifestyle few are acquainted with, in as flawless a fashion as any you will ever see. Masterpiece!

James Ivory's masterpiece!
This is a slow paced movie, but so well acted and directed that you miss the rhytm. You feel caught from the first images with the voice in off . The photography is splendid. The art is direction is spectacular .
The script is a long tale from the memories of Anthony Hopkins and a failed relationship with Emma Thompson as the mistress in service of James Fox a hard enemy of the German forces in WW2.
The film travels from the passionate speechs about the destiny of the mankind , the human condition and also the intimate portrayal of this loyal servant , keeping the formalities with absolute gentleness.
Never before Ivory had been so inspired and convincing like this one .
The last sequence of the film is an extraordinary metaphor.
Thompson brilliant and Hopkins superb in this work.
This is a heavyweight champion movie , great and marvelous . Don't miss this one!

Dignity in Remains of the day
"Dignity in Remains of the day " by Shahzada Gofran

An American mother lost four out of five of her sons at war in Vietnam during 1954. Yet her head is as high as Mount Everest with patriotic dignity. But it's not the same dignity that we see in Stevens's life depicted on both in Kazuo Ishiguro's novel and James Ivory's film Remains of the day. It is Stevens' dignity that provokes questions to the readers and the viewers mind. It poses them to ponder what dignity actually means in life when they read or watch the film. Stevens (Anthony Hopkins) is the protagonist whose dormant feelings and self-indulgence have been suppressed by the concept of "dignity" that he cherished with profound delicacy throughout his service life at Darlington hall. But unfortunately, that "dignity" has brought little meaning and many unhappy moments in his life. His dignity has existed like a mist in a winter morning that goes away in the glare of a dazzling sun. Nearly at the end of the novel and also in the film, the viewers get to see how dignity plays a treacherous role in Stevens's life. Nevertheless, the film did an excellent job in changing some scenes to emphasize and show dignity that is so ingrained in Stevens' life. Although the book has a greater detail of events than it is in the film, the director kept the central themes congruent.

In the realm of modernism and capitalism, the English aristocracy and the formality of a butler's profession remain as an interesting story, but not as a pervasive manner of lifestyle for today's' generation. The modernism, individuality, and freedom of expression took over the habitual human thinking that was existed during the Darlington's era. Generally ordinary citizens have little right to express their opinions on issues of politics. The English colonialism and their mannerism have also had an impact on the people during that time. According to Bert Cardullo" the elegiac representation of the British imperialism and celebrates its heyday by depicting a return to the practice of social hierarchy"(The servant,1). We also have seen in the movie that the international delegates are so secluded from the touch of the ordinary people. However, one may argue though that the impact of Modernism we have seen in Remains of the day would shape and mold the English civilization gradually rather than occurring as a revolution. There were people during the Darlington era who also have similar mannerism and modern thinking as today. For example Miss Kenton who believed on her opinions and has the dignity of choosing for her own as oppose to Stevens. She opposed the idea of firing those Jews servants and she chooses to marry and quite the job for her own happiness that was impossible for Stevens. For her it is the confidence in what she values has the high dignity and self esteem just as we would in today generation.

The dignity is a quintessential idea in the novel. In the film it is undeniably repeated many times in order to simply establish the importance of it to the readers and the viewers of Remains of the day. The idea of dignity here has revolved around from the perspective of professional success and achievements. But both Stevens and his father have been a merciless victim of "dignity". Stevens father also suppressed his feeling for dignity. He served indifferently to the general even though his son died in war because of his absurd decision ( the remains of the day). But the dignity is nothing but merely a product of social and traditional legacy passed on to the so-called English gentleman's society, which was an impediment to the growth of individuality.

Nonetheless, dignity is not a valuable security that Stevens had thought about throughout his youth while providing service to Lord Darlington. It is unfolded at the end quite dramatically in his life. Because of the dignity he had lost an opportunity of having an affair with Miss Kenton who is Emma Thompson in the movie. Miss Kenton has implied her interests and feelings to him couple of times and tried to convey her love. Once she was invited to go out for a dinner with Mr. Benn and later proposed to marry him. And when she got back to Darlington, she asked Stevens about his opinion on it. But Stevens remained cold and formal as usual and expressed only congratulation that was inadequate and ignited subtly Miss Kenton's emotional feelings( film- remains of the day). It is his dignity once again that has not only left his life sad and gloomy, but lonely as well. Stevens' dignity was all about Lord Darlington. His satisfaction comes from providing a better service without making silly mistakes. But the honor and dignity put Stevens in an awkward position. According to one of the critiques of the Remains of the day, Jennifer Bussey " what a terrible mistake he realized that he made about both his failed romance with her and his support of Lord Darlington's Nazi sympathies. This may be no more than denial and evasion in Anthony Hopkins' performance, but there is more at work in the novel"(critique on Remains).

Eventually, Steven's remuneration of service to lord Darlington has become a nostalgic memory only. Because of his dignity, he remained with the international congregation and did not go to see his dead father. He even had to keep his identity secrete from the outside world because disclosing his identity and his former employer Darlington would demean his value to the people of England. Essentially, his dignity made him a man who has no room for learning his feelings until the end. The director of the movie James Ivory says "he portrays a kind of butler who does not talk or share opinions, but observes and sees ways to serve the master" (ljlkjljlkj). Thus, his "dignity" and professionalism demolished his life that he could have had throughout his youth.

Bibliography

Ishiguro, Kazuo: The Remains of The Day.1989; London.

Cardullo, Bert: The servant, Eden-Webster Library. Info Trac One file Plus.

Jennifer, Bussey article: critical essay on "The Remains of the Day"

Ivory, Jmames: Remains of The Day. Colombia Pictures Ltd.

The Price of Being Perfect
THE REMAINS OF THE DAY is one of my all time favorite books, but when I heard about the film, way back in 1993, I was sure the book wouldn't translate well. It was far too interior and quiet. When I saw the film for the first time, I was really surprised. Merchant/Ivory, along with the extraordinary talented screenwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabuala, seemed to have done the impossible and I knew I'd buy the DVD the day it was released.

THE REMAINS OF THE DAY takes place in 1958 as James Stevens (Anthony Hopkins), a man of late middle age and the head butler at the sumptuous Darlington Hall, begins a motor journey across southern England to the West Country. The purpose of his trip, we learn, is to persuade Ms. Sally Kenton (Emma Thompson), once head housekeeper at Darlington Hall, to resume her old position and, perhaps, a bit more.

Most of the story is told in a series of flashbacks and we gradually come to know Stevens, Ms. Kenton and Lord Darlington (James Fox). Although THE REMAINS OF THE DAY centers on the relationship between Stevens and Ms. Kenton, there are subtle, but definite, political undertones in this film, for Lord Darlington is, of all things, a Nazi sympathizer who wants to prevent war. I've heard criticisms of the film because this subplot wasn't explored in greater detail, but I think Ishiguro (and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala) wrote just enough. To have expanded this subplot might have been interesting, but it would have definitely detracted from the more interesting main plot line, the relationship between Stevens and Ms. Kenton.

Almost from the beginning of the film, it's clear that Stevens and Ms. Kenton love each other. While Ms. Kenton does her best, however, she simply can't crack the wall Stevens has built around himself, the one he's been taught to build around himself, for, as long as Stevens can remember, his family has been "in service."

Stevens is the perfect butler, but at what cost? One of the film's most telling moments comes when Stevens' father, who is himself a retired head butler, dies in the servants' quarters of Darlington Hall. Although summoned by Ms. Kenton, Stevens, because of his strict adherence to perfection in work, and his dedication to "doing one's duty," does not abandon his post at a gala dinner party to be with his dying father.

Political disaster for Lord Darlington and personal disaster for Stevens dovetail in the film, but Stevens might just be given the second chance that most of us never get.

The end of THE REMAINS OF THE DAY is heartbreaking, but inevitable. This is a quiet, sad and extremely introspective film, yet it contains extraordinary emotion.

Anthony Hopkins as Stevens is perfection. Although Hopkins must show us a palette of emotions, he must show them with small gestures, mannerisms and facial expressions. Stevens is a highly complex man but he is, above all else, a man who represses his emotions.

Emma Thompson is Ms. Kenton is also perfect, but don't expect to see a lot of her in this film. This is Stevens' story and, as such, it's Hopkins who takes center stage.

Christopher Reeve is very good as Congressman Lewis, both as a guest of Lord Darlington and as the "new" owner of Darlington Hall. His part is small, though essential, and seeing him active and healthy only adds to this film's profound sense of sadness and loss.

The extras in this DVD include interviews with Merchant and Ivory as well as with Emma Thompson and they are so good, they make it worth owning the DVD rather than just renting it. THE REMAINS OF THE DAY is, at any rate, a DVD I think any film lover would want to own. It's absolute perfection and one I know I'll never tire of no matter how many times I watch it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Frenchman Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson), imprisoned for stealing bread, is paroled after nearly two decades of hard labor. A gift of silver candlesticks from a kindly priest helps him begin anew. Forging a decent and profitable existence, he finds success as a businessman and as the mayor of a small town. He even takes in a pregnant young woman (Uma Thurman) and raises her daughter as his own. When a former prison guard (Geoffrey Rush) recognizes Valjean, his past catches up to him. Director Bille August culls mesmerizing performances from his cast, but loses us with an ending that panders to teen audiences. The focus shifts dramatically, and uncomfortably, from the haunted Neeson and his hawk-like pursuer, to his daughter (Claire Danes) and her romance with a handsome revolutionary. After this narrative shift, the script leaves behind the Victor Hugo classic's themes of revenge and redemption to focus improbably on teen angst--hardly what Hugo had on his mind. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (160)

Absolutely beautiful!
I had never read the book, but had heard of the story numerous times. I'm a huge Liam Neeson fan, so I wanted to see it. I've now watched it six times! It is a wonderful story! Plenty of things going on to keep you waiting to see what will happen next. The characters are so real! You can't help but love and respect Valjean and all the changes he goes through. If only we could all learn from our mistakes as he does! To love a woman so much in so short a time to consent to raise and love her daughter as his own! Oh! Claire Danes is adorable as Cosette (of course!) And Marius - well lets just say it would be entirely possible to fall in love with him at first sight! The passion in his eyes when he speaks to her is enough alone! As I said, I hadn't read the book, so I had no idea what would happen to them and their newfound love. How stressful! I won't spoil it by saying what happens in the end, but let's just say it is well worth the watch! I have told all of my friends and family to get this movie! I have since read the book and am now saving my own copy of the letters Marius wrote to Cosette. If only men these days spoke of love in those words! I promise you, you will love this movie!

A Terrible Adaptation
This is a good movie. I mean, not badly cast. Lovingly done. The acting is great. Yeah, you should enjoy it. Assuming you know absolutely nothing about Victor Hugo's original story. The truth is, if I didn't know better, I'd say whoever wrote the script never read Hugo's masterpiece and based it completely on the 1935 version. Come to think of it, I don't know better. That's probably exactly what happened.

I never thought I'd say this, but I am so glad Hugo didn't have to live to see this movie.

If you've read the book, you will hate this film. TRUST me. The plot, especially toward the end, is mercilessly butchered and rewritten. At some points it becomes utterly unrecognizable. Many of the revisions completely miss or even destroy the essence of characters, and some do not even make sense, the movie ending with Jean Valjean jubilant over the death of Javet, whose life he has made an enormous sacrifice to save.

Likewise, Javert would never attack Cosette; he was obsessively professional, not cruel. Nor would end his life (with minimal explanation, no less) in front of Valjean. Marius would NEVER act like Enjolras (oh, I forgot, there IS no Enjolras). Neither Marius NOR Enjolras would smile at remarks about making love to Cosette, so I find it hard to believe that some mutant hybrid Marjolras would. Cosette would never consider leaving Marius, her soulmate, to stay with Valjean, her adoptive father. And above all, Jean Valjean would NEVER, EVER fall in love with Fantine. The mere suggestion of this limits the portrayal of his charity to people he takes a special interest in.

Small variations are to be expected in any film adaptation of a book, but these all completely distort characters. The people who made this movie may have gotten the message (love, charity, etc.), but they missed the point.

If you've never read the book, see this movie. It is touching and carries a good message.

But it is not Les Misérables.

Great movie, but.....
Great movie, but the book was better...The movie is about the ex-convict, Jean Valjean, trying to help Fantine, a poor woman trying to make enough money to pay the Thenardiers to take care of her child Cosette, and later raising Cosette as his own, while also being persued by the persistant Inspector Javert.

What happens in the movie basically happens in the book as well, but the book also has much more going on. The book has an intricate connection between many of the characters that the movie doesn't have, and also focuses on much more than Jean Valjean, whom the movie mostly focuses on.

I would suggest reading the book first, and then watching the movie.

An enjoyable classic!
I can't judge this movie fairly. I have read the book and watched the musical, both live and on DVD. So, naturally, I will be making subconscious comparisons, even though we all know that movies generally undertake their own artistic direction.

For one, although some people have claimed the storyline to be jumpy, I thought it was rather smooth-flowing, possibly because I already know the story beforehand. Although changes were made to the original story, for example, Valjean admitting to Cosette that he is a convict when he only did so before he died in the end, and Cosette remembering that Valjean is not her father when it was originally intended for her to believe that he was her real father, these changes were probably made to accommodate the short play time (2 hours is barely enough to fit in a 1484-pages story).

Liam Neeson portrayed Valjean to be exactly the way Hugo would have intended Valjean to be. In the beginning, he was a hard, animalistic beast of a man. But Neeson is able to morph into the gentle Mayor with ease, and that highlights Valjean's transformation. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as Javert. Never was there anyone more suited to play the cold, sadistic inspector. Uma Thurman is surprisingly convincing as Fantine. I had begun to stereotype her as the sort of action-thriller-sci-fi flick girl but this proved me wrong. Watch this movie for these three actors alone, for they bring class to your living room.

What I didn't like about the movie was the lack of development on the revolution. Hugo was a revolutionary. He wanted Les Mis to ignite the people's spirits. The revolution was a crucial scene, and the death of the revolutionaries a touching one. Through this movie, I can barely recognize which ones are Enjolras, Courfeyrac, Feuilly etc and yet the character names appear on the credit roll in the end.

The change of the ending (with Valjean walking free) did not leave much of an impact on me compared with the original ending. I loved the last page of Hugo's novel, where Cosette read Valjean's letter. Valjean had a tragic life. He was one of the Les Miserables, the underdogs, the wretched. For me, they had distorted the true message of Les Mis by changing the ending of the wonderful classic.

i didnt like it
I seen this Movie in English. and i didnt like it at all. i found it boring and the guyz hittin faintain and it isnt right. my friends and i didnt like it at all. it had a story... buh it was kind of jumpy. we only watched the first part, i would like to see the second part just to see how it all ends and everything. but to be honest i didnt like the movie at all. i am a grade 9 student and i dont think i know anyone who likes the movie. other then the teacher (maybe) ... Read more

Album Description

Import only NTSC/Region 1 DVD. The touching story of a man (Tim Roth) who was born and raised on a ship. His only interactions with the outside world are through the ship's passengers. As he matures, he becomes an accomplished pianist, and eventually falls in love with a woman who threatens to tempt him into stepping off the ship for the very first time. Tornatore's fairytale is at once a tender and moving motion picture that gives Roth a chance to shine. Stars Tim Roth, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Clarence Williams III, Melanie Thierry, Bill Nunn, Peter Vaughan. Directed by Giuseppe Tornatore. Widescreen 2.35:1, 1989, 125 minutes. 2001. ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Music Of The Ocean
You probably know Tim Roth from playing bad guys, as in "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction", "Planet of the Apes" --if you didn't notice, he was the bad ape--, or ,even, in "Vatel". Now, watching "The Legend of 1900", you'll be surprised seeing him playing the title role, 1900 -- yes, this is his name-- who is a very melacholic musician.

1900 was found in a ship when was still a baby. Adoped by one of the men who worked in it, he grew up watching people immigrate to America and being greeted by the Statue of Liberty. He is a natural born musician, so he can perfectly play piano, and it starts to call people's attention. So the film follows the life of this man who never leaves the ship. The story is told by one of his band mates.

The script is very fine, balacing some funny moments and some melancholics events. It is impossible to forget the impressive duel between 1900 and the father of the jazz. And Ennio Morricone's score is superb. The music that 1900 'composes' in the very moment a record is being recorded and he falls for a beautiful girl resonated in my mind for days. This piece is deeply touching. Giuseppe Tornatore is, as everybody knows, Italian and he directs the movie with the Italian approach, in other words, it will touch your heart and will make you cry many times.

There is no doubt that Tim Roth is the heart, soul and fingers of the film. Although he does not play piano, he just mimes, it is so good that one may think he is actually playing the songs. Other thing that is not impossible to avoid mentioning is his eyes. They are so deep and expressive. Most of his feelings are expressed by those melancholic pair of eyes. 1900 grabs your heart and, even though being so surreal, he looks so believable that you think you're watching a story very likely to have happened.

I recomend this movie for those who like Italian Cinema, and music as well. I don't think this is the kind of film for everyone, but, surely, it has its audience.

Incredibly well done!
I agree with some other reviews I've read above on how some people criticize this movie too easily. I don't think it's necessary to sit down and watch it with some preconcieved idea as to what to expect, rather than just let the movie and the soundtrack seduce you to it's full extent. I believe Guiseppe Tornatore and Ennio Morricone have put together a film that will be referred back to by many generations. It's one of those films that refuses to age in time. The brilliant performance by Tim Roth in an not-so-usual role brings to life 1900, a character so much within us all, representing what he has to say and do in this world through his magnificent piano-playing, ("A light that shines so bright yet for so little time"...taken from blade runner). I haven't the slightest intention of drawing any conclusion for the reviewer of this movie but if your not into great expectations, you'll probably wind up with more than that at the end of the film. My opinion is that the story didn't necessarily need to take place on an ocean liner, it could have been anywhere where 1900 felt safe and secluded from the bustle of the surrounding world but through his greatness as a pianist, he was always bound for fame and glory as well as his inevitablity. I feel it's important to get this point across to those who feel the need to compare this "insignificant" aspect with the movie "Titanic", yet I would have wished half the musical score in "Titanic" this film has. The main character leaves me with the sensation that he's subconsciously set out the task to leave a mark on this Earth while he's never literally set foot on dry ground and that all of us who have strived in our own lives can relate to easily yet again, he leaves an unfinished task to those who haven't. My advice, get the DVD, listen to the beautiful music and put your thoughts aside, the film will do the rest and you'll surely be wanting to see it more than once!

one of the greatest movies ever made w/o commercial minded
this is one of the most profound movies i've ever viewed. 'red violin' is good but not as good as this one. some of the other great movies that are always on my mind are: "the music teacher", 'somewhere in time'. i'd like to thank to those producers who could put this kind movie into production without putting the big denero boxoffice in mind. otherwise we would never have any chance to have such sublime and profound feelings and opportunity to learn that we do also have some passions revived by such great stories.

A mythical fable
This work of Giuseppe Tornatore is an original issue in the celluloid.
The story tells us about a child born in the middle of the ocean , (so forget about what's his birthplace), that lack of no land human being gives him that mythical character.
The script shows the process of growing up of this boy , who gradually became in the official pianist of that ship called Virginian, (another smart clue) .
The time comes for him , the piano and his intimate friend , the trumpeter are the only friends he has.
All the story is told in third person, before a seller of old musical instruments and musical scores; I mean a true dialogue between two categories of memories ; the emotional and the historical.
In that sense Tornatore signs his directorial prints on his favorite theme: the memory. That's the clever device of Cinema Paradiso.
But the pianist (in a brilliant performing of this underestimated actor of one million carats talent, Tim Rith), refuses in every decisve moment to leave his own country ship; he belongs to it. He was born there and a invisible link ties him: not even the only love , and mighty inspiration motive for his best composition is capable of make leaving his water home.
Beautiful , poetical and amazing tale with multiple laughable sequences, are surrounded by that duty fate of mixing with the ground land .
An unforgettable experience that will reward you from beginning to end.
Don't miss this one.

The Legend of 1900
This is undoubtedly the VERY BEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL movie I have ever seen. It is a movie that, after you have seen it, you can not forget. The story and characters, and music, haunt you, and Tim Roth is unbelievably fabulous. I can not understand why this movie, Tim Roth, and the soundtrack, did not win some major awards because the movie certainly deserved best picture of the year, Tim Roth deserved best actor, and the haunting and very original soundtrack should have also received the top academy award. This movie is even better than Cinema Paridiso, which is also one of my other favorite films. I buy this movie for everyone I really like. Lucky for me that I heard about this movie only on the Netflix website and ordered it. Why did this movie never get the publicity it deserved (that is something that I would like to know from anyone out there who may know)?? ... Read more

Reviews (77)

It's About Time
You'd be hard pressed to find a story more compelling than the one that inspired Arthur Miller's 1953 drama The Crucible. Except the one about how it became a movie. It's taken all these years to bring a full version to the screen, and the only thing that explains it is Hollywood's perpetual cluelessness. The Salem witch trials of 1692 destroyed nineteen lives and countless reputations. Hoodwinked by a bunch of flighty teenage girls who wished to escape a whipping for their frolics in the woods, the town brought in the colony magistrates to sort out the devils from the angels.

Miller, who also wrote the screenplay, expresses his blatant contempt for hypocrisy in all forms through the character of John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a humble but once-adulterous farmer. Proctor's sexual escapades with the town's main accuser Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) could, through the girl's treachery, end in his wife's hanging. He can either save himself with a lie or free Elizabeth (Joan Allen) with the truth about himself and Abigail.

It's potent stuff any way you slice it, and the actors here aren't afraid to take big bites of their meaty roles. The film's pacing is fast and furious, hysterical like the history of the event it interprets. If it lacks the McCarthyist subtext it once had, so what. This here's a tragedy--a good old American one.

The movie's inevitable ending won't satisfy those who want only fluff and feathers at the cinema, but the hard lesson won by those who refuse to compromise their principles can't be denied. The Crucible is a faithful testament to their sacrifice.

Great Adaptation of an American Masterpiece
Since Miller helped write the screenplay and one of his sons produced or coproduced the movie, it shouldn't be a shock that the movie is so faithful to the original text where it needs to be and broadens the story where it needs to, as well. Miller knows how to write for the stage, and he apparently knows how to write for the screen, also. After seeing so many "classic" books and/or plays butchered by Hollywood, this movie is a real delight, despite its morbid and all-too-realistic story. This movie has become an essential to my Grade 11 American Literature classes, spectacularly complementing their reading of Miller's play and several pieces from the Salem Witch Trial era.

Ignoring the play's historic flaws and inaccuracies (that's another debate for another time), Miller brilliantly captured the essence of the Salem Witch Trials in his play and has conveyed them to the screen. Hatred, fear, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious mania, attention-seeking, conviction, strength, determination, repentance, and a host of other emotions and character traits are vividly brought to life by a superb cast: Daniel Day-Lewis is a great John Proctor (nobody else could have done better), Winona Ryder is very good as the conniving and bitter Abigail Williams, Joan Allen was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, and Paul Scofield should have won an Oscar for his cold-hearted portrayal of Justice Danforth. The conflict between Proctor and Danforth is what sustains the play's momentum for the second and third acts (about the last hour and fifteen minutes of the movie), and Lewis and Scofield bring that epic conflict to life: the classic good v. evil, with the sides getting somewhat mixed up as to who is who. . . . Lewis plays the flawed hero to Scofield's self-righteous and vindictive villain with palpable energy. How Scofield's performance was overlooked by the Academy is just another example of their oblivion. He gives me the willies with his methodical, calculating delivery of Miller's chilling dialogue: "Who weeps for these weeps for corruption" (among a bunch of great lines from the play/movie).

This isn't simply a play enacted in front of movie cameras (like Death of a Salesman). The director uses his camera very effectively, capturing some great close-up moments, unique perspectives and camera angles, and bringing a sense of "bigness" to the whole story. The play can seem very isolated, with its sparse sets and black-and-white costumes. Miller also expands the movie to begin well before the play does (giving the movie-goer information that he must have assumed the play-reader would already have) and extending it beyond the conviction of Proctor to include his execution, along with that of Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. Just as a side note, each of those three was hanged in a separate group in the original trials--great symbolism from Miller, including each larger original group of victims in the final trio. Also great symbolism in Proctor's Christ-like physical placement in the middle of the two "sinners," as he takes their sins upon him--the crucifixion is represented very effectively.

Bottom line: You won't see a better adaptation of a play to movie anytime soon. Nothing essential is left out, and some nice details are brought in to give the movie a distinction from its original source, the play. If you can make it through this play and not be outraged by the injustice and hypocrisy, then you have a heart as cold as Danforth's. What Miller would likely want you to do is apply that outrage to similar situations that go on every day, just as he intended with his original play (the McCarthy hearings, the "Red" Scare). At least watch the movie, though.

"Your justice would freeze beer."
Although the playwright Arthur Miller was also the screenwriter for this production starring Winona Ryder and Daniel Day-Lewis, the film bears little resemblance to the play in tone and impact. Director Nicholas Hytner has abandoned the intimate, almost claustrophobic atmosphere of the dark, interior scenes in the play, in favor of an expansive setting, with many scenes set outside, including panoramic shots of Salem in 1692, full of costumed "citizens." The expanded setting makes the psychology and motivation of the witchcraft hysteria more difficult to determine, since the intensity of the settlers' repressed, interior lives is not obvious. The explanatory notes which Miller incorporates into the play about land disputes, religious controversies, and personal animosities, which led to specific individuals being accused and arrested for witchcraft, are seen only peripherally.

As a result, we see Winona Ryder, as Abigail Williams, and her coterie of bewitched girls, screaming hysterically and accusing innocent women of witchcraft without the background which would make these accusations plausible. Her previous relationship with John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), in the absence of other motivations, seems to be the primary reason for her behavior, but this thwarted love does not explain the extent of her rage and, especially, the involvement of the other girls. Day-Lewis is reduced to the role of victim, and one of the hallmarks of his acting, his subtlety, is absent here, except in a wonderful final scene with his wife, played by Joan Allen. Details of the scenery also ring false--houses in this period were very small because of the difficulty of heating, one third the size they are here, and the church/meeting houses were modest in accordance with religious restrictions against unnecessary display.

This is a Hollywood version of the witchcraft trials, capitalizing on the sensational at the expense of the complex and subtle forces behind the accusations of witchcraft--the Indian wars which were just ending, the growing independence of individuals, the increasing resentment of hard-line theocratic rule, the abolition of traditional property laws, and most importantly, the lack of any societal role whatsoever for young women, who were not old enough to assume a woman's role and who, bored and left out of decision-making, were on their own in dealing with their adult feelings. The film is beautiful, and the acting, though one-dimensional, is as effective as it can be in the absence of fully-developed motivation for the girls' hysteria. The "witches" are reduced to cartoons here, and Miller's parallels between these trials and the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which give the play a modern context, are missing. Mary Whipple

A Superbly Directed and Acted Film
It is rare nowadays that I come out of a movie feeling moved and enlightened. Suffice it to say that when I first saw The Crucible in the theatre several years ago, I left the movie understanding a bit more about human nature and a greater appreciation for the power of group hysteria. This film draws on the fine acting talents of Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder (in her best role ever), and Joan Allen. Not only is the dialogue brilliant, but the emotional content is incredibly affecting. I am so glad to see it finally on DVD. In this day and age of disposable art, it is heartening to see that movies of this caliber are still being made (even if it is with less frequency).

A great film
I have seen this movie perhaps a dozen times, and never tire of it. It is one of the most compelling, well-written movies I can think of, and the acting is superb throughout, particularly from Day-Lewis, who gives a heart-stopping performance. Because of its theme about witches, the movie gets played a lot around Halloween, but it is by no means a horror movie. It's not even a thriller, really, yet it does manage to thrill and keep the viewer totally involved. I love this movie and can't wait for the DVD. ... Read more

Amazon.com

What's scarier than scary kids? Village of the Damned is the definitive scary-kid classic, a truly unsettling film drawn from John Wyndham's novel The Midwich Cuckoos. The brilliant opening sequence depicts the sudden and temporary paralysis of a small English hamlet, which is followed by the town's women becoming mysteriously pregnant. The spawn of this occurrence are a dozen eerie, blond-headed children, who are either gifted, evil, or "the world's new people." A splendid outing, not least in the way it catches parental anxiety about this small new stranger in one's home. (It was remade by John Carpenter in 1995.)

Children of the Damned follows up with a story about six more creepy kids, brought from all over the globe to huddle in a old church in London. An excellent opening half-hour gets bogged down in the movie's global-political ambitions (it's very much a cold war offering), but it has its share of shivery moments--the sight of the six youngsters striding down a London street as though they controlled the world is a chiller. But where's the blond hair? The two films are different in tone; Village feels like a fifties sci-fi offering, with an old-school star (George Sanders) and classical style; Children is a film of the sixties, with hipper techniques, urban setting, and young actors Ian Hendry and Alan Badel. But both have those damned kids. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (5)

invasion of the aryan children from outer-space
Truly this a classic of both science-fiction as well as horror.
Of course the horror is not the traditional bloodletting but rather psychological.It reads like a hitler youths takeover of a
typical english village "while everybody is asleep".these fatherless children all sport blond hair & blue eyes and definite
ideas about how things should run in the now quaranteed village.
They also seem to exhibit no distinct personnalities but more of a "group mind"(hence the fachism analogy)that has no problem crushing all dissidents , even their own parents.

On the technical side I have to again commend Warner for including it's sequel (children of the damned)on the disc , making it a great value.While the sequel suffers in comparison
to the original it's still worth seeing.
We as customers should support Warner & it's "double bill" DVD's
so that other companies might jump on the bandwaggon (so far only
MGM has released some interesting double bills)and increase the circulation of classic films on DVD.

A Different Type Of Village People!
Caught this flick by chance on TCM yesterday a.m. and watched it straight through (which was easy, considering it clocked in at a mere 77m). A truly creepy beginning leads to a disturbing middle which then leads to a shocking conclusion. All told a great sci-fi/horror flick without an ounce of blood (why horror? The scene where the kids will a guy to blow his head off with a shotgun is terrifying!). The eyes are creepy, the blonde wigs are creepy, heck, even the clothes the kids wear are creepy. A real great flick from the British school of cinema. Disturbing? You bet. But quite entertaining.

Classic British Science Fiction
This original black and white version of Village of the Damned is one of my all-time favorites. It stands head and shoulders above most of the other entries from this era by avoiding the pitfalls the others fell into.
The film is unrelenting in its bleakness, and there is not one second of humor to relieve the tension that slowly builds to the film's climax. Yet it is subtle and unpretentious, and the performances are understated and convincing. I consider this to be among the finest appearances by George Sanders; say what you will about him a person, he was perfect for the part of the father in Village.
This film is uncompromised by sentimentality, and there are no punches pulled in any scene, least of all the climax. That being said, the director never stoops to resorting to gore or gratuitous violence, but prepare yourself for a very unsettling experience.
Village of the Damned is far superior to its sequel (as is almost always the case) as it is to most other films of the same genre and period. It is also much better than the remake with Christopher Reeve, although the newer film is better than I expected.
If you're looking for a feel-good, lighthearted film watching experience, look elsewhere. But if you love well-made classic science fiction, this is one to add to your collection.

STILL HEAVY!!!
I remember my parents taking me to the village of the Damned when I was 8 or 9 years old and it totally freaked me out!! To make things worse, they took me back to see the sequel!! Spent the whole movie on the floor of the theater (Ha! Ha!)I saw the film recently and it stands up very well (much better than the colorized remake). The kids eyes are truly frightening!! The plot also stands up very well (at least the first of the two films). This film is as high a quality as, and is similar to, original episodes of the twilight zone. NOW: will they get around to releasing DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS on DVD?

Scared The Crap Outta Me!!!
First, let's do the math . . . it's May 26, 2004 and the DVD for this flick isn't coming out for another 2, 3 months or so. I haven't seen this movie in it's entirety since I saw it in a theatre in 1960 or 1961! (When I was 8 or 9 years old.) I can't recall much of the plot but it seems to me that it's a bit clumsy if not contrived. But the kids with the glowing eyes really freaked me out! Hokey by today's standards but very effective then. And there's that one scene where someone, a man I think, is threatening the kids and this little boy says to him, "Leave us alone! Leave us alone!" And then the glowing eyes thing starts! Very eerie. I'm gonna get the DVD just to see if my memory of this movie is justified! Bring it on! ... Read more

Reviews (59)

My all-time favorite movie!
In my opinion, this is the most beautiful movie ever made. The mixture of humor and drama truly make it relative to real life. To watch Larry, a man on a journey to discover, not only himself, but also the meaning of Life, is what makes this movie special. What is remarkable is that the tragedy that Larry must face at the end is what actually leads to his final understanding of what the gift of life really is. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who appreciates the beauty that can be found in life, even during dark times.

Literature that sweats
Remember all of those tiresome books you were REQUIRED to read - and read in Cliff's Notes - if at all? The ones with characters that seemed so odd - not really real? Totally removed from anyone you personally knew? Bill Murray took a lot of heat for doing this movie (the backstory is wonderful), but I think it's his best work. His portrayal of Larry Darrell is filled with vitality and authenticity. Somerset Maugham may not have mentioned the fact that Larry was occasionally known to scratch in public; Murray plays Darrell in a way that convinces me that the man was fully human, itches and all. Bill entertained in other movies; in this one, he proved he was a good actor. Everyone shines in this movie, but Bill Murray is the surprize. Add in the story, and the occasional engaging character, and you have a worthy addition to your movie library. (OK, here's the backstory: apparently, Murray bought the rights to "The Razor's Edge" - and then couldn't get a studio to make it. Then a studio offers to make the movie, if he'll appear in one they want him for - a movie he turns down twice, but finally accepts - a little thing called "Ghostbusters".)

Who are we? Why are we here??
I am of Irish-German heritage, raised Catholic, now studying Hinduism. I can say this movie has profoundly impacted my life and recommend it to anyone looking for an entertaining and serious adventure that embraces the search for self-realization.

This has to be my favorite movie of all time. I've seen this movie, repeatedly, beginning in 1986 at the age of fifteen. I didn't know what its messages were back then but I continued to rent it off-and-on as I grew older in hopes I could realize more of the movie's riddles that caught my attention from the start. Especially, when Murray's talking with the Dhalai Lama and asks, "Is it true? That it's easier to be a monk on the top of a mountain?" And the Dalai Lama responds, "It is true that living a spiritual life is like walking on a razor's edge."

Bill Murray's dramatic performance was compelling for me because he took a risk stepping outside of his comedic role-playing (his career stereo-type) to portray a character searching for the meaning of life--Siskel & Ebert identified this as the reason the movie didn't score well at the box office in 1984.

I've seen Seven Years in Tibet with Brad Pitt, and I have to say that my opinion of the movie was biased because I found myself returning to The Razor's Edge as a gauge for comparison--even though both movies were based on non-fictional characters.

Although the content of The Razor's Edge may be heavy, you won't walk away disappointed. In fact, I'm buying a copy from Amazon.com for my own library so I don't have to try and find it at the video store next month :)

A Quest for Wisdom
There's no need to go into a long synopsis of this movie, or to analyze Bill Murray's performance. This is a movie about a regular guy that suddenly has his world shattered, and so he sets off on a quest for wisdom. As for Murray's portrayal of the central role, Larry Darell, I thought it was perfectly fitting that a man most of us see as a kind of big-hearted clown is here cast as a spiritual adventurer. After all, must these two types by very different from each other? The movie works very well if you don't try to typecast Murray or go into the story with preconceptions about what kind of character Larry Darell is supposed to be. In fact, a big message in the story is about not being trapped by preconceptions about the way things are "supposed to be".

Some of the images in this movie are stunning, and there are times when I get the feeling that I'm looking at one of those Asian landscape paintings in which the tiny figure of a man sits in silent meditation among great mountains, a broad sky, and placid valleys. Without beating you over the head with it, the camera work constantly reminds you that life is bigger than you and that the world is full of wonders. The story reminds us that such wonders can be either beautiful or ugly, with many of them being both at the same time.

The reason I don't give it 5 stars? It left a lot of character development unaddressed, and the viewer simply had to fill in the blanks for many of Larry's challenges and realizations. If you don't find it tugging at your heart, and if you don't find yourself solemnly nodding at some of its poignant observations about life, and then laughing at some folly we all share, then it's not due the movie's shortcomings.

Poor Acting, Poor Editing
First off, I like Bill Murray. Unfortunately he simply doesn't have the acting talent to play this role. He tries, but he does not have the dramatic or emotional depth required of the role. One would be better off reading the book. ... Read more

Reviews (80)

That's Amore!!
I love LOVE this movie! I am sure I have seen it more than eight times since it's initial release...So, beware of it's addictive qualities! This is one of those movies I tell people at the local video store about. As soon as I spot a couple looking for a great flick, I ask if they have seen "An Ideal Husband". It's that good.

Minnie Driver, Cate Blanchett, Julianne Moore, and my new favorite guy, Rupert Everett are the main players in this scrumptious, scandalous tale set in London. It's a period film filled with fabulous homes and costumes.

This movie has everything...love, scandal, letter-chasing, intrigue, politics, affairs, and of course lies. Everybody is involved in gossip. Who was with who?, Who did what?...and the fabulous threads of lies and manipualtion that trickle through the ever twisting and changing plot.

The acting and cast are fabulous. I couldn't have asked for better. Julianne Moore plays a bewitching role as the scandalous visitor from Vienna who loves to start trouble.
The man caught in the middle of the whole mess is Aurthur (Everett), basically the main character that stands amidst of all tradgedies and intrigue that revolve around him and his friends and lovers. He keeps himself busy surrounded by so many catastrophies of the heart, while searching his own.

This movie is a must-own. Charming and fun, it's like a great game of Clue. Who did What, Where, and with Whom.

Charming film, beautifully filmed
The publicity for this film led me to expect quite a different story -- one where Rupert Everett is chased by women intent on marriage. Ho-hum. The film is nothing like it. Jeremy Northam is a man who in youth committed an error of judgement, on which his success and fortune is now based. He is being called to task by Julianne Moore, who does a superb job as the self-serving blackmailer. Cate Blanchette as Northam's wife is forced to choose between her hard-nosed ethics and her love (and she is deeply in love with her husband, he with her, in the sort of charming relationship one rarely sees in a Hollywood production). Then Everett hovers about, a lazy, highly opinionated, and amusingly narcissistic man who finds himself the hero and in love, all in the course of just a few days of his life. A big about-face for a man who seemed so strongly focused on his playboyish, trivial but apparently satisfying lifestyle. Minnie Driver is his love interest, although their whole relationship develops from bickering, to revelation, to romance, right before our eyes. All five main characters are well balanced throughout the film, and all actors play their roles exceedingly well. The men are human, not superheros; the women are tough and intelligent. Emotions play along healthily in each scene, as the story progresses to the will-he, won't-he scene, then beyond to the repercussions and finally the ending, when everyone good-humoredly discovers and accepts that they are all only human. Lovely, entertaining film.

"IT'S NOT THE PERFECT, BUT THE IMPERFECT WHO NEED LOVE"
Don't let the aristocratic costumes deceive you, this is not a story of stifling high-teas consumed in opulent drawing rooms! It's a deliriously enjoyable comedy with colorful dashes of shady plots and mischievous romances.

While a good deal of the wickedly whimsical adaptation of Oscar Wilde's play derives from antics that're suited to stage farces -- switched letters, mistaken identities, farcical blackmailing & ensuing intrigue -- it is ultimately a