Reviews (351)

Hail to the Queen!
During its theatrical run, critical praise of ELIZABETH was subdued somewhat due to the film's historical inaccuracy and emphasis on melodrama. While both of these observations are admittedly correct, ELIZABETH is none-the-less a spectacular production. From the riveting opening credits to the chilling finale, this movie is full of provocative dramatic elements: sex, betrayal, politics, religion, violence, and revenge. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are outstanding. The settings alternate between dank medieval gloom and brilliant regal spendor. Cate Blanchett gives a dynamic performance of Meryl Streep calibre. (She should have won the Oscar, but ELIZABETH wasn't nearly as popular as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.) In plot and theme, ELIZABETH is like a hybrid of THE LION IN WINTER and THE GODFATHER. It begins as the reign of Elizabeth's sister, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary")is coming to an end. The film then details the controversial ascension of Protestant young Elizabeth to the throne. The movie focuses on the early years of her reign, as Elizabeth struggles to solidify her power and overcome conflicts of religion and political intrigue; questions of marriage; and numerous plots to depose or assassinate her. As previously mentioned, the movie takes a good deal of license with history, taking events and relationships that occurred throughout Elizabeth's reign and condensing them into the first few years of her reign. Overall, ELIZABETH is an excellent production-- as chilling and dramatic as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is romantic and funny. The two films are wonderful counterparts.

Not Your Average Costume Drama
Shekar Kapur's account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign in not your average costume drama, it is a visceral and entrancing film that despite all the historical inaccuracies that other reviewers have noted (and they are many), perfectly captures the climate of religious conflict, struggle for power and constant danger that characterised the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Michael Hirst's script portrays the young queen as an innocent caught in the throes of international politics, who by the end of the film has become a calculating monarch willing to sacrifice almost anything to ensure her survival and the welfare and prosperity of her kingdom. Kapur's brilliant direction gives the film a vertiginous rhythm, while Remi Adefarasin's ominous cinematography adds a menacing and sinister atmosphere that sometimes gives Elizabeth the feel of a horror movie. Also worthy of praise are the magnificent production design, the gorgeous costumes and a surprisingly eclectic soundtrack that includes Byrd, Mozart, Holst and Elgar as well as some great original music.

The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke of Norfolk; Richard Attenborough as Cecil, Elizabeth's most loyal and trusted aide; and Kathy Burke as the frustrated and paranoid "Bloody Mary". However, the real jewel is Cate Blanchett's amazing, star-making turn as the title character. She gives a complex, mesmerising and moving performance as she makes the transition from scared and vulnerable young woman to quasi-preternatural icon.

If you are interested in the "true historical facts" of Elizabeth's reign you should choose a documentary of one of the many great books that have been written about her (my favourite is Alison Weir's biography), but if you are looking for a great cinematic experience that explores the young queen's personality and motivations in remarkable depth this is definitely the one to choose. In my opinion Shekar Kapur's masterpiece is the best film of its kind.

Entertaining, but wildly inaccurate
If you're not bothered by historical inaccuracies, then go ahead and check out this movie. It's extremely well-acted for the most part, although Fiennes's Dudley turns milksop in an entirely fictitious turn of events that aligns him with a Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots (whose death in the movie is all wrong, too). Events from decades later are all condensed into what is clearly supposed to be the first year or two of Elizabeth's reign (which begain in 1558): Norfolk didn't rebel until the Northern Rebellion in 1569; Elizabeth wasn't excommunicated until 1570; she didn't even enter the Anjou courtship until 1578; and Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded in public, not murdered in her bed, and that not until almost thirty years later, in 1587! Furthermore, in 1558 Lord Robert Dudley was not yet Earl of Leicester (he wouldn't be until Elizabeth gave him that title in 1564, and he was NEVER a duke!), and as another reviewer has pointed out, there's certainly more drama and intrigue in his REAL story than the movie allows -- he was rumored to have murdered his wife, Amy Robsart, after all.

I won't go on, but my point is that there is a hell of a lot wrong with the storyline that didn't even need to be wrong. It's still an entertaining movie, as I mentioned before, and Cate Blanchett really does deliver an exceptional performance. But at least some sort of gesture towards a measure of historical accuracy would have been appreciated.

Well acted, but distorts the actual events
Elizabeth is a well acted and entertaining movie, with some very well done performances and is visually stunning. The problem is that the writers decided to change so many events, that it ends up unnecessarily distorting the actual history.

To see a factual, well-acted, and still superb movie of the same era, get the 1971 film "Mary Queen of Scots" with Vanessa Redgrave. Not only does this follow the actual events, but the drama of 2 queens battling for power is so forcibly played that you can watch it over and over

What's wrong with the real story?
Lovely, beautifully acted, blah blah...

But why would the producers/writers take such an EXCITING true story, and change all the facts, and make is so much boring than it actually was? The real story has everything: romance, murder, betrayal, a wife pushed down the stairs, politics... so why turn it into such a dull, ordinary, mushy romance?

If you want to watch a strong woman influencing world events, watch "The Lion in Winter." If you want to read about the TRUE story of Elizabeth's ascent to the throne, read Alison Weir's books. If you want to watch a goopy romance movie, there are plenty of much better ones to choose from. But don't waste your time with this movie. ... Read more

Reviews (150)

Monsters, Madmen & Art
This tale of the supression and imprisonment of the Marquis De Sade in the insane asylum at Charenton and the ensuing struggle and turmoil caused by the arrival of Dr. Royer-Collard to stop his smuggled-out writings from being published has much to recommend it, especially in the first half of the film. Chiefly the performances of Jeffrey Rush as De Sade, Joaquin Phoenix as the caring and humane Abbe Coulmier in charge of Charenton, and Kate Winslet as the sympathetic laundress, Madeleine, who is smuggling the manuscripts for fun and profit.

This De Sade is a monster of sorts, not so much of depravity, as of vanity and selfishness & self-obsession. He is compelled to write at any cost, and is by turns clever and obnoxious and self-destructive and indifferent to anything or anyone but his own need for self-expression. Well-played by Rush, he is a reminder that art mustn't be confused with the artist--terrible people can create beauty. In this instance, the art of De Sade may not be beautiful and may not even be "art" to most minds, but the need to create is real and just as valid with bad art as with genius and must be protected.

Winslet and Phoenix present foils for De Sade in the forms of, by turns, an enticing virgin intrigued by and intriguing with the Marquis and a conflicted man of the cloth enjoying the intellectual challenge of the man while protecting and seeing to his care. Both are fine.

Alas, we come to the fourth character in this drama, the conservative Dr. Royer-Collard played by Michael Caine. A bureaucrat and a closet sadist, before the name had become attached to the behavior (bit of irony there), he is such a villain that he only lacks a long black moustache to twirl. I won't fault Caine because I imagine he's playing him as written, and, especially in one scene at a door in the Apocalyptic finale I felt expected to hiss & boo him. The finale was a bit much as well.

But it is the Caine character that brings the movie down to my mind. It is too much an obvious and cheap shot. The mendacious conservative. It would have been so much more interesting had the character not been so one-dimensional in his evil. When we first are introduced to him, Dr. Royer-Collard looked to be interesting: a true believer in his own nutty cures (soaking madmen upside down to calm them) so I had hopes of an exploration of two halves of crazy extremes, the libertine (De Sade) and the orthodox conservative, the incendiary & the politician. Both monsters & madmen in their own ways. Well, you won't find it here. What you get is beknighted artist and slimy bad guy. Cliches. Also, the subplot of Royer-Collard's young wife is a wasted & unnecessary plot device, no more.

What you will find is some extreme behaviour from Rush in a good, but at times mannered performance, [an incomplete] defense of art at any cost, a penny-dreadful villain, some nice honest performances from the younger set (Winslet & Phoenix), a fiery finale that is over-the-top and a bit silly, and an ending that is not a twist or surprise but wants to be. Snappy dialogue isn't enough to carry the day.

Yet, Phil Kaufman is too intelligent and talented a director to make a boring film, and this isn't one. The production values are great and this is a film at least about SOMETHING, and there are ideas afloat here. While I think it ultimately didn't convince me, it is a worthy effort. Probably 3-1/2 stars.

Delicious dramatic period piece from Philip Kaufmann.
While I can't help but laugh at the fact they made the Marquis de Sade the central character in a story about artistic expression and sexual repression, I can understand why. Here is a man who wallowed in excess, seeming unconcerned with the weight of his decisions, his only escape and expression the very thing that caused his downfall. The Marquis de Sade was not a martyr for freedom of speech. He was a seriously disturbed individual whose callous disregard for mankind (he thought murder should be a privilage for the rich) was reflected in his writing. But here he is a curious old coot, with a marvelous sense of humor and a deeply hidden soft side. But Geoffrey Rush's performance makes it all easier to swallow. He is a brave actor (appearing completely nude in several scenes) who loves to portray wounded characters and he simply shines. Kate Winslet (likewise great and brave) plays the innocent laudry maid Madeleine who secretly sneaks the Marquis' writing out of the asylum where he is kept and into the arms of a publisher. When these writings reach the hands of Napoleon, the emperor sends an accomplished doctor, Royer Collard (the great Michael Caine), to silence him, undermining the authority of the asylum's resident priest (Joaquin Phoenix), who sees Sade as a creature who must be saved and who NEEDS to write in order to clean his soul. The film is filled with sexual energy, reaching certain points of eroticism that recall director Philip Kaufman's earlier masterpiece 'The Unbearable Lightness Of Being'. This is a beautiful film, nicely detailed and extremely playful. It is also dark and grisly, nothing too graphic yet certainly unsettling at times. I suppose, if nothing else, 'Quills' does stand as a 'freedom of speech' movie. I look at it as a film which simultaneously acknowledges our fasination with sex and spanks us for our dirty thoughts. But it ultimately reminds us that we all have a right to be heard and that everything has an audience. And if you've just finished watching this movie, well then thank you for helping me prove that point.

RECIPE FOR A FIERCE BUT INTOXICATING COMIC ROMP
Take a controversial character, for instance, an infamous French aristocrat who writes fearlessly explicit pornographic tales from his asylum jail cell to which he has been consigned for committing violent crimes of passion.

Cast a maniacal Geoffrey Rush in that role, and use him with more than a pinch of artistic license, to philosophically discuss censorship and freedom of expression in art. Tipped in water-tight dialogue and a dramatically dark ink.

Throw in some action and intrigue, for example, our incarcerated prisoner having to smuggle his lurid works out of the asylum via a sweet, innocent maid who gains vicarious pleasure from reading the stories to self and others.

Of course, a dash of morality never hurt, so add a holier-than-thou priest who brings to the table a fresh aroma of common sensibility.

Stir well and add spice to taste. Viewers will revel in the mind play between the sordid characters you have created and be aghast at the depths to which it is possible for them to stoop. There, you have a marvel of a film that'll be seen again and again.

Quills is without reservations a fascinating cinematic masterpiece of our time, in every sense of the word, and deserves a warm place in every self-respecting film collection.

A great achievement!!
I really liked the movie for it's powerfull dramatic theme and the strenght that it shows. It's one of my all-time favorites!!

Too good to be true!!!
Wow, this is indeed the best movie tht I have ever seen. It has passion, love and flawless acting. Simply brilliant! ... Read more

Reviews (129)

Bravo Madonna!
This is a good movie, and Madonna doesn't give a wooden performance, she actually puts more emotion into her acting. I don't know why everyone said it was so bad, this is interesting and has a heartbreaking ending. I'm glad i bought the DVD, not just because I'm a Madonna fan. Good job Madonna!!!;)

I HAVE SEEN A LOT WORSE
OKAY I HAVE TO ADMIT I HAVE BEEN A MADONNA FAN FROM THE BEGINNING.BUT LETS FACE IT THIS FILM WAS GONNA GET SLATED BEFORE IT WAS EVEN STARTED,AS CRITICS ,AND THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME WHO NEVER EVEN WATCHED IT,WILL SLATE EVERYTHING MADONNA IS IN.IT WAS NOT THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE WORSE AND THEY GET OSCAR NOMINATED AND RAVE REVIEWS(I HATED 8 MILE TOTAL AND UTTER BOREDOM).IM GLAD I BOUGHT THIS FILM,IT WAS ENTERTAINING,GREAT LOCATION,MADONNA LOOKED FAB AND WAS MONEY WELL SPENT.IF ONLY PEOPLE WOULD MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS AND FORGET ABOUT CRITICS.

Didn't push me over the Borderline...
I have to say that all film critics need lay off Madonna! There are plenty of actors out there that revered when they shouldn't be. This wasn't as bad as they made it out to be. This movie wasn't great, but not terrible. It was sort of middle-of-the-road. Madonna's acting can be, at times, wooden and rehearsed, but come off it--this is just a movie, not Shakespeare. This wasn't meant to be an overly dramatic masterpiece. This is not a big Hollywood film; it's nice and small and entertaining. The script, well it could have been a lot better. But it is funny at times, as well as cute (like when they played charades). The pace of the film sometimes feels inconsistent though but not too badly. 'Swept Away' looks wonderful on DVD. It makes me want to take a trip to Malta--it's very beautiful. The 5.1 Dolby is pretty decent, but nothing spectacular. The extras are pretty good: director commentary, 16 deleted scenes with or without commentary, the making of 'Swept Away' (which originally aired on MTV, I think), cast bios, and trailers. This also has a French language track and subtitles in English and French. Overall, it wasn't a bad film--I've seen plenty worse! But it wasn't fantastic; just a good, little entertaining movie. I enjoyed it more than the terribly long and sappy 'Cast Away'.

Don't Listen to the Critics!!
I just finished watching this movie. It is excellent. The critics never gave the movie a chance since Madonna was in it. This movie made me laugh out loud at times, cringe in uncomfort at other parts and feel sadness and pain for the characters at the same time. It is just a great movie that doesn't sell out at all. It doesn't fit the typical movie formula which is a WONDERFUL thing. We need more movies that break the molds instead of getting moldy! Buy this movie with confidence. It will be an emotional experience!

Such a comfort movie!
Madonna working the designer outfits is more than enough reason to get ur hands on this....and Madonna fans will go nuts for her fantasy sequence in an acid yellow Versace dress.....she camps it up...and is hilarious....

The MTV behind the scenes special is incredibly cute....if u want sumthin' to get u outta' those Valentine's Day blues....

GET THIS MOVIE! ... Read more

Description

Tony Award nominee David Suchet returns to his celebrated role as Hercule Poirot in a lavish A&E adaptation of the Agatha Christie classic--DEATH ON THE NILE. When Linnet Doyle, the richest woman in London, steals and marries her best friend's fiancé, the ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Not that bad...
Pointless sequel, they should have left poor King Kong dead. Linda Hamilton (along with a bunch of other doctors) brings ol' King Kong back to life, but this time... somewhere in some jungle, they find Lady Kong, whom they drag to the US... then a strange romance unveils between both Kongs... and on and on.
I'm not surprised why they didn't do a follow up to this one.
Average special effects, but this movie has a haunting musical score.

King Kong might live but he will regret it with this turkey
"King Kong Lives" is so boring that even pre-schoolers will probably get up and wander out of the room on this one to go play with a cardboard box or watch paint dry. It is one thing to make a sequel to a splatter flick where Michael/Jason/Freddy constantly comes back from the dead, but another thing to try and put the same trick with King Kong. Thousands of people die around the world each year because of heart attacks, but working on an artificial heart for a 50-foot ape who has been in a coma for ten years seemed like a good idea to heart specialist Amy Franklin (Linda Hamilton). Meanwhile, in the jungles of Borneo big game hunter Hank Mitchell (Brian Kerwin) finds a female Kong. This is good news because she can provide the blood Kong needs during the operation (let us all think about the world's biggest by-pass machine). Amy falls for Hank because they have so much in common, while the two apes do the same. Needing privacy, Kong and his love flee into the woods where the Army proceeds to hunt them down. The movie makes it seem like it only took the army a couple of days to hunt down two 50-foot apes running loose in the wild, but it must have been many, many months because when the Army catches up with them the female Kong is in labor.

This movie is jaw-droppingly bad. But given that Jessica Lange survived the original "King Kong" remake and Linda Hamilton had some success after this turkey, there is really no reason for any young actress to ever turn a role in one of these films, no matter how bad the script. King Kong's leading ladies do pretty well. The gap between the original "King Kong" and the remake is certainly a lot closer than "King Kong Lives" and the original sequel, "Son of Kong." Sure, that one had the mystery of where was Frau Kong all this time, but that giant hole is nothing compared to the rampant stupidity in this one. The person I respect after watching this film would have to be Margaret Mitchell, who avoided having a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" for half a century. Way to go Mrs. Peggy Marsh!

Mistake On My Part, And The Director's
It's long after Kong fell off the Empire State Building, and all this time scientists tried to save Kong with an arteficial heart. Meanwhile the army finds out about Lady Kong and try to kill both of them. This plot is good but they make the movie seem so boring you want to run away. I was going to get Rodan when I was younger but my mom showed me this and I chose it. Turns out Rodan was 17,000,000,000 times better than this pathetic film. If you want to die of boredom, watch this terrible excuse for a King Kong movie.

Greatly entertaining.
This sequel to the 1976 remake of King Kong is pure cheese, but very entertaining for monster fans! I found it more entertaining than King Kong (1976), and not as long and drawn out as the latter movie.

Highly recommended if you can get a copy of it.

It actually makes the Godzilla movies look good....
1986 sequal to the terrible 1976 remake, finds Linda Hamilton and a bunch of scientists revive Kong with a new mechannal heart, then they find a Lady Kong and the two have a son, all the while the military wants all the apes dead. It really is a cheesy movie with bad effects work. Two actors in terrible ape suits. A lousy music score and terrible acting by everyone. Thankfully they never followed it up with another movie. It's not a key with the recent Godzilla movie that put a supernatural take on the Big G. Bleeech. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Ridley Scott's Gladiator is a great movie, but Colosseum: A Gladiator's Story has the distinct advantage of purely historical accuracy. The Roman gladiator whose story is told here is Verus (played by charismatic British hunk Robert Shannon), one of two victors in the only gladiatorial battle that was ever described in detail (by the Roman poet Martial in 80 A.D.). Using this factual record as its basis, Colosseum follows Verus as he is recruited from slavery, trained in gladiator's school, rises to favor among wealthy Romans, and ultimately battles his best friend, Priscus (Derek Lea), to a crowd-pleasing draw in the inaugural games of glorious, brand-new Colosseum, the construction of which is shown in fascinating detail. Combining authoritative narration with diary-like voiceovers from Verus's perspective, this riveting 50-minute BBC production is simultaneously intimate and epic in scale, employing the latest in digital compositing techniques to achieve its unparalleled (for TV, at least) visual splendor. With well-cast actors speaking authentic Latin, this sumptuous production is both dramatically involving and exacting in every detail.

Just as convincing--and just as impressive in its use of cutting-edge CGI--is the 50-minute bonus program Pompeii: The Final Day, which chronicles the final 24 hours of Pompeii when it was decimated by the ultraviolent eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 A.D. Inspired by the written descriptions of Pliny the Younger (whose detailed observations were later vindicated by geological science), recovered artifacts, and the haunting remains of Pompeii citizens preserved under tons of pumice and ash, Pompeii is first-rate from start to finish, proving yet again that the BBC is now setting the standard in lavishly produced docudrama programming. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (5)

EXCELLENT!
This review is in relation to Pompeii-The Last Day only.

Pompeii-The Last Day, brings to the screen the last hours of one of the most well known cities of all time.The irony lies in that the city owes its fame to the spectacular and tragic way in which it was destroyed.
The director's presentation includes effective narration in conjunction with the re-enactment, by a variety of citizens of Pompeii using authentic dialogues that have survived in diaries and other records, of actual conditions.It is an AMAZING and accurate way of conveying the feelings and emotions that the people of the time would have experienced since making use of primary sources has always been the best way to find out about and examine the past.
The actors give it their 100% and it really shows; they have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least!Consequently, it is a film that can be watched over and over again.
Peter Nicholson and the BBC deserve credit for doing an OUTSTANDING job with this highly educational and entertaining project!
The setting, the dialogues the costumes, and the music are all wonderful!
In a nutshell, Pompeii-The Last Day will surely provide for an evening's entertainment.It is a film definitely worth watching, especially for those with a soft spot for History and all things Roman, and one to seriously consider adding to your movie collection!

Excellent DVD combo...
...but not the one shown on the Discovery Channel though.

All the reviews you are going to read below are excellent, this DVD is a very good combo (the gladiator documentary is also of very good quality) extras are numerous and interesting.

HOWEVER the version played on TV was 1 hour 40 minutes long instead of the English version of 50 minutes we have on this DVD. The editing is different, the music is different, the narrator is different (american accent). There is a 50 minutes additional part with all the actual site of Pompeii and it's dangers to the new cities that were built since the eruption which is also very informative.

Both versions, English and American are very good, I guess you just have to make your own opinion when you'll see a reprise of the show on TV (or you can still go on the discovery web site to find the American version DVD which does not include the Gladiator combo...)

It's time Amazon.com start providing the DVDs from this source as well, because if you are interested in Documentaries you don't have access to all choices available just by visiting their website right now...

EXCELLENT MOVIE/documentary
First of all, let me express my feelings on this movie-WOW!This DVD has a narrator that pops in and out leading the viewer through the lives of some of Pompeii's citizens.He then lets you basically enter into their lives and you somewhat feel that you are watching the "mountain" (they did not know it was a volcano in 79 AD) explode.I was really moved just seeing how people dealt with this disaster.The movie also shows the artifacts of today linking them with the characters in the story.They also show the casts of the people as they lived out their last minutes on Earth.Let me say that this is one of the best movies out there.You will not be disapointed.Even to the guys that like action flicks, I think you will like this one since it is a TRUE story.For the gals out there, you will also love it as I did since it is a dramatization of something TRUE.I usually don't buy just any movie, but I am definately glad that this is one I spent money on.ENJOY!

An astonishing tale
The documentary/drama of Pompeii is one of the more dramatic of BBC historical productions of recent note.The last day of Pompeii, just before and during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius.This is no mere documentary presentation, nor is it a docu-drama in which things are enacted and carried along soley by the narrative.This production weaves together historical narration and live-action progress, together with very impressive CGI recreations of the cities of around the bay of Naples, including Misenum, Stabiae, and Herculanium, a city buried by Vesuvian flows before Pompeii's final fate.

Perhaps the best-known actor here is Jim Carter, followed by Jonathan Firth, both well recognisable from television and cinematic film.The other actors are lesser known, but good actors who play their parts well, both in terms of presenting a believable picture of Pompeii as a typical Roman city, as well as the kind of struggle and fear one has against the unknown.Included in the teleplay are clips of actual artifacts of the archaeological digs and reconstructions of Pompeii; these often fade into or fade out from the action in the plot narrative.

Many characters are featured -- Pliny the Elder and Pliny the Younger, watching from afar; Polybius and Stephanus, local politicians and merchants or workers part of large households; various gladiators, slaves and other local figures whose identities are now lost, but whose presence is known from the remains found in Pompeii.

The narrator overlay tells the progress of the eruption (Vesuvius, a major volcano, erupted for in excess of 20 hours at least, according to accounts from Pliny the Younger, accounts that were not believed at the time) -- this progress is recounted hour by hour, as the first earthquakes occurred, the pillar of smoke rising (up to 15 miles into the atmosphere) -- as Pompeii's inhabitants had never seen a volcanic eruption, they had no idea what they were witnessing, and thus most did nothing to escape.The falling pumice, then rocks and coals, then the air thinning, the volcanic lightning, and the gaseous mixture into the air are all chronicled.The narrator talks about the finds later, such as looters who remained in the streets long past time there was any hope for escape.

Pliny the Elder, across the bay a bit from Naples, was too fascinated by the developments to flee for his life.A naturalist (he wrote an encyclopedia of natural history which is one of his only surviving works), he observed the collapse of the volcanic column as a piece of rare history indeed.Pliny the Younger recounted much of the details from which this particular history is reconstructed.

The piece shows a bit of the archaeological reconstruction -- Pompeii lay buried and forgotten for some 1500 years, until rediscovered accidentally during excavations for an aqueduct.The documentary also recreates what would happen to modern cities around Vesuvius today given a similar catastrophe, with literally millions living around the volcano today.

Dramatic, impressive, and historically fairly accurate (so far as my reading of Roman histories permits me to judge), this is an impressive production by any standard.

when combat was entertainment
A realistic docu-drama, this is a telling of the building of Rome's Colosseum which started under the rule of Emperor Vespasian and was completed by his son and heir Titus in 80 AD. It also shows the training of the gladiators, many who were slaves, but a few who would trade their liberty for a period of time for money, and sometimes fame.
The decadence and brutality of the Roman games, as well the brave and desperate men who were the entertainment, make for a riveting story;
The central figure is a historical gladiator by the name of Verus, who was a slave working in a quarry when chosen for the arena. Robert Shannon is good in the part, exhibiting much physical prowess, grace and style.

Filmed in Tunisia, it boasts the latest technological wizardry to duplicate the Colosseum and the audience, using matte paintings and crowd replication among other techniques.
Produced and directed by Tilman Remme, the dialog is in Latin, and the narration by Liev Schreiber, whose modulated voice is always a pleasure to listen to.
Having seen the empty shell of what is left of this extraordinary structure as it stands today, I found this recreation fascinating and informative, with enough drama and action to make it interesting for repeated viewings. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

One of the big Elizabethan-era films of 1998, Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth serves up a brimming goblet of religious tension, political conspiracy, sex, violence, and war. England in 1554 is in financial and religious turmoil as the ailing Queen "Bloody" Mary attempts to restore Catholicism as the national faith. She has no heir, and her greatest fear--that her Protestant half-sister Elizabeth will assume the throne after her death--is realized. Still, the late Queen Mary has her loyalists. The newly crowned Elizabeth finds herself knee-deep in dethroning schemes while also dodging assassination attempts. Her advisers (including Sir William Cecil, superbly played by Richard Attenborough) beg her to marry any one of her would-be suitors to stabilize England's empire. No matter that she already has a lover. The passionate Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) is married, however, and shows he cannot stand up to the growing strength of the Queen. With the help of her aide Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), Elizabeth strikes against her enemies before they get to her first. But her rise ultimately entails rejecting love and marriage to redefine herself as the indisputable Virgin Queen.

Cate Blanchett's Oscar-nominated performance as the naive and vibrant princess who becomes the stubborn and knowing queen is both severe and sympathetic. Her ethereal, pale beauty is equal parts fire and ice, her delivery of such lines as "There will be only one mistress here and no master!" expressed with command rather than hysterics. As striking as Blanchett's performance is the film's lavish and dramatic production design. The cold, dark sets paired with the lush costuming show the golden age of England's monarchy emerging from the Middle Ages. Rich velvet brushes over the dank stones while power is achieved at any price, and with such attention to physical detail, Elizabeth fully immerses you into its compelling chronicle of pioneering feminism and revisionist history. --Shannon Gee ... Read more

Reviews (351)

Hail to the Queen!
During its theatrical run, critical praise of ELIZABETH was subdued somewhat due to the film's historical inaccuracy and emphasis on melodrama. While both of these observations are admittedly correct, ELIZABETH is none-the-less a spectacular production. From the riveting opening credits to the chilling finale, this movie is full of provocative dramatic elements: sex, betrayal, politics, religion, violence, and revenge. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are outstanding. The settings alternate between dank medieval gloom and brilliant regal spendor. Cate Blanchett gives a dynamic performance of Meryl Streep calibre. (She should have won the Oscar, but ELIZABETH wasn't nearly as popular as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.) In plot and theme, ELIZABETH is like a hybrid of THE LION IN WINTER and THE GODFATHER. It begins as the reign of Elizabeth's sister, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary")is coming to an end. The film then details the controversial ascension of Protestant young Elizabeth to the throne. The movie focuses on the early years of her reign, as Elizabeth struggles to solidify her power and overcome conflicts of religion and political intrigue; questions of marriage; and numerous plots to depose or assassinate her. As previously mentioned, the movie takes a good deal of license with history, taking events and relationships that occurred throughout Elizabeth's reign and condensing them into the first few years of her reign. Overall, ELIZABETH is an excellent production-- as chilling and dramatic as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is romantic and funny. The two films are wonderful counterparts.

Not Your Average Costume Drama
Shekar Kapur's account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign in not your average costume drama, it is a visceral and entrancing film that despite all the historical inaccuracies that other reviewers have noted (and they are many), perfectly captures the climate of religious conflict, struggle for power and constant danger that characterised the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Michael Hirst's script portrays the young queen as an innocent caught in the throes of international politics, who by the end of the film has become a calculating monarch willing to sacrifice almost anything to ensure her survival and the welfare and prosperity of her kingdom. Kapur's brilliant direction gives the film a vertiginous rhythm, while Remi Adefarasin's ominous cinematography adds a menacing and sinister atmosphere that sometimes gives Elizabeth the feel of a horror movie. Also worthy of praise are the magnificent production design, the gorgeous costumes and a surprisingly eclectic soundtrack that includes Byrd, Mozart, Holst and Elgar as well as some great original music.

The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke of Norfolk; Richard Attenborough as Cecil, Elizabeth's most loyal and trusted aide; and Kathy Burke as the frustrated and paranoid "Bloody Mary". However, the real jewel is Cate Blanchett's amazing, star-making turn as the title character. She gives a complex, mesmerising and moving performance as she makes the transition from scared and vulnerable young woman to quasi-preternatural icon.

If you are interested in the "true historical facts" of Elizabeth's reign you should choose a documentary of one of the many great books that have been written about her (my favourite is Alison Weir's biography), but if you are looking for a great cinematic experience that explores the young queen's personality and motivations in remarkable depth this is definitely the one to choose. In my opinion Shekar Kapur's masterpiece is the best film of its kind.

Entertaining, but wildly inaccurate
If you're not bothered by historical inaccuracies, then go ahead and check out this movie. It's extremely well-acted for the most part, although Fiennes's Dudley turns milksop in an entirely fictitious turn of events that aligns him with a Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots (whose death in the movie is all wrong, too). Events from decades later are all condensed into what is clearly supposed to be the first year or two of Elizabeth's reign (which begain in 1558): Norfolk didn't rebel until the Northern Rebellion in 1569; Elizabeth wasn't excommunicated until 1570; she didn't even enter the Anjou courtship until 1578; and Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded in public, not murdered in her bed, and that not until almost thirty years later, in 1587! Furthermore, in 1558 Lord Robert Dudley was not yet Earl of Leicester (he wouldn't be until Elizabeth gave him that title in 1564, and he was NEVER a duke!), and as another reviewer has pointed out, there's certainly more drama and intrigue in his REAL story than the movie allows -- he was rumored to have murdered his wife, Amy Robsart, after all.

I won't go on, but my point is that there is a hell of a lot wrong with the storyline that didn't even need to be wrong. It's still an entertaining movie, as I mentioned before, and Cate Blanchett really does deliver an exceptional performance. But at least some sort of gesture towards a measure of historical accuracy would have been appreciated.

Well acted, but distorts the actual events
Elizabeth is a well acted and entertaining movie, with some very well done performances and is visually stunning. The problem is that the writers decided to change so many events, that it ends up unnecessarily distorting the actual history.

To see a factual, well-acted, and still superb movie of the same era, get the 1971 film "Mary Queen of Scots" with Vanessa Redgrave. Not only does this follow the actual events, but the drama of 2 queens battling for power is so forcibly played that you can watch it over and over

What's wrong with the real story?
Lovely, beautifully acted, blah blah...

But why would the producers/writers take such an EXCITING true story, and change all the facts, and make is so much boring than it actually was? The real story has everything: romance, murder, betrayal, a wife pushed down the stairs, politics... so why turn it into such a dull, ordinary, mushy romance?

If you want to watch a strong woman influencing world events, watch "The Lion in Winter." If you want to read about the TRUE story of Elizabeth's ascent to the throne, read Alison Weir's books. If you want to watch a goopy romance movie, there are plenty of much better ones to choose from. But don't waste your time with this movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The popular children's books by Mary Norton have been filmed before, but never with as much imagination and ingenuity as you'll find on display in this delightful fantasy film released to critical praise in 1998. The "Borrowers" of the title are a family of tiny people who live in the walls and under the floorboards in the homes of "normal-sized" humans; they earn their by "borrowing" the household items (string, food crumbs, buttons, etc.) needed to furnish their tiny hiding places and provide their meals. The little Clock family lives happily undisturbed in the home of an aged aunt, but when the aunt dies and her will is stolen by an unscrupulous lawyer (John Goodman), the Clocks face eviction and the frightening hazards of the outside world. Under the ingenious direction of Peter Hewitt, this simple, straightforward movie mixes comedy, adventure, and suspense with some of the cleverest special effects you've ever seen, taking full advantage of effects technologies to immerse you in the world of the tiny people. A climactic chase scene in a milk-bottling plant is a visual tour de force, and the movie's smart and dazzling enough to entertain parents and children alike. After its modest success in theaters, The Borrowers stands a good chance of becoming a home-video favorite. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Ridley Scott's Gladiator is a great movie, but Colosseum: A Gladiator's Story has the distinct advantage of purely historical accuracy. The Roman gladiator whose story is told here is Verus (played by charismatic British hunk Robert Shannon), one of two victors in the only gladiatorial battle that was ever described in detail (by the Roman poet Martial in 80 A.D.). Using this factual record as its basis, Colosseum follows Verus as he is recruited from slavery, trained in gladiator's school, rises to favor among wealthy Romans, and ultimately battles his best friend, Priscus (Derek Lea), to a crowd-pleasing draw in the inaugural games of glorious, brand-new Colosseum, the construction of which is shown in fascinating detail. Combining authoritative narration with diary-like voiceovers from Verus's perspective, this riveting 50-minute BBC production is simultaneously intimate and epic in scale, employing the latest in digital compositing techniques to achieve its unparalleled (for TV, at least) visual splendor. With well-cast actors speaking authentic Latin, this sumptuous production is both dramatically involving and exacting in every detail.

Just as convincing--and just as impressive in its use of cutting-edge CGI--is the 50-minute bonus program Pompeii: The Final Day, which chronicles the final 24 hours of Pompeii when it was decimated by the ultraviolent eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 A.D. Inspired by the written descriptions of Pliny the Younger (whose detailed observations were later vindicated by geological science), recovered artifacts, and the haunting remains of Pompeii citizens preserved under tons of pumice and ash, Pompeii is first-rate from start to finish, proving yet again that the BBC is now setting the standard in lavishly produced docudrama programming. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (1)

when combat was entertainment
A realistic docu-drama, this is a telling of the building of Rome's Colosseum which started under the rule of Emperor Vespasian and was completed by his son and heir Titus in 80 AD. It also shows the training of the gladiators, many who were slaves, but a few who would trade their liberty for a period of time for money, and sometimes fame.
The decadence and brutality of the Roman games, as well the brave and desperate men who were the entertainment, make for a riveting story;
The central figure is a historical gladiator by the name of Verus, who was a slave working in a quarry when chosen for the arena. Robert Shannon is good in the part, exhibiting much physical prowess, grace and style.

Filmed in Tunisia, it boasts the latest technological wizardry to duplicate the Colosseum and the audience, using matte paintings and crowd replication among other techniques.
Produced and directed by Tilman Remme, the dialog is in Latin, and the narration by Liev Schreiber, whose modulated voice is always a pleasure to listen to.
Having seen the empty shell of what is left of this extraordinary structure as it stands today, I found this recreation fascinating and informative, with enough drama and action to make it interesting for repeated viewings. ... Read more