Description

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

Reviews (158)

Theodicy or Corrupt Politics
The Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (65)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

Buckle up and hang on tight -- the discovery of a parallel universe launches you into the adventure of a lifetime! Mario and Luigi, two wacky plumbers, undertake a daring quest to save a princess in "Dinohattan" -- a hidden world where the inhabitants evolved from dinosaurs! Mario (Bob Hoskins -- WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT) and Luigi (John Leguizamo -- REGARDING HENRY) face deadly challenges from a diaboloical lizard king (Dennis Hopper -- HOOSIERS) and must battle giant reptilian goombas, outwit misfit thugs, and undermine a sinister scheme to take over the world! Blast off for nonstop excitement with SUPER MARIO BROS., the live-action thrill ride that dazzled moviegoers everywhere! ... Read more

Reviews (94)

This, unfortunately, has to be my favorite movie
For all those people who are totally tearing the movie, you will probably grow up to be critics. It IS true that the movie will never be on any The Best of The Century's Movies list, but if you're looking for entertainment: Mario Bros. are your men. The movie is not made to be believable: two "brothers" get trapped in another dimension while trying to save Luigi's kind of girlfriend, who happens to be the princess of this strange world. The princess is trying to reverse the damage King Koopa did to her father (he turned him into a giant ball of fungus). In the end, the Mario Bros. save the day (did you expect a different ending?). Don't expect a recreation of the game; this movie is a far cry from any version of Super Mario. I have watched and rewatched this movie since I was little and I STILL have to say that it is my favorite. The plot line is a wee bit out there, yes; it's not like the game, that's true; all the aspiring critics out there will not get into it, unfortunately; but for all you normal people out there who don't care what the rest of the world thinks about reality and just want a nice, quiet night to yourself or with a loved one: check this out.

A completely misunderstood movie. Here's why it is good.
Most people tend to hate this film. I think, though, that they hate it because they're looking at it the wrong way. It's one of those movies that has a point, and if you miss that, you don't get any of it.

Their mistake is to watch this expecting a Mario movie. I know, it sounds like the right thing to expect, but hear me out. Fans of the game know what Mario is all about - powerups, angry mushrooms, winged turtles and flying blocks. If you watch this movie expecting that, you'll be disappointed, as you'll find NONE of it. But that's not to say it isn't worth watching.

Picture the scene: a couple of directors are asked to make a Mario movie by Nintendo, and they want it to be live action. That was the flavour at the time - take cartoon characters and make them real. Now, these directors know about Mario. They say "No way can that be done. Mario is all about being a cartoon. Jumping on little angry animals, everyone's a mushroom... It's a great game, and it'd make a good cartoon, but a live action version would just be moronic." "Oh, don't worry about that," says Nintendo, "just so long as you get the main elements in, do it how you want."

The directors go away, rubbing their chins, trying to think of a way to do that but still do justice to the games. And then they have a fascinating idea.

What if they don't do a Mario film, exactly. What if they do a sci-fi film, but fill it to the brim with Mario references, for the keen-eyed game fans?

That's what this movie is. If you watch it with that in mind, you will enjoy it. I've tested this theory out already on a friend who thought the film was a bit stupid when he saw it as a kid, but watched it yesterday with my little thesis in mind and he loved it.

What you get here is a quite serious (despite the light-hearted script) sci-fi flick about the nightmarish world ours may soon become: crowded, filthy, choked with pollution and overrun with a hate-filled populace who will fight you, yell at you, even try to shoot you if you pass too close. Run by a demonic well-dressed dictator politician (played to amazing effect by Dennis Hopper) who has let this world become the dark horror it is through neglect: there is no water any more, only sludge, and a slimy infestation of fungus has grown over everything, draped in great loops like one gigantic, chaotic spider web. Into this world come Mario and Luigi, similar to their game counterparts but more human, a pair of plumber brothers from Brooklyn who grew up together as orphans. They are trying to save a girl, who has been kidnapped and dragged here, and along the way they get wrapped up in something really horrifying: the president and his people are human, but human descended from dinosaurs instead of apes. He's found a way to revert his citizens back to their prehistoric roots, and with his army of lizard lackeys he's going to bridge the split between worlds (that formed when the meteorite that "killed" the dinosaurs hit) and take over our own.

And through all this we find references of the sort that Mario's biggest fans will drool over, so long as they are watching this in the way I suggest. These prove that the film has been put together not by someone ignorant of the games, but by someone very well versed in their lore. A large woman called Big Bertha, dressed all in red, is named in reference to a large red fish enemy from Mario 3. She wears mechanical boots named "Thwomp-Stompers", after the classic ice block enemies, and they are powered by capsules that look exactly like Bullet Bills, from Super Mario Bros 1. Shops are apparently owned by people with the same names as characters from the games (Hammer Bros and Bullet Bill), a protest singer is named after Toad, the happy little mushroom from the games, but his hair is shaved into the pattern on the shell of Lakitu, a fan favourite since day one. These references go on throughout the film and shape its world - the fungus, which turns out to be a conscious entity, helps the brothers in every way it can; they are saved on more than one occasion by mushrooms, in what has become a literal mushroom kingdom.

It's all in here if you keep your eyes peeled. Go in ready to watch not a Mario film, but a film that references Mario, and you will love it. It doesn't "change" anything from the games, because it is not any kind of filmed version of them, but it nods to them constantly.

Viewed in this light, it is a treat to watch, and a rare treat, because no other film has ever crammed in so many references to videogaming before. Simply put, a live action Mario film could never be made, and the directors asked to make one did a brilliant job at trying something new and original. Well worth the ten dollars for the DVD.

So Zany and Senseless It's Great, IMO of course
The story is absurd, despite it being inventive enough... It isn't a real movie version of the adventure, but more like a movie starring the characters, with constant bits of homage to the original series, such as a "Thwump" store, sniffits, the character's occasional and believable super-jump trademark, a dino named Yoshi, and last but by no means least, a GREAT scene with a Ba-Bomb (who was wearing Reebok shoes, which was funny!!).

Being the first movie ever based on a game (unless you count Clue), and also being inspired by a series that didn't call for the slightest bit of realism, this movie didn't have much call for reality. It's not sci-fi, but pure fantasy (meaning the plot's fiction isn't just the existance of the story's elements, but every plot sequence is based on how the world the movie takes place in is much unlike our own). Luckily, the screenplay, while sometimes quirky and silly, does call for some great moments, usually revolving around Koopa's idiot cousins Iggy and Spike (my favorite example - Spike:"Wrong again...how many times have we gotten it wrong?" Iggy:"YOU've gotten it wrong five times!" Spike:"Over five...OVER five...what percent is that?" Iggy:"I don't know, let me think......I don't know, but it's not good!" -- they couldn't figure out 100%!!).

Also going with the movie on a few other nice points are the performances of the main characters: Mario, Luigi, Koopa, Daisy, Iggy & Spike, which are nice and solid, despite that they don't really resemble the image of the characters themselves (especially Koopa). Hoskins does great in a more laid back role than say in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?', while John Legizamo starts off his more energetic personna that was used very well in his standup routine in the late 1990's, and he was enjoyable to the point in which whenever I see 'Moulin Rouge', I'm always like "YEAH!! LUIGI!!" (not to knock Moulin Rouge, a masterpeice in it's own, albeit weird). Samantha Mathis is another strong performance, as well as a beauty on screen as Daisy, the princess in distress, albeit she doesn't have many good moments to herself. And Dennis Hopper, whether you like him or not, is undeniably good in villainous roles like this...here he plays a meglomaniacal dictator of an entire civilization, but again, sadly he has fewer memorable moments than Mario and Luigi, which is a shame, as Koopa is one of the most popular villains of all time.

However, if you don't think the screenplay or casting were anygood, there are four things that this movie excells in, that are undeniable: superb special effects (from puppets to some amazing CGI for 1993), art design that's out of this world (from fungus to flashy lights to spikes on the clothes and walls of the buildings), intense action sequences, which are very high in pyrotechnics, flashing lights, and explosions, and a brilliant musical score, courtesy of Alan Silvestri (responsible for almost 80 movies so far, from the Father of the Bride movies to Roger Rabbit, to the Predetor's, to the Mummy Returns)! In my opinion, these three aspects warrent this movie a watching, as it's very high in production values!

I really can't understand why people hate this movie. It's not sophisticated, but it is intelligently enjoyable....Con Air is undeniably smart, although I certainly wouldn't call that movie sophisticated, would you? I think not! Yet still it's a great movie! Perfectly combining parody, B-movie aspects, and advanced sci-fi, this movie spells out perfect cult-classic, and I'm one of those who does like it! I won't even try to talk you into it if you hate it, but I just feel that this movie is good for its own reasons. If you're into zany, partially senseless, partial sci-fi type movies, this one just might be for you.

Great movie!
This is a GREAT movie! The special effects are excellent, the monster are awesome, the sets are great, the cast is great; production values incredible. Buy it!

A fun kids movie...
"Super Mario Bros." may have very little to do with the video game of the same name, but it is a lot of fun. Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo play Mario and Luigi respectively. They're Brooklyn plumbers who stumble upon a parallel universe containing the evolved versions of dinosaurs. The leader of this new dimension is Koopa, played with charisma by Dennis Hopper. Koopa is in search of a meteorite piece that will merge the two dimensions and allow him to rule the Earth. This is an enjoyable film for the most part, though it has its disappointments, the biggest being that it's almost nothing like the game. But it contains quite a few laughs and good moments that should be a pleasure to kids. While this DVD contains no special features, it makes for a great collectible item. ... Read more

Description

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

Reviews (28)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (16)

Hollywood History
If you're looking for a documentary full of facts, this movie is not your choice.

Fat Man and Little Boy uses history as the foundation of its story, which is really to illustrate the great moral dilemma the scientists and military personnel involved in the Manhattan Project were faced with as they realized the potential (both positive and negative) of "The Gadget" they were building. The story is not so much on "how" the bomb was built, but on the repercussions of the bomb. In this, it does quite well, trying its best to be balanced. In the end, however, the producers miss the balancing act and come across fairly strongly "anti-nuke". They do present both sides throughout, despite the stand they take at the end.

A well-acted movie, Newman and Schultz do a good job and the film is entertaining. History as a backdrop for a moral argument, rather than history for history's sake.

Entertaining enough
As most viewers will already know, the film basically depicts (inaccurately, from what I've heard) the developement of the first atom bombs.
What can I say? This drama is highly uneven; Paul Newman is in fine form as the general in charge of the project, his conflicts with Dwight Shultz, who plays the leading scientist, Dr. Oppenheimer is very enjoyable to watch, you got some very (good) dramatic acting there. However, the romantic subplots (especially the one between John Cusack and Laura Dern) are boring and wooden.
The most memorable scene in the film is the finale, where we have the final count-down to the testing of the world's first atom bomb (or, in humanity's case, the final count-down towards doom); with the scientists and military officers waited with both hopes and fears, any yet not really knowing the immense power of their creation; the clock ticks away; with the memorable Nutcracker's Suite playing away in the background.
Overall an entertaining movie; Newman's excellent performance makes this worth seeing.

"I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds."
J. Robert Oppenheimer said on viewing the first atomic bomb explosion, "I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds."

An intriguing rendition of the trials and tribulations of creating the first atomic bomb.

This is not the first or maybe the best and it surely will not be the last interpretation. However there is some fine acting and well designed story. This has held my attention more than once. Every part, in fact every line contributed to making you forget that you are watching a movie ant that this is real.

This is the story of how the need for the bomb came about and the building of a camp and the collection of men needed to accomplish the job. We see technical difficulties as well as emotional.

Mostly Fiction
Yes, there was a Manhattan Project and people named Groves, Oppenheimer and Szilard and yes Leo Szilard did like to spend as much time in the bath tub as possible (thinking) but other than that, this film was largely fictional. I was bothered by the historical inaccuracies including: 1. Groves met Szilard at the University of Chicago along with the rest of the scientists that worked there, not in a bathroom in Szilards hotel with Szilard in a tub and Groves on a toilet. 2. The Manhattan Project was much bigger than Los Alamos and Groves dealt with two other major groups that are mostly not even depicted. 3. Groves and Oppenheimer had a very different and more cooperative relationship than is depicted in the movie. 4. Groves was not subject to temper tantrums like Newman's depiction. He was actually very quiet, but extremely sarcastic, socially awkward, pear shaped and somewhat arrogant. He was also smart as a tack, having attended both MIT and West Point, where he was fourth in his class. He created three cities that are now major cities in their states and an industry bigger than the U.S. Automobile industry in just over three years. This was no dummy.

A more accurate movie is "Day One", at least as far as the plot goes, but even that fails to grasp the Manhattan Project's scope. The best film on it, which unfortunately no longer exists, was "The Beginning or the End" which was made in 1946 (Brian Donlevy played Groves). The main people on the project served as technical advisors for that one. Unfortunately, that was never put on video and probably rotted away in some warehouse.

A very good drama
This movie is the best film that depicts the story behind the atom bomb. It shows that although the original reason for building the bomb changed with the defeat of Germany, once the began, it was almost impossible to stop. ... Read more

Description

CITY OF JOY is the story of a dispirited American doctor (Patrick Swayze), a British woman who runs a clinic for the poor, and an Indian couple — all of whose lives come together in perhaps the most impoverished place on earth, the section of Calcutta known as the CITY OF JOY. Directed by Roland Joffe (The Mission, The Killing Fields, The Scarlett Letter). ... Read more

Reviews (20)

A Good Film
Of course no Patrick Swayze film could ever compare with a wonderful book, still City of Joy has much to offer. I grew up in a city just out of Calcutta and found the movie to be very true to the culture and everyday life I experienced there. Poverty is difficult to portray from a developed country's point of view without becoming self-righteous, but nowhere in the movie do the foreigners propose to change the state of the city. The two characters(Patrick Swayze and Pauline Collins) are there because they want to be and to lend a hand when needed. The cast of Indian characters(Um Puri in particular)is especially good. All of the actors possess great human qualities that makes them easy to connect with and likable. Although these people live in squalor, they have a joie de vivre that keeps the tone from being one of despair. This film is simply a slice of life that doesn't try to prove anything. I highly recommend seeing the film AS WELL AS reading the book.

Pretty Good
There are parts in this movie that are kind of cheesy, but for the most part, it is a very nice story about the life of a poor family in a Kolkata slum and of an American doctor's attempts to "find himself" by giving something back to the world instead of always being wrapped up in himself. Swayze's character is kind of annoying, especially at the start of the film, and certain lines seem kind of trite and silly . . . saying that he came to India for "enlightenment" was kind of daft and predictable, and of course, the meolodrama with regards to Swayze's character I think was a bit much . . . I don't think you need to have a special reason or event that occurs in your life to make you question things or look for answers to some of life's problems . . . still, the movie did a good job of presenting the inhabitants of Kolkata with dignity and sympathy . . . they were fully human and not caricatures, which was good. Om Puri does an outstanding job here. I wish that Shabana Azmi, an excellent actress herself, would have been given a bigegr role instead of playing the typically quiet and meek India wife, though. The brutality anmd dehumanisation of living in a slum in an overpopulated city was not sugar-coated either, but at the same time many of the people in the slums were portrayed with respect, and their attitude does give a substantial glimemr of hope instead of implying that all humans are "out for themselves" as the main character seems to think. Not a masterpiece, but a nice film all the same.

Many better options to this
I read the book, have seen the movie and have visited Kolkata. I'm troubled by the book and the movie. I felt the book trivialized poverty and made a sentimental treatment of it. This is because it was viewed through the eyes of a Catholic priest and he was taking voluntary poverty. It is another matter when you have children, live in bone crushing poverty and have fewer choices available to you. (Yet Kolkata is a city of miracles in that the poorest can often find a place and a way to survive there.)

I don't think the movie came close to showing the culture of Kolkata's poor. It was very much a westernized gloss and it definitely pulled punches. Consider just one important cultural element: Indian has many great musicians who have produced centuries of beautiful music. But this film sticks us with an entirely western score.

I am in love with this region and had to read the book and see the film. But if you want to see a film about this part of the world, see anything by Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen or Shyam Benegal.

In particular, Satyajit Ray - Apu Trilogy or Two Daughters. Although more modern and middle class, Aguntuk (The Stranger) is also a much better film.

Best of the Best
I am a movie fanatic and this is in my opinion the best film that I have watched ever. It is extremely moving and passionate. I cried three or four different times during this movie. I have been looking to acquire this movie in the past and it is the first time that I find it. It is a good way to see some aspects of India, at least through a window because nothing in life can prepare you to be in India. The drama ocurrs around an Indian family in Calcutta and an american doctor who volunteers to work in a poor neighbourhood. He becomes so involved with the family that...well, you should see the rest by yourself if your are not already a fanatic of this movie. I could say many more things but I will leave it brief and not boring.

Real India
Most movies, even the ones from Bollywood gloss over the reality of the poverty, dirtiness etc. This movie is true to the life and culture of the people. The characters are well fleshed out; they seem real and you care about them. Unless you've been to India you might not believe that people can be so poor and not be miserable. This movie shows how everyone can find joy in life, where they are, with what they have. Excellent movie. ... Read more

Reviews (68)

An actress way out of her depth
As a public service to high school students who has been assigned to read The Scarlet Letter and decided to watch this movie to cheat, I have one word of advice: don't. (Unless you are certain that your teacher majored in secondary education instead of a real subject.In that case, go ahead. She or he won't know the difference.) This film has only the most tenuous connection with the Hawthorne novel. The novel was a study in contrasts between the hypocrisy of the Puritan clergy, people as superstitious, arrogant, and self-righteous as Hollywood types with causes, and the nobility and courage of a "fallen woman" willing to undergo public humiliation to protect someone she loves. This is, instead, a romance novel, a bad romance novel, on film. As far as I can tell, the new-and-improved plot exists mostly to give Demi Moore a excuse to get rolled in the hay. Her ability to fake (I assume) an orgasm is impressive, and she cries on command very well. Other than that her performance was embarrassing to watch. She really ought not to attempt period pieces. They often require acting. The only reason I didn't hit the eject button about a third of the way through was the fine supporting cast whose performances only heighten the contrast with Ms Moore. There are actors and actresses, and there are movie stars; Ms Moore is the latter. (Why is it that so many British actresses can do flawless American accents and most Hollywood stars do British accents so badly it is like listening to fingernails on a blackboard?) Unless your erotic recreation requires the juxtaposition of barns, petticoats, and fear of the authorities, skip this one.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!
I read all of the reviews for this film and even amazon trashed it! Here is my question. If you read the book, and you know that whenever they turn a book into a movie it's going to be an obvious abomination, what the hell are you expecting. Cast all preconceived notions aside and just enjoy the flick! The Scarlet Letter was a wonderfully acted and directed spectacle for the eyes. I am not really what you would consider a "Demi Moore fan" but I think she did a remarkable job here. The scene where Matumba is bathing is enriched with metaphorical images that strikes a chord in the imagination department, all the while as the movie's integral scene is taking place between Demi and Gary Oldham, is this not cinematic splendour? Yes I will admit, I never read the book, maybe that is why I enjoyed Scarlet. Overall, this is a descent movie. It takes you back in time and lets you relive the puritan hell days on earth, all over again. A great Thanksgiving movie, wouldn't you say?

We still love you Demi!

Oldman does it again!
Not a big fan of Romance movies, but a sucker for anything Oldman stars in, I bought this DVD without ever having read the first thing about it. And once more? I cannot say I was dissappointed.

The story is about Hester Prynne (Demi Moore), a young wife who travels to the new world to prepare for her husband's arrival. She ends up in a conservative community, who are rather shocked with her modern ways of dealing with certain things.

When Hester's husband travels to the new world, he is believed to be murdered by the Indians. She falls in love with the Reverend Dimmsdale (Oldman), whose feelings match hers. Out of their love, a child is conceived. However, since her husband hasn't been proven dead, the child is seen by the community as being born out of wedlock.

The conservative and very religious communion demands Hester to name the father of the child, which she denies. She's locked up in prison and has her baby there, while Dimmsdale is torn over whether to step forward as the baby's father.

Hester then is freed but ordered to walk around town wearing a Scarlet Letter 'A', which is meant to belittle her whereever she goes.

Shortly after the child is born, her husband (Robert Duvall) suddenly reappears, and tries to incite the indians (whom he befriended) to act against the community. Single-handedly, he manages to offset the fragile peace that was between the two peoples.

Moore doesn't do too bad of a job as Hester, Duvall is good as the husband, but Oldman still manages to steal the show. All in all, even though I don't enjoy romances, the movie managed to keep me amused.

Scarlet Letter
Although the movie veered off from where the book went, I found that, differently from the book, the movie focused more on the intimacy between Hester and Dimmsdale (which for the hopeless romantics out there like me-- is a perk!) I loved the actor who plays Dimmsdale and Demi Moore comes through with a strong performace as well.

Letter "S" for sizzling!
Demi Moore is an early American colonist who loses her husband in a Native American attack. She seeks a new soulmate with the town doctor. She gets pregnant out of wedlock which is deemed sinful by the colony & is branded for her adultery by being forced to wear the scarlet letter "A" everywhere she goes.
And to make matters worse, her husband wasn't killed in the attack & he seeks revenge on the man who got his wife pregnant. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Overlooked and underrated, Goodbye Lover is a tawdry, tasty film noir with a soft spot for its scheming antiheroine. With her platinum Lulu bob, a killer wardrobe, and a Sound of Music fetish that inspires her to "climb every mountain" of bad-girl ambition, Patricia Arquette is perfectly cast as Sandra, the sweet but lethal wife of Jake (Dermot Mulroney), who works in a top-drawer ad agency with his brother Ben (Don Johnson). Weary stud Ben falls prey to simultaneous affairs with Sandra and his devoted secretary (Mary-Louise Parker), and the cynical Detective Pompano (Ellen DeGeneres) unravels the murder-for-insurance plot while her clueless Mormon partner (Ray McKinnon) tries to keep pace. Combining mordant humor and rampant depravity, this deliciously dark comedy starts fast and never lets up, liberating director Roland Joffé (The Killing Fields) from the sobriety of his previous work. The entire cast is great, but it's DeGeneres who makes this a recommended sleeper. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

The cast alone is worthy of 5 stars - Ellen Degeneres, Mary-Louise Parker, Dermot Mulroney, Don Johnson and Patricia Arquette. The plot is a superb blend of lust, deception, greed and murder. I agree that Ellen's brash detective steals the show, although the ending seemed kind of abrupt. It is still beyond excellent and highly recommended!

A Good, Positive Review For Goodbye Lover.
Wow, I can't believe this film got bad reviews in the press! It made me a bit stand offish about renting it but I just had to anyways. Come on Patricia Arquette is one of my favourites and I also love "Ellen Degenious".

Speaking of Ellen, she steals the show here. If it wasn't for her amazing one liner dead pan comments throughout the film, I may not have enjoyed this as much as i did. I was laughing so hard at some of her dialogue and the perfect timing she used to deliver these lines. This may sound ludicrous, but i would nominate her for an oscar for this, if I ran things (but who am I! ).

Furthermore on the Ellen subject, my God! did she look stunning at the end of the film! I have never seen her look so damn beautiful! I was totally impressed, you have to check her out. Who knew she was so versitle and gorgeous!

This film has a dark, bitter edge to it and i loved it. Strongly recommend this one, FORGET WHAT THE CRITICS SAID!

THE ELLEN AND RAY SHOW
GOODBYE LOVER is a tasty and original film noir featuring incredibly good performances from its entire cast. Director Roland Joffe (Oscar nominated for THE MISSION and THE KILLING FIELDS) puts his tongue in his cheek and helms a story of battling femme fatales.
Patricia Arquette (brilliant) stars as a ditzy, sexually overactive wife to headstrong advertising executive Dermot Mulroney (also very good). She is also having an affair with Mulroney's brother, played beautifully by an unusually effective Don Johnson. Also involved is Mary Louise Parker as an assistant to both Johnson and Mulroney, who has the hots for ..hmmm...both the brothers? Soon, we know it's BODY HEAT all over when a plot is hatched to bump off Johnson for the four million dollar double indemnity insurance payoff. It's no plot spoiler to reveal Johnson exits the movie early and we see that there is more than meets the eye to the romantic shenanigans of all involved.
Then enters Ellen DeGeneres and Ray McKinnon as the detectives investigating Johnson's apparent accidental death. Generes is awesome; her one liners with McKinnon are priceless, harsh and incredible. Not one of her fans, I find myself in awe of her talent, particularly after this and FINDING NEMO. McKinnon as her Mormon, idealistic, and quite unintelligent partner, is a find! He's perfect as Ellen's foil and he brings a sense of moral uprightness and comic relief to this marvelous movie.
Some great moments: Arquette and Johnson getting it on in the choir loft while the choir sings Handel. Arquette and Johnson are both highly respected members of their church and take up the collection plate. Mulroney goes to hire a killer to off his wife, and we see this man hanging upside down and don't know why! We see "what if" thoughts from both Johnson and Arquette that mirror what they'd like to see. While questioning a cook in a restaurant, DeGeneres (who always seems to be eating), is stealing food while McKinnon questions the cook. At one point in the movie, Ellen asks her partner if he's gay. (How's that for political correctness?). We never learn why she asks that particular question, and in a particularly joyous moment near the end of the film, McKinnon pulls a joke that has you riveted to your seat.
This is a real find...it's worth buying, it's that good!

Ellen steals it...
This movie was better than it got credit for. Pretty good movie but Ellen Degeneres steals the show as the tough/rude cop.

Excellent
First of all, I would like to say that it is a shame that this movie is not a box office hit as it is highly entertaining. I hope it gets a well-deserved second look with its DVD. All the casts are superb including Patricia Arquette and Ellen degeneres. There is enough plot and twist to make this standard murder mystery plot fresh. And funny script make this even more enjoyable.

The plot basically is about the death of advertising executive (Don Johnson). His brother is the sole beneficiary of the insurance policy. So the police (Ellen de Generes) is suspicious. To say more will spoil the fun.

The DVD is OK. Both WS and FS versions included. The color is bright and clear. The 5.1 sound only active during wonderful music score by John Ottman. Overall this is a highy recommended DVD. ... Read more