Amazon.com

Augustus is equal parts history lesson and soap opera, and thoroughly engaging at all levels. Peter O'Toole plays Octavius/Augustus, heir to his doomed uncle Julius Caesar's command of the far-flung Roman empire. Surviving an assassination attempt and struck by news of the death of his old friend and ally, Agrippa (Ken Duken), in the same day, Octavius waxes nostalgic about his youthful exploits in Caesar's army (Benjamin Sadler plays the young Augustus in flashbacks) and his unprepared immersion in the deadly politics of the Mark Antony (Massimo Ghini) era. More immediate are Octavius' problems trying to stave off conspiracies by his wife Livia (Charlotte Rampling) to set up the emperor's stepson, Tiberius (Michele Bevilacqua), as heir, and talk his dutiful daughter Julia (Vittoria Belvedere) into a marriage she doesn't want. Roger Young (Jesus) directs this highly watchable costume drama, and O'Toole's golden presence makes the ancient intrigues tragically human. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (45)

An acutate depiction.
"Joseph" is one of the best movies in "The Bible Collection." It also gives an acurate detail of the story in the Bible.

It shows how God works through the slave/Egyptian govornor who loved and obeyed him.

keep your butchered movie
Not one minute of this film should be edited, yet the run time on this DVD edition suggests it has been cut for time.They need a warning in large type that this is NOT going to be the same film we loved.This is dishonest.

Run Time Error?
This is an incredible mini-series...but it might not be so great if the run time stated (145 minutes) is accurate for the DVD release.The length of this production (at least on the VHS version) was 185 minutes.I plan to verify that this was not severely edited before I purchase it.There is some hope insofar as Warners Home Video has a history of understating (or miscalculating)run times...The miniseries "North And South" had a run time misprint that amounted to 183 minutes--over 3 hours!!The material was not missing or edited...just the info on the box was in error.Hopefully, that's what's happened here.

What Christians are suppose to be
Joseph is the ideal role model for EVERY Christian/Jew. He is an example of what we should streve for. Waiting for a spouse to have sex. Sticking to your God no matter the outcome. This movie reflects all of that perfectly. The actors did a great job. When I first saw this years ago I was blown away by the quality!! That was back in the VHS days...cant wait to see it on DVD. So I cant speak for the transfer quality yet, sorry.

The Best of the Bible Collection FINALLY on DVD
Although I have enjoyed most of the movies in the Bible Collection Joseph has been my all time favorite.It is biblically accurate, events that are not recounted in the Bible are kept beleivalbe for the time period.The guy who plays Joseph does a wonderful job.In fact it was this movie that ruined the movie Moses, Ben Kingsley does a wonderful job as Potiphar in Joseph, but is just to old and not right for the part of Moses.

I am so glad that this movie will finally be out on DVD.They have been available overseas for a long time in DVD format.I am glad they are begining to release these on DVD, hopefully David will come out soon. ... Read more

Description

He goes by the name of Jason Bourne. Shot and left for dead, he is rescued from the sea not knowing who he really is... nor why he is so good at killing with cold-blooded proficiency. Attempting to overcome both the killers who continue to hunt him and the obstacle of his own amnesia, Bourne is determined to uncover his own mysterious past. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Bourne is a lot nicer than in the book.
This is an intriguing movie and it will hold your attention from beginning to end. The plot is well conceived and there are no holes to drive trucks through. They could not have picked better actors for the characters. They may not match the descriptions in the book; but this is not a book.

The Bourne in the movie is much nicer. You have to make allowances for the transformation to the screen. However he does a lot more borrowing instead of stealing and is not as vicious with people on his travels.

Unlike the movie [Three Days of the Condor ASIN: 6300216748 (see my review September 25, 2000)], They did not let director distort the story for his own agenda. Basic story is someone wakes up with amnesia and naturally must find out who he is and why someone wants to kill him? As with all the amnesia stories he could be good, bad, or (I'm not going to say ugly) the person he is seeking.

BOURNE to be re-make..........
I've seen this tv-miniseries version of Robert Ludlum's bestselling novel many times, that I can actually say the lines and the dialogue in most scenes. However, that doesnt stop me from buying the new dvd version -- one plus, is having a new cover with Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. The first one that came out is just plain white cover and the second version is just an artwork. So, this cover version for one is worth collecting.

This version came out in 1988 and became a big hit worldwide in rental video and in some countries, it was released theatrically. Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith, I must say, did an excellent job in this movie. Jaclyn Smith was a revelation in this movie. Well, she and Richard Chamberlain are well known-as the King and Queen of the Miniseries genre, but this is Jaclyn's first foray to the action/thriller mold and she's very good at it. There's no high-popping special effects nor high-tech flying action scenes, but this movie delivers what an espionage thriller should be. It will hold you from start to finish. It's a non-stop gripping action thriller and the photography and the musical score are absolutely fantastic.

A big thumbs up and worth watching again and again!

Mostly true to Ludlum's novel
I saw the original movie when it aired on TV, and thought it was excellent - a great combination of suspense, intrigue, and romance. Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith (the King and Queen of the TV miniseries at that time) were both excellent in the starring roles and had great chemistry together. Inspired by the movie, I purchased the book and found the movie to be fairly true to the original. To the reviewer in New Jersey, I can only respond, have you read the book? In my opinion, at least, Richard Chamberlain was much more believable in the role of Jason Bourne than Matt Damon could ever be. From what I've seen so far, the new movie will probably pale in comparison to the original.

Bourne to Review....again!!!
After watching the dvd version of Matt Damon's version of "The Bourne Identity," I can't help myself but watch again(!) the tv miniseries version. The new version is the typical action movie of the current trend to suit the taste of today's movie lovers and I can't disagree with the new audience liking it(I enjoyed it!)and it's hard not to make a comparison but the main reason why this miniseries version is, I believe--and I know most fans will agree-- is the two stars, Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. Both stars had a chemistry that Matt Damon and Franka Potente lack. Don't get me wrong, both Damon and Potente are good but the XXX factor doesn't click at all.

Anyway, it's great having both in my collection and maybe years from now, I'll do another review and make a comparison --just in case things changes......

Great Passion
When the new one came out with Matt Dameon I was excited to see it, but was sorely disappointed. There was just emptiness, the story was changed and chopped with the loss of any of the great passion of the TV Miniseries.
The miniseries doesn't have all the special effects, but it has passion from people that are believeable and not contrived as in the Dameon movie. Their characters are real and you understand what they are feeling, from love to frustration, from fear to grief, and from confusion to loyalty. Since the Movie changed the story, none of these aspects where even attempted to be shown, just a love affair with no substance. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A title in the Danielle Steel Television Film Series, this four-hour drama unfolds the story of a multi-generational family beginning in the 1930s, based upon Steel’s book of the same name. After her first marriage dissolves, Sarah Thompson (Annette O’Toole) tours Europe and meets the charming William, Duke of Whitfield (Anthony Andrews) who captivates her and persuades her to marry him. They settle in a French chateau until World War II interrupts their marital bliss and William must join his regiment in war, leaving Sarah at home with a child.She contends with losses and loneliness until he returns home.Then, with a touch of serendipity, the couple begins a small jewelry business, which eventually expands into a thriving family endeavor. As her children grow into adults, Sarah’s intentional love toward them is her truest nobility. Though the second of this two-part series degrades, in part, from drama to soap opera, the overall effort receives merit for its notable acting and beautiful cinematography. Some domestic violence and sexuality. (Ages 16 and older) --Lynn Gibson ... Read more

Reviews (124)

A different point of view
This movie is not your average portrayal of the gospels. Christ's human side is brought out more, and I think it really reflects how much he really loved everyone. He's not portryed so much as a holy figure, but a man who is warm and caring and fun. However, I think they took a little too many liberties. The Jesus in this film acts like he has no idea what is going on, and it's his mother who is instructing him on what to do, not God. Some times he even acts like a happy-go-lucky, fun-loving guy...he's even giddy at times. But, other than that, I think the way Christ is portrayed gives us a better view on his human side. Sisto's acting is pretty good, although at times it sounds like he's reading his lines right off of a script. The movie is accurate in the crucifixion, however, and shows some scenes that aren't showed in other Jesus films, like him walking on the water or the wedding, where he turned water in to wine. Another brilliant point, I think, is how they showed the conflict of Christ in the garden with Satan, and Satan is trying to convince Christ not to go through the crucifixion. It really brings out his uncertainty and fear of what he has to go through. I think this is a very good Jesus movie for this millenium, and is very worthwhile to watch.

Enticing but Lacking in Character
Who can pass up any movie with the title "Jesus"? Sisto is less then adequate at his role as Christ. Im not sure if its his voice or his blase boring acting...or maybe because I remember him from the movie Clueless, but he just did not make me believe that I was really watching Jesus. Rather it was very obvious from the first 15 minutes, that it was Sisto reading lines pretending to be Jesus. In a way it was very liturgical and dogmatic and...well boring. But I watched it anyway because I love all movies portraying the most fabulous spiritual masters of all time. I will say that Messing, surprinsingly enough acted very well in her role as Mary Magdalene...in fact she was the only convincing actor in the movie. I will also say that I loved the idea of how they portrayed Satan. All too often Jesus movies leave out the temptation story...yet it is a wonderful and highly symbolic of Jesus the man...turning into Jesus the Christ by resisting the lower self. So any library needs this movie just for the sake of having it. Beyond that, if you want quality Jesus movie with a quality character portrayal of Christ please, I urge you to buy "Mary, the Mother of Jesus." Christian Bale portrays Jesus...what an actor! He has a strong energy about him that made me believe it was Jesus not Bale. Very powerful actor.

A STRANGE PORTRAYAL
The CBS film called Jesus that was released in 2000 begins with a Joan of Ark figure being burned at the stake and couples it with a scene out of WWII where soldiers are shown fleeing from the enemy. This dramatic introduction to the film is all part of a dream from which Jesus wakes up. The film then explores a supposed romance between Jesus and Mary, sister of Martha, in which he confesses to his father Joseph that he loves her but cannot be with her. Joseph, Jesus, and Mary are then confronted with Matthew, the tax collector, who breaks into their home to take taxes. That evening, Joseph bemoans the suffering of the Jews, and Jesus is offended by the assertion that he is the expected Messiah who can relieve the present suffering. Jesus then storms out of the room. After Joseph's death, as Jesus is mourning, Jesus says that he has only one father and that is Joseph. Jesus is then prompted by Mary to go on his mission, and he visits John to be baptized. John does not view Jesus as the Messiah but calls him a sinner who needs to repent of his sins. Soon after, Jesus is baptized, then he (Jesus) becomes the Messiah and confronts Satan in a bizarre interpretation of his temptations.
Jesus is first confronted by Satan in the form of woman with a red sash. The woman is then transformed into only the flowing sash. The Devil is then transformed into what is best described as a businessman with a really nice Armani suit. The Devil takes Jesus to a poverty-stricken South American village filled with starving victims, and then Jesus is magically removed from the area. Jesus is then taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, Satan is turned back into the woman with the red sash, and Jesus is shown the entire world from outer space. Jesus and the satanic businessman are soon back in the desert setting where it is decided that Jesus has passed the temptations. The devil will have to bide his time.
.... Jesus' ministry finally begins. He collects his disciples, and Mary tells him the story about their Egypt experiences. In a flashback, Mary recalls the situation in which Jesus and a few friends accidentally kill a bird and Jesus resurrects it. Jesus is depicted as living in Egypt at five to six years of age. Did Herod die in 4 B.C. or didn't he? If Herod was dead, why did the family stay in Egypt? Jesus and the disciples then attend the wedding at Cana, and Jesus apologizes to the Disciple Andrew because the disciple expected Jesus to defeat the Romans. The final insult in this film is the depiction of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus, prior to his address to the crowd, tells his disciples he has nothing to say. Luckily for us all, he comes up with something.

Can I Smell Some Hollywood Sleeze Behind This Production?...
this film is obviously a film to question as to 'why was this made?'

first, look at the poster. the dvd case. the advertisement. the ads for this movie. is it at all disrespectful to leave the J in Jesus lower case? that's an obvious sign that there's a lack of respect for Jesus.

second, Debra Messing's role portrayal is a far cry from a las vegas prostitute, but come on, what part of the Bible describes Mary like that? it's like a hollywoodized assumption.. and isn't this the Debra Messing who stars in "Will & Grace", the comedy sitcom about hetero- and homo-sexual relationships?? if i remember corectly, God doesnt find much comedy about homosexuality, and actually condemns it. so that's odd that she'd make a movie about God's Son.

third, Gary Oldman, Jeremy Sisto, and others, these are all stars who make a living off of playing quite a handful of blasphemous roles in their resume list. not that it's a bad thing to play those roles, but seriously, they arent exactly signing onto this movie because theyre passionate about the Good News Delivery, more so that they want the name 'Jesus' added to their resume.

forth, do the producers even believe that Christ is the Messiah? most hollywood producers are either Aithiest or Jewish, and they would not be too inclined to change their perspectives breifly for a movie production.

dont get me wrong, its nice that they made this movie. but it completely lacks the heart and soul needed to make a respectful accout of Jesus' life.

"Jesus of Nazareth", "Passion of the Christ", are a few of those films that DID have the gusto needed to respect Jesus Christ and accuracy with the Gospels.

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'Jesus' made in 2000 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Sometimes deep, sometimes boring but always easy to watch...
...is this movie about two yuppies Cole and Peterson searching for the sense of life. The story is quickly told: Jeff and Marty leave their families behind to go on a trip to a beautiful island where they fall in love with the same woman who is played by the amazingly sexy Sheryl Lee. Although "Kiss The Sky" goes on for too long itÂ's never really hard to watch since there are beautiful locations and a nice supporting cast which includes Terence Stamp ("Bliss"), Patricia Charbonneau ("CallMe") and Season Hubley ("Hardcore"). The three leading actors are great, too - although I wasnÂ't completely convinced by PetersonÂ's performance (but maybe thatÂ's my fault since I just know him as a tough cop in "Manhunter" and "To Live and Die in L.A.").

Another positive aspect of "Kiss The Sky" is the nice soundtrack by Leonard Cohen (I especially like "Dance Me To The End Of Love").

Not everyoneÂ's taste, but if you like the actors you might also like "Kiss The Sky

Kiss the sky is an interesting movie
Ok, I admit it. Put Billy Petersen in a movie and I am hooked. The movie is interesting. Jeff (William Petersen) and Marty (Gary Cole) decide they need a change from the pressures of their everyday life. The two best buddies head off on a working vacation and wind up in an opium den where they hear a man talking of an island where you can kiss the sky. Longing for the days when they were young and free, the two head out to this paradise and wind up falling in love with the same woman. She goes from Jeff to Marty and then spends a night with both of them, which makes for the interesting part of the movie. Between romps in the sack, Marty and Jeff decide to build a haven for others like themselves that need a place to go, a place to be free. Fighting the language barrier, slow arrival of materials, and the coming monsoon season, Jeff and Marty take their friendship to the edge. The ending was a surprise but appropriate.
This movie made me long for my wild and free days and envy Marty and Jeff (and espically Sheryl Lee).

Would not recommend
This movie was awful. I kept watching it because I thought eventually it was going to get better but it never did. The plot: two men abandon their wives and children to find themselves, but really all they are doing is chasing young women in the tropics. They carry on a "three-some" relationship with one woman. One guy continues travelling, the other finally goes home to his family but in all his arrogance suggests to his wife she's lucky to have him home for as long as he stays. Do not waste your time - you will wish you had the two hours of your life back.

Believable
A movie like this stands on its own as a rare, once-in-a-while gamble. It's always surprising that such movies are made because they are not the typical Hollywood ilk; they take genuine risks and do not play to the least common denominator.

I was shocked to read some very negative reviews concerning this film. Yes, the film's tone and feeling are awkward and jumbled but I interpret this optimistically as an existential statement about these two mens' lives. It is as if--awoken from a decades' long, Los Angeles coma--they recall what it was to have been truly alive and full of hope for the future. They have fallen and they know it. From young adulthood in Northern California to a waning middle age in Southern California, they have made a journey downwards. To remedy the fall, they escape... by going far to the side, neither East nor West. Once there, they realize what has happened with their lives; in the words of Gary Cole's character: "That's what I thought, this is all just a mistake." Their interpretation of life as delusion and suffering feels true, though the stumbling attempt to address this realization leaves one reeling. The epiphany recalls Kafka's frightening story, In the Penal Colony. The comprehension of your 'crime' always comes too late, but just in time for you to recognize its meaning and truly understand the horror of it all.

The characters are sympathetic but not necessarily likable. They are self-indulgent. Just as their forgetfulness of the important things led them into a life of quiet misery, so their practiced art allows them to forget the sacred duties that they have haplessly committed themselves to: marriage and parenthood.

In contrast to other reviewers, I found the characters well-cast. Terrence Stamp steals the show as an itinerant Dutch monk who shows an artful degree of compassion for his American friends. His insights are neither cliché nor pretentious but always pithy and well-timed.

The true highlight of this film is its haunting music. Rarely has a movie been so nicely accompanied. The Leonard Cohen lyrics are sung by a deep, lingering voice that seems to echo the tired spirits of these washed-up men.

Puerile and embarassing
It can't be the worst movie I have ever seen, because I have seen so many bad ones. But it's close. Pompous, ridiculous, self important dialogue that goes on and on and makes no sense. Phony, insincere performances that make the phrase "stilted" a compliment. Everyone is painfully miscast. I suspect that participation in this flick by cast and crew was obtained because everybody got a neat, free trip to the beautiful Phillipines, although that being said, the cinematography is weak and doesn't do it justice.

The worst stuff is the "erotic' material, i.e., a couple of pg-rated sex scenes, including a three way between the two men and Sheryl Lee (the prime reason my husband rented it I guess), which was so awkward that it performs the odd, moraliistic job of making kinky sex look BORING. And the actors look painfully embarassed all during. I felt sorry for them. If I were in this mess, my goal would be the make enough money to buy up all the copies and the master print and have it destroyed. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Interesting but not impartial
When I first discovered that Dean Cain was cast to play Scott Peterson, I got goosebumps all over because of the uncanny resemblance of the two men. While the movie is good and interesting, it is far from being impartial. It focuses too much on Scott Peterson and every little thing that pertained to him (his actions, behavior, etc.).

I believe that all people have the right to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This movie has Scott Peterson walking around with "GUILTY" written all over him. Hypothetically speaking, what if the Laci Peterson murder was something that was similar to the Dr. Sam Sheppard case? Don't get me wrong here - I have strong feelings about the Peterson case and will freely admit that I think Scott had a major role in Laci's death, however I do believe that the justice system needs to be utilized in the appropriate manner.

The movie is mostly about Scott Peterson more than it is about Laci. Nevertheless, it is an interesting movie to watch. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Excellent Script, Acting and Direction
This 1985 made-for-television movie holds up extremely well for today's audiences. It's not your average missing person story. Director Roger Young skillfully crafts a suspensful and heartwrenching story through the use of an excellent script and top-flight performances.

Honest, likeable, and repsonsible 19-year-old Brian Walker (Tate Donavan) just "falls off the map" while driving his van to college in Colorado from his home in Ottawa, Ontario.

Despite valiant efforts by his mother and brother (Ellen Burstyn and Sam Robards), no one in the law enforcement community has the time or inclination to thoroughly investigate one of the thousand missing kid cases. This leads to Burstyn and Robards teaming up with a private investigator (Robert Prosky) to finally find Brian's van, and ultimately Brian.

Burstyn, Prosky, Robards, Patricia Smith (as Prosky's wife), and even Donovan (with limited screen time) are all magnificent. John Dennis Johnston is especially creepy as the man who kidnaps Brian.

Although we all know what the ultimate outcome will be, the suspense and heartbreak are still palpable every step of the way - particularly in the last 15 minutes of the film.

This is a top notch TV movie.

don't go vaning alone in Nebraska
This 1985 TV movie is compelling due more to the path leading to the find of a 19 year old Canadian student who heads off from Ottawa alone in a van to drive to Colorado but goes missing in Nebraska, than the sledgehammer direction of Roger Young. Although this story is said to be true, credit must go to writer George Rubino, particularly in downplaying and omitting most of the cliches of the genre. There is the ubiquitious drama about someone wearing an article of the missing boy's clothes, but thankfully it is skimmed over quickly. As the boy's mother, Ellen Burstyn has 2 good scenes, one where she has an angry outburst at a police station, recalling Shirley MacLaine's hospital scene in Terms of Endearment ("Give her the shot!"), and the second when she emits animal noises on discovery of her son's trashed van. Also good is Sam Robards as her other son, and Robert Prosky as a private investigator Burstyn hires. The treatment comments on the "jurisdictional complexities" which unnecesarily burden missing person investigations, and makes out that the police and FBI were blundering incompetents in this case. There is also a postscript that tells us hundreds of teenagers go missing every year without trace, a bleak and dour note to end on, though perhaps in line with the fate of the boy. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

A better adaptation you will not find
What can I say? Many have attempted it, but this movie is the first to truly capture the spirit of Bram Stoker's classic, Dracula. First published in 1897, this imaginative story has been told in such films as "Nosferatu the Vampire," "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht," and "Nosferatu L.A. '02" - but never before with equivalent success. Furthermore, writer/director Roger Young has taken the movie a step further by maintaining thematic similarities between book and film while attaching a more familiar setting: the 21st century. When young American investment banker Jonathan Harker arrives at Vladislav Tepes's castle in Romania, he does so not in a carriage but a Porsche. When Harker and Dracula discuss business philosophy over dinner, the count slices their undercooked roast chicken not with a knife but an electric shredder. And when Lucy turns to Arthur and implores him for their love's sake to end her unworthy existence, Arthur rams her through the heart with not a stake but an automatic rifle.

Obviously, a novel as dated as Dracula has been failing to reach modern audiences not in lack of adherence to detail but in consequence of such. As the first man to truly understand this, Young has produced the final chapter in a long history of recent Dracula remakes. Finally, directors can feel satisfied that the job has been done well and conclusively. Working with a limited Italian mini-series budget, he has done a marvelous job overseeing such an undertaking.

Perhaps in another century visionaries will again need to reinvestigate the story of Count Dracula, but that is in the hands of our descendants, not us.

Excellent movie
Since this is getting bad reviews, I wanted to share my opinion
This is not the typical dracula movie, and I agree with the other reviews that the acting could have been better, but I liked this one better than Dracula itself. The "scenery" was awesome, and the players beautiful. It's worth watching just to look at one of the main characters over and over. I thought it had a great story line, and wonderful ambience. And though it probably was a lower budget film, it didn't give off the "b" movie vibe to me.
This is definitely a movie I will watch over and over.

Truly wretched
I've now placed this "film" on my personal Top 10 worst list. If horribly slow dialogue and bad acting stimulates you, then you might enjoy this excrement. The stiff who plays Harker (Hardy Kruger Jr.) is so excruciatingly bad, he makes Keanu Reeves look like Sir Laurence Olivier. And then there's Dracula himself (Patrick Bergen). Someone should have maybe suggested to the casting director that the vampire should be scary. This particular Count was actually starting to remind me of the guy who played Larry on Three's Company. Of course, the special effects were typical B-movie caliber as well. What a surprise there. This drivel is enough to make horror fans begin to study the films of Julia Roberts. Stay away.

It was OK
This is just a low budget or cheapie version of the 1991 version of the Dracula Movie. Stays along the old story line except this is in modern times but no surprises here. The acting was rated about the same as the old HAMMER actors were which wasn't that great, but you could always rely on Lee and Cushing to pull the movie thru. The only thing that kept me watching this movie was the girl that played Lucy. (she was a hottie)

Interesting modern update of Stoker's Novel
Originally aired on Italian TV as IL BACIO DE DRACULA (The Kiss of Dracula) as a mini-series, this truncated TV movie version is still worth a look for fans of Bram Stoker's novel.

The CGI effects and hit and miss acting are liabilities, but I found seeing several well known set-pieces from the novel updated to modern times quite interesting. There is also some beautiful location work.

Don't miss the deleted scenes section; the material shouldn't have been cut from the film and will delight those who know the novel well.

Over an hour of footage was cut from the mini-series version to make this feature, and therefore movie does seem a bit disjointed at times. Too bad the uncut version isn't on DVD in the U.S., but the UK R2 DVD available from Amazon UK DOES have the un-cut mini-series AND the shorter, feature length edit. Those with region free players are advised to import.

Dracula fans will want to pick this one up, despite its flaws. ... Read more

Description

Philadelphia, 1976. The city of Brotherly Love is waging a successful war against crime led by its tough-talking mayor, Frank Rizzo (Paul Sorvino). But a maverick investigative reporter, Jonathan Neumann (Rob Morrow), has heard some troubling rumors: stories of innocent people victimized by a "goon squad" of law enforcement officers.With his reluctant partner, Phil Chadway (Randy Quaid), and a beautiful colleague (Cynthia Preston), Neumann follows a twisting, turning trail of leads pointing to a cache of records documenting hundreds of brutality cases. When Neumann begins to receive death threats, he realizes he is perilously close to uncovering a corruption scandal - one that reaches all the way to the mayor's office. With his time running out, Neumann risks everything to learn the truth - and break a shocking story that will reverberate through the nation. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Great Newspaper Thriller!
If you like fast-paced thrillers that rely more on brains than brawn, this one's for you. Based on the true story of a pair of newspaper reporters in Philadelphia during the Bicentennial, it is in the vein of great films like Watergate. Jonathan Neumann (Rob Morrow) arrives in town to find prisoners routinely showing up in court with all sorts of painful bruises. When he questions why, he's told it's "jailhouse lawyering", where prisoners get together and beat each other prior to their appearances in court then claim police brutality, just to get their arrests thrown out. The problem is, from what Jonathan sees, none of the arrests are being thrown out. So he begins to suspect it is something more. In the end, he goes up against the most powerful man in Philadelphia, the former police chief and now Mayor, Frank Rizzo. It is a really exciting and thought-provoking film, with great camerawork,lightning and directing.

Enjoyable enough straight-to-video journalism tale
Frank Rizzo made a stamp as Phildelphia mayor in the 1970s; he cleaned the streets of crime in a way Rudy G. could have only dreamed in New York. But how he did it -- well, people whispered, and police carried big sticks. Not unlike the LAPD of the mid-90s, the force spiraled out of control, feasting on violence and hubris, removing lines so it didn't have any to cross.

The Phildelphia Examiner exposed the brutality, won a Pulitzer Prize, and stopped Rizzo's runaway train before he could change the city charter and run for a third term. "The Thin Blue Lie," a painful title, revisits the time and chronicles the reporters (Rob Morrow and Randy Quaid)who busted the story. The camerawork is a little cheap and the soundtrack is little too omnipresent, but the movie's a quick, dirty, 90-minute pleasure for a lazy day.

Morrow is a go-getter and new in town. Quaid is the good-natured newsman who wants to get his two stories a day and go home. As usual, the go-getter reveals the good natured sort as a victim of blind apathy, and the two combine forces, so to speak, to ferret out brutalized victims, as well as a [tough] cop who likes to go to work on suspects with a pair of handcuffs. There's even a lifesized white rabbit involved.

Morrow has the arrogant...schtick down cold. And Quaid broadens his range. Paul Sorvino has a cup of coffee as the tantrum-throwing Rizzo. Aside from G.W. "Proctor!!!" Bailey -- longtime "Police Academy" villain -- the supporting clan are actors I don't know, but have sufficiently big 1970s hair.

I like newspaper movies, usually because they're based on true stories -- aside from the ludicrous "The Pelican Brief" -- and because they cover familiar-yet-enjoyable ethical questions. Morrow's character is confronted by other reporters who make it clear Rizzo's regime lets them safely walk the streets at night. Morrow hasn't been around long enough to know the difference. In that detail, you sense how complacent a newsforce can become in the wake of a powerful leader, and how a fresh pair of eyes can see the injustices others have let fall through the cracks. ... Read more

Description

Although they grew up in the same Brooklyn neighborhood, Diane Giacalone (Lorraine Bracco), the new Assistant U.S. Attorney, is determined to prosecute John Gotti, its most famous son, the "Dapper Don" (Anthony John Denison).Uncooperative FBI agents and bureaucrats will not deter the driven young prosecutor.Her quest culminates in the memorable and controversial trial of a Mafia boss and the principles that govern their lives. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

3 out of 4 are Excellent; Those 3 are worth the price alone!
Three out of these four DVDs are excellent! This is probably the nicest series of Bible stories available. The photography is beautiful, as well as the costumes, props and sets; the acting of the main characters is superb, likeable and believable; and the scripts usually stay very close to the actual Bible verses.

Genesis is the only stinker in this set. It is nothing like the other 3. The Genesis DVD has nice photography, but it does NOT act out the Bible scenes like the other three movies do! Genesis just narrates a reading of the book of Genesis, while showing contemporary desert people going about their daily lives.

If you are undecided about buying the whole set, then I would suggest buying at least one of these separately. "Jeremiah" is my favorite, and it really captures the attitude of a humble prophet being persecuted by the wayward Israelites. "Esther" is probably the most accurately told of these three good movies. It is a pretty clear storytelling, where the other movies sometimes change the order of events (but still portray the overall message accurately). "Solomon" covers the biggest chunk of Scripture, retelling many scenes of the life of Solomon and what Solomon wrote in the Bible.

I would rate the Genesis movie with 1 star, for being so misleading as to its content. But the other 3 films, Esther, Solomon, and Jeremiah are all 5 star movies! Even with the useless Genesis, the price of this DVD set is still a bit cheaper to buy the three good movies here, at one price, than to buy them one at a time.

It's ok
I just recently purchased this movie from Amazon.com, and they flashed up a message that the NTSC format may not be playable in Australia. Well, it is playable! All modern VCR's sold in Australia can play (and some can record) NTSC tapes. I have found this very useful as 'Solomon' and the other movies in this series have never been released in Australia.
'Solomon' is a solid, well acted drama (what do you expect, with Ben Cross taking the leading part). I found the first part of the movie quite entertaining, with plenty of action, as old King David's reign comes to an end and two brothers compete for the throne.
With the sequences dealing with the building of the Temple, I felt that little respect was paid to the holiness of the dwelling place of God, or of the Ark of the Covenant. Solomon treated the Holy of Holies with triviality. The inside of the temple walls were covered with gold, so the makers of the set should have paid more attention to detail.
Overall, the movie is well done, with a bit of laid back humour, especially when Solomon greets all his children after a hard day at the 'office'. If you like Biblical dramas, this is worth getting, provided you allow for a bit of 'licence'.

Fabulous Bible movies
Now I have to say that 3 of these movies are absolutly great, but the genesis one is a stinker! Esther, Jeremiah and Soloman are all dramatisations of the Biblical stories with great actors who put in brilliant performances. Genesis is a bunch of weird looking guys just walking around with a boring narration. And the narration does not even match what is on screen half the time. If Ed Wood did a Biblical epic it would look like Genesis!

Ok, glad I got that off my chest. Buy the box set, use Genesis for a frisbee!

God made him strong, women made him weak
A romanticized but quite accurate account of what is written in I Kings and II Chronicles, this made-for-television film is exceptional and boasts a brilliant international cast and fabulous settings.
Filmed in Quarzazate, Morocco, the landscapes are wonderful, and the buildings and set decoration, in warm amber shades, are a visual delight, enhanced by the cinematography of Raffaele Mertes. The terrific score by Patrick Williams also adds much to the atmosphere.

The section devoted to the Queen of Sheba has been embelished, but Viveca A. Fox is ravishing as the queen, and it makes for great drama.
The emphasis on this part is to show Solomon's destructive tendencies; women were his weakness, and the rationalizations for his behavior his undoing. From Adam to modern history, it's a common story, but in the case of Solomon, what he gave up for his weakness was God's mighty blessing, and the inheritance he would leave his heirs.

Ben Cross ("Chariots of Fire") as this complex character is marvelous, and he is surrounded by a superb supporting cast. Though it's hard to take the nordic air from Max von Sydow (who in 1965 played Jesus in "The Greatest Story Ever Told"), he is nevertheless an aging giant of a man as King David, and France's great Anouk Aimee plays Solomon's mother Bathsheba with vigor, as she holds on to the reins of power with tenacity.
Other notable performances come from David Suchet (who was so good in the 1998 "The Perfect Murder") as Joab, Ivan Kaye as Solomon's half-brother Adonijah, and Richard Dillane as the laborer who ultimately rules ten of the twelve tribes, Jeroboam. Even the smallest parts are believable, which reflects on the excellent direction by Roger Young.
This is a Bible epic well worth owning for repeated viewing; some of it is poetic, some of it action-packed, often inspiring and thought provoking, and always fascinating.

Accurate
Overall these are very accurate. I would like to point out, that many biblical scholars believe that Solomon did in fact marry the queen of Sheba. This is based on the history of the nation of Sheba (aka Ethiopia) and although the Bible dosen't explicitly say that they were married, there is nothing in Scripture that would contradict it. In fact the people of the Ethiopian nation were followers of the Jewish faith, that is why the Ethiopian enuch in Acts is reading from the Old Testament. According to the history of that country Solomon and the queen had a son and he sent priests and Levites to train him in the faith. This isn't somthing that the films makers made up.

Esther and Jeremiah are also very accurate, but I thought that Genesis was a little slow. It is mainly narative. After the story of the Creation it could have been acted out. ... Read more