Reviews (20)

Don't Miss This One!
This is an excellent video that accurately depicts the highlights of the Biblical story of King David! Although it is a wonderful pleasure just to sit and watch, we have also used it for Bible study classes and found it an extremely valuable tool in understanding the many events that surrounded the life this man "after God's own heart". ENJOY!

Forget the Negative Reviews! It really is 1000BC!
Fantastic Art Direction, High Production Values, and a Superb Cast and Crew make this film the most visually accurate Old Testament Story ever given the Big Screen Treatment. Whoever was the technical advisor for this film did an excellent job in recreating the period. Edward Woodward is Outstanding as Saul (most of the cast is British, which lends a certain archaic dignity to the dialogue). Richard Gere also does a great job as King David.
If you have a passion for Biblical or Historical Epics - this one delivers! The battle scenes (which are very well choreographed), chariot charges, and of course the duel between David and Goliath are all 'edge of the seat', 'toe curling action'
I really cannot praise this film too much!

"a lamp unto his people"
When this film was released in 1985, the critics were not kind, but I love this film, and think it's a good telling of the story of David, based on I and II Samuel, I Chronicles, and the Psalms. Though much of it has been compressed (David's relationship with Bathsheba is limited mostly to the consequences of it for instance) and some creative license used for plot continuity, it has a tremendous amount of Biblical accuracy.
Taking place from 1000 to 961 B.C., the costuming, sets, and artifacts are fabulous; filmed in Pinewood Studios, U.K., and on location in Italy, the cinematography by Donald McAlpine is wonderful. The score is also lovely, by Carl Davis.

The brief nudity in the wedding chamber sequence has in my tape, been darkened so as to be imperceptible; either this is a flaw in the tape, or an effort not to offend and capture a wider audience, which would be silly, as this is a very mature drama. It contains much brutal violence making it unsuitable for children, and the confrontation with Goliath for example (which is exceptionally well done), is one of four beheadings.
Richard Gere is a marvelous David, and stands up well against an excellent international cast. He was thirty-five when this was filmed, and is about as handsome as a human has a right to be. The actor who shines above all though is Edward Woodward as Saul. He is riveting, and it's a brilliant character study of courage mixed with jealousy, revenge, and madness.

This is far from being a "Big Bible Epic" with lots of well known stars, instead it's serious and beautifully acted, and perhaps arrived on the scene at the wrong time, that it was so unappreciated two decades ago. Total running time is 114 minutes.
"It is through the heart, the heart alone, that God speaks to man".

Excellent and accurate biblical portrayal!
This biblical story recount of the lives of King Saul and King David were very true to what I have read in the Old Testament stories in the books of "Samuel" and Kings". Having Richard Gere portray the adult King David didn't hurt either!!! This is one of the better "bible" story movies I have seen to date. Thoroughly enjoyed seeing this biblical story "come to life" and Richard Gere is terrific in it! Lot's of action and well done!

Sucked!
This movie sucked! Everything about it was terrible. Some may also find it offensive for straying far from the biblical narrative. Although this movie is called "King David", the story bares little resemblance to the story of King David found in the books of Samuel and Chronicles. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Russian master Alexander Sokurov has tapped into the very flow of history itself for this flabbergasting film. Thanks to the miracles of digital video, Sokurov (and cinematographer Tilman Buttner) uses a single, unbroken, 90-minute shot to wind his way through the Hermitage in St. Petersburg--the repository of Russian art and the former home to royalty. Gliding through time, we glimpse Catherine II, modern-day museumgoers, and the doomed family of Nicholas II. History collapses on itself, as the opulence of the past and the horrors of the 20th century collide, and each door that opens onto yet another breathtaking gallery is another century to be heard from. The movie climaxes with a grand ball and thousands of extras, prompting thoughts of just how crazy Sokurov had to be to try a technical challenge like this--and how far a distance we've traveled, both physically and spiritually, since the movie began. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (54)

Russian Ark
Russian Ark, which consists of a single uninterrupted shot that lasts 96 minutes, truly is an amazing technical feat. Other films have dealt with similar premise (the ill-conceived Timecode, for example, features 4 uncut shots simultaneously), but it's even more impressive here because the movie isn't in real-time. We follow our narrator as he roams through the Hermitage, interacting with various people and historical events that span several centuries. It's also a visually breathtaking film. The magnificent Hermitage alone is enough to cause visual sensory overload, but gorgeous costumes and perfectly executed and choreographed scenes were very impressive as well. The final dance sequence (followed by people exiting the room) can only be fully appreciated on the big screen.

What's the Russian Word for 'Magnificent' ?
Digitally shot by a single high-definition steadicam, 'Russian Ark' is a 96-minute journey through 300 years of Russian art and history filmed in one unedited take. One might call back Mike Figgis' 'Timecode' (2000) that made it with four cameras, each shooting one take/story in real time and simultaneously displaying all takes on a quadruple-split screen. The finale comprised the climatic moment of all stories circumstantially coming together. Figgis utilized a cast of dozens. 'Russian Ark,' in contrast, features a masterfully orchestrated cast of 2,000 actors, dancers, and musicians all geared up to the full. To boot, Sokurov had only one day to get his shooting job done. We find us/him/them (all or none) in the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, among dramatic historical figures acting out startling fits in the Tsarist Empire, aggrandized by phenomenal sets and costumes, all drawn up by camerawork and choreography of surpassing excellence, and a mysterious man (out of place and time) introducing the feature with an appetizing "Where am I? I don't remember much. But there was an accident." As the camera transports that man from one situation to another, the film's power point begins to break through. And what a point it is. 'Russian Ark' is not a visit to the Hermitage. Rather, it is a tap on time's door; an unbroken train of thought that only our creative consciousness can make sense of and appreciate.

I believe the film was a challenge on all imaginable levels. Director of 'Empire,' 'Elegy of a Voyage,' 'The Dialogues with Solzhenitsyn' and other resplendent documentaries and feature films, Alexander Sokurov gives rise this time to a defining moment in cinema history.

A Cinematic Wonder
A film shot straight in 90 minutes, in one un-interrupted sequence - no cuts- not more than one take for any of the scenes!

Not just that, Alexander Sokurov - the legendary Russian director who debuted in 1978 with his "The Lonely Voice of Man" has done so many firsts in the movie that this wonder just has to be taken seriously. Sokurov has generated his works at the cross-roads of two fundamental film genres: documentary and "fiction". After having made nearly forty films over a period of two decades he is still searching for the language of cinematography which, as he says, the now hundred-year-old child - Cinema, has as yet not been able to develop.

Shot in high definition digital format and then put on 35mm, this film used the latest in digital technology and was recorded, entirely, on a hard-disk. The movie is shot at The Hermitage in St. Petersburg and was the first feature to be allowed to be shot in the museum, or at least the first movie that wasn't about the Revolution. Hundreds of actors gathered at The Hermitage in 36 different rooms on the 23rd of December 2001 to shoot this movie. Shooting on the shortest day of the year, and balancing the light in that season in St. Petersburg for a one-take sequence of 90 minutes wouldn't have been an easy task mind you. The movie features live performances from 4 symphonic orchestras one of which is The Hermitage's own famous philharmonic orchestra. Void of modern cinematic luxuries, Alexander has, in truly a work of artistic genius, managed to add a touch of complete surrealism to the movie.

Set across four centuries in an extremely surreal time-travel fashion, the movie captures the life in and around The Hermitage and re-enacts moments of history and art in one of the most epic and elaborate fashion. Not for even a single second does the movie compromise on the theatrical details for the sake of the challenge of being shot in one take. Authentic costumes and the comments on the work of art on display at The Hermitage museum are immaculately detailed and accurate. The movie almost effortlessly takes the viewer through the history, like a story-teller talking about the ages in one breath. Not failing to capture the sentiments of the ages, you would find comments on the Russian dislike of the European, as well as the political bonds and resistances that existed between Persia and Russia.

Termed most often as one of the best post-soviet Russian movie, Russian Ark is more than just that. If it weren't a Russian Movie, or was set in centuries of Italian history, the world would have perhaps come to admire it more. Fully recommended to everyone for the storylines of the movie as well as for the flawless technical details. Surely goes down in the history of cinema as one of the most artistic works ever.

A Unique, Great Film
A 90-minute movie centered on St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum, filmed in one unbroken take by a digital steadicam, didn't send a lot of Americans racing to buy tickets when it was shown here two or three years ago. The movie, however, is far more than just a technical stunt. It's a unique tour de force with emotional impact.

Russian Ark portrays the Hermitage as a kind of cultural and historical ark floating on centuries of Russian seas. The narrative device is a shadowy eighteenth century Frenchman who wanders the halls and time periods, commenting often with good-natured European condescension on what he sees. He is accompanied by a Russian who is never seen, and who questions him about his comments. The movie ranges through time with appearances of Peter the Great, Catherine II, Puskin, Nicholas II and his family, generals, maids, flunkies and diplomats. The Frenchman, played with great style by Russian actor Sergei Dreiden, takes us to painting and sculpture galleries, kitchens, ballrooms, storerooms, basements and living quarters as we observe things that happened in the Hermitage over the centuries.

At first, I was very aware of the technical feat of no cuts. Gradually, though, I think most people just relax and accept the skill of the director and photographer, and become immersed in what they are seeing. A kind of unreal imagery takes hold. The movie ends with the last dance held in the Great Ballroom before WWI. Hundreds of actors and dancers, in full costume, swirl around this ornate setting, and swirl around the camera as well, while the camera glides through the crowds. It's a terrific scene, and is followed by the end of the dance with all the hundreds of guests making their way through the halls and staircases to leave the building, with the camera facing them and moving along in front of them.

The DVD has several extras, but in my view the best is Film in One Breath. It is the documentary of the making of the movie. Enormous planning went into Russian Ark, and the actual filming required split second coordination with the actors, the lighting and the camerman. Any mistake, and they had to start over. There were two mistakes; they were successful on the third try. Tillman Buttner, the movie's director of photography who wore the steadicam, has excellent stories to tell.

This is a highly unusual film, probably a great one.

The DVD transfer is first rate.

Comparison with Real Time (Tiempo Real)
by Beth Accomando, KPBS Film Critic

Yet even Sokurov¹s careful staging and deft touch can¹t completely distract us from the novelty of his device. There are times when scenes seem staged just for us to marvel at the difficulty of their execution rather than for strict advancement of the story. So there are moments when we are pulled out of the story simply to gape in awe at the logistics and that¹s a flaw. In some ways the low budget Mexican film Tiempo Real (which is certificated by Guinness Book of World Records as the first film to be shot entirely in one shot from one camera) makes less self-conscious use of its one-shot formula precisely because it is gritty and low budget. The lack of funds combined with shooting on contemporary, real streets ends up distracting us from the gimmicky technique because we¹re less conscious of how everything¹s being staged. So in an odd sense, it is the very elaborateness of Sokoruv¹s film and its spectacular choreography of people and events that makes it more self-conscious in its technique. ... Read more

Reviews (89)

"To a New Yorker like you...a hero is some kind of sandwich"
Exciting, humourous and well paced WWII action film sees Clint Eastwood and Co. looking to liberate $16 million worth of gold bullion from the retreating Nazi forces in Europe !

Director Brian G. Hutton (who directed Clint in the WWII thriller "Where Eagles Dare") is at the helm of this movie and again demonstrates his passion for fiery, loud battle scenes !!

Eastwood plays Kelly...just another war weary soldier slogging through the muddy battlefields of France until he comes across a German colonel and top secret information about a bank full of plundered Nazi bullion...now all he needs is a skilled team to carry out this most audacious of bank heists in the middle of a war ! Kelly enlists the assistance of tank commanding flower child "Oddball", (Donald Sutherland in an unforgettable performance ) fast talking hustler "Crap Game" ( I don't think Don Rickles was acting ! ), battle hardened sergeant "Big Joe" ( Telly Savalas )....along with a motley crew of troops including Harry Dean Stanton as "Willard" and Jeff Morris as "Cowboy".

I know some reviewers tend to be a bit critical of some of the humourous aspects of this movie....but what the heck...it's not trying to be "All Quiet on the Western Front" or "Paths of Glory"...the movie is a fictional tale about an elaborate bank heist thrown in amongst a very noisy war, and peopled with some larger than life colorful characters. "Kelly's Heroes" is an enjoyable little cult film and is a fun way to spend a lazy evening watching a "Boys Own" action adventure.

Great to finally have "Kellys Heroes" out on DVD (although a few extra goodies would have been nice)....picture and sound quality is very good...and I always enjoy "The Mike Curb Congregation" singing "Burning Bridges" (the film's theme track)......

Classic Army Comedy
Very enjoyable comedy about a platoon of Army soldiers who set out to steal gold bars in a bank behind German lines during WW II. The movie takes place after D-Day when a Private, portrayed by Clint Eastwood, finds out that there is a huge stash of gold in a bank deep in enemy territory. The humor is centered around the lackluster group of soldiers he rounds up to penetrate German lines in a mission to retrieve the prize. What really makes the movie work are the actors: Donald Sutherland (a hippy tanker if you can believe that), Telly Savalas (the strong, reluctant platoon sergeant), Don Rickles (the scheming supply sergeant), and Carrol O'Connor (the division commander who has been trying to get the infantry division on the move). Although funny, it still has it's somber moments when the soldiers and tankers run into the enemy as they advance towards their objective, but it's not too violent nor bloody as recent movies with WW II themes. Previous reviewers have remarked how well done the production sets are with uniforms and equipment, and they are pretty impressive considering this is only a comedy. Interesting remarks about the Tiger Tanks, they probably are modified T-34s considering that they do not have front drive sprockets that original Tigers had, nor do they have the over-lapping road wheel suspension. Plus the turrets of these tanks sit forward on the chassis just like T-34s, regardless of these picky comments, they do almost like the real thing. An enjoyable movie and it has a lively soundtrack that compliments the plot very well.

Great entertainment,, with WWII backgound

Studio: Warner Studios
Video Release Date: November 6, 2001

Cast:

Clint Eastwood ... Pvt. Kelly
Telly Savalas ... Master Sgt. Big Joe
Don Rickles ... Staff Sgt. Crapgame
Carroll O'Connor ... Major General Colt
Donald Sutherland ... Sgt. Oddball, Tank Commander
Gavin MacLeod ... Moriarty, Tank crewman
Hal Buckley ... Captain Maitland
Stuart Margolin ... Pvt. Little Joe
Jeff Morris ... Pvt. Cowboy
Richard Davalos ... Pvt. Gutowski
Perry Lopez ... Pvt. Petuko
Tom Troupe ... Cpl. Job
Harry Dean Stanton ... Pvt. Willard
Dick Balduzzi ... Pvt. Fisher
Gene Collins ... Pvt. Babra
Len Lesser ... Platoon Sgt. Bellamy 42nd Engineers
David Hurst ... Colonel Dumpkoppf
Fred Pearlman ... Pvt. Mitchell
Michael Clark ... Pvt. Grace
George Fargo ... Pvt. Penn
Dee Pollock ... Pvt. Jonesey
George Savalas ... 1st Sgt. Mulligan, Artillery Unit
John G. Heller ... German Lieutenant
Shepherd Sanders ... Turk, Tank crewman
Karl-Otto Alberty ... German Tank Commander
Ross Elliott ... Major Booker, Gen. Colt's Staff Communications Officer
Phil Adams ... Pvt. Whiskey
Hugo De Vernier ... French mayor
Frank J. Garlotta ... Tanker
Harry Goines ... Supply sergeant
David Gross ... German Captain
Sandy Kevin ... Mo
James McHale ... Guest
Robert MacNamara ... Major Roach, Gen. Colt's Staff
Reed Morgan ... U.S. lieutenant
Tom Signorelli ... Sgt. Bonsor, Gen. Colt's Staff
Donald Waugh ... Roamer, Gen. Colt's Staff

Vincent Maracecchi ... Old man in town
Tony Wheeler ... Cpl., General Colt's Driver

This film is rich with humor, as well as suspense. Kelly (Eastwood) learns about a bank full of gold bars, in Germany behind enemy lines. He gets together a mixed bag of what can only be called losers and misfits, appropriates a tank, and heads for the gold. The ensuing struggle to get rich provides the motivation which keeps the motley band together.

Donald Sutherland ("oddball"), the hippy tanker, is the source of much humor, as well as Don Rickles ("Crapgame"), and (believe it or not) Carroll O.Connor as the general.

This is a funny movie, with more than a little action. Nothing offensive.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books

Off-beat WW2 classic with all-star cast!
This is definitely one of the funniest war movies of all time! Donald Sutherland, who plays a hippie(!) tank commander, seems out of place in a WW2 setting. However, he had me laughing the whole way through! I can't imagine what this film would be like without his hysterical performance. One of my favorite scenes is when Sutherland's three Sherman tanks attack a Nazi railroad station while playing Hank Williams' music on a loud speaker! I realize that this "WW2 movie" has a definite 70's feel to it (especially with one of the hit songs of the decade, Burning Bridges), & some don't like this movie for that reason. I can't help but have fun everytime I see this! The tanks, even the German ones, look much more authentic than those in Patton or The Battle of the Bulge. This is a real treat for WW2 tank buffs like me who appreciate authenticity. I know the plot is hokey, but who cares? If you want to see a war movie that isn't depressing (like most) or boring then this is for you!

Action packed and funny
Another "tough-guy" film that is sure to entertain you over and over again. Starring Clint Eastwood as the demoted Sgt. Kelly, Telly Savalas as "Big Joe", also starring Don Rickles, Donald Sutherland, Carol O'Connor and Dean Stanton. Truely great action packed film with lots of dry humour. Donald Sutherland looks like he's spent the last 5 years in San Fransisco than an actual Tank commander. I recommend this film. ... Read more

Reviews (29)

Possession (1981) d: Zulawski, Andrzej
Incredibly strange nasty that the art house crowd will love. Mark (Sam Neill) and Anna (Isabelle Adjani) are a married couple going through a long dark marital breakdown during the political upheaval of 1970s Berlin. The highlight of which includes Anna expressing her tormented stated of mind by cutting into her neck with an electric carving-knife. On the surface the movie seems very simple: Mark figures that he has gotten to the bottom of Anna's unsettling behavior. He assumes that she is having an affair, and hires a detective to find out who it is. In probably the weirdest twist ever committed to celluloid, we find out that Anna has given birth to an octopus creature in a award-winning ten minute bile-spraying miscarriage on the Subway. If that is not enough, we discover that she is committing incest with the tentacle lover. The demented housewife struggles with leaving her family behind for her slimy monster. "...Part art film, part supernatural thriller, and part splatter horror" this movie has finally been put back in the right order and released uncut for the first time in North America, but it still does not make a lot of sense. Deep metaphor's throughout the picture make Possession incomprehensible but fun to try and figure out.

A distorted look into the mirror of love-- a must!
After many years of acquiring a cult status of mythical proportions, Zulawski's "Possession" finally comes to the viewers as it was originally supposed to be seen.

This is not an easy movie to see or to understand -- and I suppose it neither was easy to write or film. The characters are severely neurotic and seem to thrive on their bizarre behaviour (in more ways than one) yet they are somehow all too human. Like the movie ultimately suggests (once you get to see the secret trick the movie plays on the two leads), this story may be like looking into a mirror, though dark and distorted.

Meet Mark (Sam Neill), an overworked man with a mysterious job that takes him "to far away places". Meet his lovely wife, Anna (an overwhelmingly beautiful Isabelle Adjani), a sexually frustrated housewife and former ballet instructor who has much more than meets the eye going on for her.

Between quarrels and reconciliations, these two share a nice apartment in a quiet and well-to-do district of Berlin and have a five year old son, Bob, but they also share a horror that no one could have suspected, and that will make all their fantasies and nightmares come true.

After being brutally butchered by Vestron Video for its original release, "Possession" has been restored to its original lenght and sequence, therefore becoming coherent for the viewers who used to find it mind-numbingly strange.

I think of it as a very unique piece of craftmanship, part Ingmar Bergman drama, part Polanski suspense thriller, part Dario Argento gore, part Kubrick satire, part Buñuel surrealism and still somehow, very much its own.

The camera angles, the direction, the strange whims and seizures that seem to take over the characters (including one memorable and disturbing scene on a subway station with Adjani pulling all the stops not ontly to her acting abilities but to her physical strength too) are part of a very strange style Zulawski has to tell his story.

If you are accustomed to standard horror fare, then probably you will dismiss this movie as pretentious eurotrash (something it has been labeled off as countless times) but if you're game and follow the sequences and let your imagination be ensnared this will be a convulsive ride to the depths of emotion where you won't emerge as the same person.

And quite possibly, that's what all horror movies are really about at heart.

As a footnote: Isabelle Adjani won a very deserved Gold Palm at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival for her dual role in this film that, no matter how much you loved it or hated it, is still unforgettable.

The quality of the DVD in picture and sound is also of note.

What more can I say?
You either love this film or you hate it. I write this review mostly to add five more stars to the ratings this film has recieved. There is not much more I can add to what the others have said. This film is a unique experience. By American standards, all the performances are grotesquely over-acted, but if this is pretentious, then I say bring on the pretense! Isabelle Adjani is wonderful to watch even in the calmer moments, and when she moves into High Historionics she is utterly unlike anything you have ever seen (and much more impressive than the monster). The film is not light entertainment, but deep catharsis, intended slap the viewer into satori, the Dionysian dream of an Apollonian chorus. Since viewing it, I have searched for anything by Zulawski I could get my hands on, and it has not been easy to find much. This is his only film in English, and much of his work has never even been released with English subtitles, much less in American formats. (Perhaps after the mutilation Possession recieved at the hands of Vestron, Zulawski did not want to release more of his films in the United States?)

Aimless, directionless, useless
This film was a ridiculous waste of time and energy. There was no narrative to hold the scenes together. Characters were too weird and strange and violent. The whole thing seemed pointless. The only redeeming value to this film is Isabelle Adjani, who is beautiful beyond words. And the cover art and insert have some provocative images. Aside from that, SAVE YOUR MONEY.

man oh man oh man......
I was thrilled to find so many references to Polanski and Cronenberg among the reviews for this film. It does indeed combine the dark suspense and ironic humor of ROSEMARY'S BABY, the biological horror and familial disintegration of THE BROOD, and the unabashed histrionics and directorial flamboyance of Ken Russell's THE DEVILS. With themes of marital strife, familial disintegration, and psychological breakdown harking back to the former two and the in-your-face grotesquerie and visceral drama reminding the viewer of the latter two, little-known but acclaimed Polish filmmaker Andrzej Zulawski tells the story of Anna (Isabelle Adjani, in the performance of a lifetime) and Mark (Sam Neill), she a bored housewife and he an overworked... something (the film never makes clear his occupation). They share an apartment in an empty, run-down Berlin with their young son. After completing an important job of some kind, Mark comes home to his family to find things changed. He drags the truth from Anna that she has been having an affair. She insists she cannot stay with him, and leaves Mark with the child, apparently to shack up with her lover. Mark tracks down the lover, a real weirdo named Heinz (Heinrich Bennent), but after insults and fisticuffs, Heinz insists he has not seen Anna in quite a while. Mark, perplexed, hires a detective to follow her from their apartment after one of her sporadic visits, which always end in chaos. The detective manages to get in and... something really strange happens. I know what that something is, having seen the picture, but on the off-chance you haven't read the other (spoiler-inundated) reviews, I'll keep it secret. Instead I'll talk about the photography, which goes a long way toward mirroring the absolutely unhinged performances, and the set design, which provides a cool counterpoint to the feverish tenor of the film's action and dialogue. It obviously isn't going to be for everybody, and in fact some will doubtless find it repellent. Writing the film was obviously therapeutic for Zulawski (who, like Cronenberg when writing THE BROOD, was going through a nasty divorce). A friend of mine said he was more sickened by the scenes of emotional anguish than by any of the film's often-stomach-churning special effects. Just keep two things in mind: firstly, this isn't your typical "horror flick", therefore the splatterpunk/gorehound set should stay away; and secondly, this one is playing for keeps: though laced with a bitter humor, there are no light moments here AT ALL, and this should not be watched by couples on a first date, or any couple whose relationship is not secure. Also, keep impressionable children away from it. I was very impressed with what I thought would be just another dreary, over-hyped horror film and turned out to be a genuine classic (at least as far as I'm concerned). Watch POSSESSION if you like Polanski's horror films, Cronenberg's more dramatic outings, or any of Ken Russell's stuff. SCENE OF NOTE: Adjani going ABSOLUTELY NUTS and having a miscarriage (or going into labour...?) in a subway station for what seems like an eternity. ... Read more

Reviews (269)

Bend it like who??????
There was much debate over the title for "Bend it Like Beckham." It was deemed too unappealing and was thought the title would hurt the film's box-office performance, despite its tremendous overseas success. But the title is like the movie itself--smart, original, and unique.

It refers to English soccer superstar David Beckham and his ability to curve a ball straight past the goalie. He's a hero to Jess (Parminder Nagra), an Indian girl residing with her traditional, hard-headed family in England. Jess is torn between being a dutiful younger daughter and her overwhelming passion for soccer. When Jules (Keira Knightley) spots her playing with a group of local boys and is awed by Jess' talent, she invites the Indian girl to play for her team, coached by a charismatic young Irishman named Joe (Jonathan Rhys Meyer), who they both fall for.

Jess' father (Bollywood actor Anupam Kher) holds a grudge against the English but is soft-hearted toward his daughter. Jess' mom (a wonderful Shaheen Khan), who is preparing Jess' older sister, Pinky, for her wedding, prays that Jess will forgo her obsession with the sport for marriage and a life cooking Indian food for her future husband and family. Jules' mom (a hilarious Juliet Stevenson) tries to sway Jules into Wonderbras and girly clothes. But Jules, strong-willed and independent, is sure of her future: She wants to play soccer in America and nothing, not even her crush on Joe, will stop her.

Mix-up's, family complications, a beautiful Indian wedding, and a neat resolution all follow.

Like last year's equally thrilling "Monsoon Wedding," "Bend It Like Beckham" is terrifically fun entertainment; wonderfully shot and acted, instilled with spirit and life and able to woo us with its exhuberant freshness despite a triumph-over-adversity theme we've seen many times in different incarnations. It's explores the culture clash beautifully, and despite the predictabilty, it's a winner in every sense of the word. Definitely this year's feel good crowd pleaser.

Coming of age, Indian style
Cultures clash when talented young Jesminder Bhamra (Parminder Nagra), an Indian girl living with her family in England, earns a spot on a girls' soccer team. Running around in shorts in public is simply not appropriate for a proper young lady, and the time needed for practice would clash with Jess's many obligations, such as preparing for the wedding of her older sister (Archie Panjabi), learning how to cook a proper Indian meal (including vegetarian), and getting into a good school. Jess is soon trying to juggle her home life and her exciting new soccer life, which includes a new best friend (Keira Knightley) and a love interest (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers).

This is a very exhuberant and entertaining film. It follows the basic formula of a coming-of-age film but does it without any missteps. The cast is wonderful. Special mention goes to Anupam Kher and Shaheen Khan, who play Jess's parents. Writer/director Gurinder Chadha (with co-writers Paul Mayeda Berges and Guljit Bindra) has made a very entertaining movie.

Oligobi?
Family values and girl power rules in this movie.

The story is about a tomboy girl growing up in a traditional Indian family, which of course is more partial for her to be more feminine as she grows up and learn how to do housework. Jess, the tomboy star, is infatuated with soccer and her idol is avid Beckham and we all know what that leads to...her having the need to be just like him.

So behind her family's back, she sneaks around, join a women football team and have her gay bestfriend cover up for her. She has another new girlfriend named Jules, and both of them gets into a few weird fix with their family, eg their parents thinking they are lesbians. On the side, they are both in love with their coach and of course jealousy would really be in the way of their friendship.

One day, the coach got the team an European cup match and of course it would end up in the newspaper where the parents found out their daughter is still playing soccer! *gasps!*

Watch it if you like a story about family value and girl power. I'm mostly into this movie because of it's comedy ^_^

The US thinks it's the only country that has rascism...
This is a truly wonderful story. Okay, it has some sort of silly bits, but overall it offers a moving portrait of a young Pakistani girl living in London, and coping with her amazing soccer skills in the face of tremendous cultural opposition.

The movie is well made: not only is the writing good but I was particularly impressed with the editing and the music. I don't usually notice such things, but I thought both were very well done and added to the movie. A lot of the humor was very subtle and showed a very dry wit. I particularly liked the touch of the ditzy, slutty sister who is the "perfect" daughter because she hides her rebellion.

I found it a little upsetting, when I saw it in the theater, that the scene where the father describes the rascism he encountered when he first tried to play cricket in Britain elicited a chorus of laughter from the audience. When Americans think of rascism, they think of "white people versus black people," but there is formidable rascism in Britain against people for Southeast Asian descent. In order to fully understand and appreciate this movie, you must understand that.

Suprisengly Great
What makes a great movie is that the viewer should leave watching this film with a good taste in the mouth that "the movie was good. I enjoyed it." This movie delivers exactly that. The movie shows how traditional values get in the way of the dreams of a British Indian girl looks at. Making "curry", cooking "roti", and singing praises of her husband is a cliché of any Indian girl. How about playing football (soccer in British) Sounds strange? Well, that is what you are all set to witness. A British Indian girl is just about excellent playing football (soccer) and wants to excel in it. But that's not her parent's cup of tea. More than that, she falls in love with a white guy? The Indian cliché family is not going to stand for it. How she hides, runs, and gets her bit of the world is all, "Bend it Like Bekham" is all about. Wait a second, did you think than the movie is a serious melodrama? Hell No! It's an out and out comedy. The comic scenes are extremely hilarious and make you laugh and enjoy the good times melt on the big screen. This movie was surprisingly great, when my cousin brought this film I thought typical chick flick, but it is for some reason a great film. This is a must see film. ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

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

Reviews (22)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.5 stars.

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

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

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

Description

Over a hundred years after his death, Richard Wagner remains an enigma. His was a rags-to-riches saga with a fairy tale ending. He was loved, yet hated; admired, yet despised. He was a heroic villian who was worshipped and whose fame and exploits were the gossip of Europe. Above all, he was an incurable romantic whose affair with Liszt's illegitimate daughter rivals that of Romeo and Juliet. But he was also a dangerous political revolutionary whose influence penetrated the fabric of German society in the nineteenth century. He was a legend in his own lifetime, and he was one of the greatest composers to ever live. Only an actor of the stature of Richard Burton could measure up to the titanic character of Wagner, and this proved to be his final film role. Academy Award winner Vanessa Redgrave co-stars as Cosima, Wagner's second wife, a woman who had a dramatic impact on German history until her death in 1930. The incredible supporting cast also includes screen legends Sir Laurence Olivier, Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. Filmed in wide screen 35mm Dolby Stereo, this major drama production is one of the largest East West co-productions ever undertaken. ... Read more

Reviews (124)

Intense & Beautiful!
Heavenly Creatures is my favorite movie of all time. It's about two highly intense girls who become best friends in the deepest sense of the word. They don't really seem to have anyone but each other. To help deal with this, they create a fantasy world, first in words and books, then with clay. And all the while it's active in their mind. They escape into this world called Borovnia and into each other. When Juliet (played by the incredible Kate Winslet) comes down with another bout of tuberculosis, she's quarentined in a hospital and the separation proves to be extremely difficult for Juliet and Pauline. But the real test comes when Juliet is to be shipped out of the country. That bit of separation is too much for the girls to handle and they go to desperate lengths to prevent it. Whether or not they succeed, I won't say.

This movie is based in truth. Much research can be done online as to the factual content of the movie. Many people question if their friendship turned into any sort of lesbian relationship. Other questions have been raised as well. However, fact or fiction, this is one of the most incredible movies out there for viewing. It's beautiful and breathtaking and something everyone should see. I can't recommend it enough.

"Come with me..."
"How can these heavenly creatures be real?" asks Pauline in one scene of "Heavenly Creatures," the exquisite and horrifying docudrama of a real-life murder in New Zealand. Peter Jackson uses spectacular special effect, great actors, and outstanding direction to show us how these heavenly creatures became monsters.

In 1952, Pauline Parker (Melanie Lynskey) is a loner at her proper New Zealand school, until the day Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet) arrives -- an intelligent, witty, daring girl who appeals to Pauline. They share a love of the arts, writing, sculpting, drawing, fantasy, and tenor Mario Lanza. Soon the two of them are nearly inseparable, spinning their fantastical tales of castles, knights, unicorns and beautiful ladies. (The foremost ladies, Deborah and Gina, are modelled on themselves) Even Juliet's four month stint in the hospital doesn't separate the girls through their letters and shared fantasies. But soon Juliet's father (Clive Merrison) becomes concerned that their close friendship is "unhealthy." It is, but not just in the way he thinks.

The two girls' emotional attachment has turned incredibly intense, so that they barely think of anyone but each other, and the fantasy stories begin to seep into reality for them . Pauline drops out of school and stops talking to her parents; Juliet learns that her mother is sleeping with one of her clients, and that her parents are divorcing. Now she's being sent to South Africa, and there is no telling when she will see Pauline again. Unless they do something about their parents so that they can stay together... such as murder.

Peter Jackson kicks off "Heavenly Creatures" by emphasizing what a beautiful, in most ways peaceful country (via a cheesy 1950s documentary). But he rapidly shows that beauty is not everything -- the complex and beautiful fantasy land of Borovnia has a sort of amorality in its stories, that reflects the girls' own minds. Their mothers are problematic -- one is selfish, the other is controlling -- but the girls begin to see them as mere obstacles to be dealt with. Jackson doesn't just show what the two did, but showed why they did it. But even then, he doesn't sugarcoat anything.

Melanie Lynskey is excellent as Pauline; she has something of the look of both a child and a woman, switching between smiles and sullenness, depending on who she's speaking to. And the luminous Kate Winslet plays the somewhat devil-may-care Juliet, whose vivacity and charm overrule any of Pauline's reservations. "It's everyone else who's bonkers!" she says gleefully when Pauline casts doubt on her own sanity. The supporting actors are also good, especially Clive Merrison and Honora Peirse as Juliet's dad and Pauline's mom, who are both concerned about their children.

The dialogue is outstanding, both chilling and simple ("Our main idea for the day was to murder Mother"; "we decided to use a rock in a stocking, rather than a sandbag..."). And Richard Taylor's handling of the CGI and prosthetics is oustanding. One particularly vivid scene has a hillside transforming into an exquisite garden. And nobody except Peter Jackson could have pulled off the idea of including living clay figurines or four-foot-wide butterflies, but somehow it not only works, but adds to the surreality of the story. Jackson's unique camerawork is here as well; if you enjoy his swooping shots and close-ups, then this will be a treat to watch.

There is some sexual content, including Pauline in bed with a young man, and the two girls in bed with each other (where they envision the other as the guy they desire -- a very creepy scene). The DVD is pretty bare-bones, unfortunately, without a "making of" or director's commentary. There are some trailers for other movies, and the trailer for this one as well. (Which is not so amazing because it wobbles a little as it played)

While Juliet went on to become bestselling murder mystery writer Anne Perry, no one is entirely certain what happened to Pauline. This movie is frighteningly vivid, beautifully made, and exquisitely directed, destined to be a modern classic.

not so heavenly
While I watch alot of muder,mystery and suspence movies. This movie was an insight to two girls who murder. This true story is simply disturbing. Kate Winslet plays Juliet Hulme. Juliet and Pauline are selfish and cruel to think of only themselves and kill for the two girls to be together. Did anyone know that Juliet Hulme changed her name to Anne Perry? Name sound a little familiar? Well thats because Anne Perry is a murder mystery writer. What a way to channel thoughts of murder!!! Write about it and make lots of money. I guess since she couldnt just keep killing people for real. She decided to write about instead. Hey Anne, your one sick puppy!!!!!!

A Chilling And Suspenseful True-Story Classic
It still amazes me how Peter Jackson went on to direct three of the greatest epics in the form of "The Lord Of The Rings" that grossed a combined total of $3 billion worldwide when some six years previously directed low-budget films such as "Heavenly Creatures." They say the best things happen by accident (or is that just me?) and just two and a half hours ago I was flicking through the channels, looking for something to watch when I stumbled amongst Heavenly Creatures. Dubbed by my TV guide as an 'intense and atmospheric treat,' I decided to sit and watch it, if not only for the adorable Kate Winslet. By the end I was convinced I had just watched one of the best films I have seen in years!

In 1954 two girls brutally murdered one of their mothers in what still remains, to this day, perhaps the most documented and sensational murders in New Zealand's history. "Heavenly Creatures" tells the true story of this crime drama and highlights their strange friendship. If you think before you watch this that you're just in for another stereotypical blood-splatter flick then you are very much mistaken.

Pauline Rieper (Melanie Lynskey) is a typical student in a strict all-girls' school who is completely bowled over when Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet) joins her school and tears up her pathetic existence into something radical and fresh. They have similar interests such as the arts, sculpture, English and the tenor Mario Lanza. Eventually both the romance and the frightfulness of it all reaches a tragic conclusion. In their all consuming friendship Juliet and Pauline create a "Fourth World," better than heaven (because it has no Christians), inhabited by the clay figures they have fashioned to represents their friends and where the music of Mario Lanza, the greatest tenor on earth, is always in the air.

The two girls' emotional attachment has turned incredibly intense, so that they barely think of anyone but each other, and the fantasy stories begin to seep into reality for them. Not even a four-month stint in hospital for Juliet can keep Pauline away. Pauline drops out of school and stops talking to her parents; Juliet learns that her mother is sleeping with one of her clients, and that her parents are divorcing. Now she's being sent to South Africa, and there is no telling when she will see Pauline again. Unless they do something about their parents so that they can stay together...such as murder.

Watching the film I felt a continual underbelly of lesbianism playing a major role. These suggestions are continually squashed, however, due to the times the movie is set in where homosexuality is an 'unnatural' subject. Kate Winslet is superb as the bright and luminous Juliet and with her posh accent, she brings a certain level of humor to the film that would have been impossible without her. Melanie Lynskey portrays Pauline superbly too, contrasting from the mature attitude of a fully grown woman to the sly grin of an evil teenage girl who knows too much. The films comedy moment can be cheesy at times, but are intentional in their positions in that they counterbalance the horrifying scenes. Many moments pre-horror build up the suspense brilliantly, then perform a sort of anticlimax. However, the peaceful and tranquil music that plays just before the brutal and obscene ending is obviously intentful.

The ending is what stays with the viewer most when looking back on the film The way Jackson directed the scene to be something truly spectacular was superbly pulled off. The screams of the mother and the cuts to the alternative-world made me want to cover my eyes in fear, but I persisted and watched through the horror. The dialogue of the film is brilliant, and only Peter Jackson could come up with the idea of life-size clay models that walk and talk. Six years later he'd be making something a lot grander. Richard Taylor supplies the CGI effect and is superb in doing so making for surprisingly life-like, realistic characters - remember, this was 1994!

In the end what you have here is a fantastic and timeless film that is perfect for college/University studies both in direction and content. What is most fascinating, apart from the real-life chilling theme that features prominently throughout, is the fact that Peter Jackson went on to become one of the world's most celebrated directors in history, whilst Kate Winslet went on to star in the most successful motion picture of all time! This is a film that will appeal to all generations (obviously not youngsters) of people with a thirst for crime, horror, blood, gore and fantasy. Don't try and ignore it - this film will make your head spin!

Absolutely breathtaking...
Recently, I was fortunate enough to have my fiance introduce me to this movie. Its one of her all time faves, but she wasnt sure if I would like it or not. Truthfully, neither was I.

Good LORD, I loved it.

Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynsky were absolutely phenomenal; the story was at once disturbing, brilliant, and cute; the scenery was breathtaking, and the direction showed that Peter Jackson was brilliant long before making LotR.

All in all, if you enjoy movies that make you think, you'll love this. I loved it when I saw it, but after having a while to process it, and mull it over, it's become an instant favorite.

This movie at times has a VERY David Lynch-type vibe to it, and as I said, will definitely make your head spin.

I dont think I could possibly recommend this movie more. SEE IT! ... Read more

Reviews (121)

Impeccably written and acted, this is a movie for the ages
Yes, this movie is a period piece. But this movie, adapted from a wonderful play,is at the end of the day a powerful tale of an acutely dysfunctional family. Set during the Christmas season in 12th century England, this story is powerfully scripted and superbly acted by everyone. Peter O'Toole gives his tour de force performance as Henry II, a world-weary monarch intent on maintaining supremacy and establishing his legacy. Katherine Hepburn, in what is the among the finest movie performances I have ever seen, plays his deadly foil (and oh yes, estranged wife) Queen Eleanor of Acquitaine, who is determined to thwart his plans. The issue: which of their surviving children will inherit the throne of England, and marry Alais, the sister of the King of France? The pawns in this game are Alais and the English Princes, Richard the Lionhearted (Anthony Hopkins), John (Nigel Terry of Excalibur fame), and Geoffrey. Then of course, there is the wild card, the teenage French monarch, Philip (Timothy Dalton).

In this movie you have all of the themes of familial dysfunction: the vitriol and wistfulness of an estranged couple, the frustrations of the "model" eldest child, the resentment of the neglected middle child, the eccentricities of the overindulged youngest child, a May-December affair triggered by a mid-life crisis, holiday depression, and it goes on and on. This movie is so adept at exploring these topics that it makes "American Beauty" (a good film in its own right) seem almost sophomoric.

What makes this movie stand out is the writing. There is no other movie this side of "The Godfather" that has contained such enjoyable dialogue and character development. The dialogue in this movie is outstanding ("It's not the power I feel deprived of, it's the mention that I miss"; "Give me a little peace/A little? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a thought.")

I doubt there will ever be another movie that will be so skillful in weaving together historical material, political intrigue, and slice-of-life issues into so seamlessly. This is one of my 10 favorite movies. Please rent it, and if you can find it, buy it.

Five Stars PLUS
This is my all-time favorite movie. TEN STARS! Every actor's performance is absolutely superb. The dialogue crackles with excellence. It is so good that one could listen to it alone without the video portion. I know, I have. Whether watching of just listening, the experience sends chills up and down my spine.

My obsession with this film is partly explained by my love for English history, and the conviction that Henry II was the greatest of that kingdom's monarchs. Notwithstanding that, this film should have won that year's Academy Award in every major category. I would love to see it re-released onto the big screen.

Lion In Winter All-Time Favorite
I concur with all the reviews I have read here. This is one of two movies I can watch any time, the other being the K. B. and E.T. "Much Ado About Nothing". I am desperately seeking a Vhs copy or original for my brother, if anyone has "The Lion..." for sale, please contact me at: Suzannefoote@netscape.net

ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL !
I was a teenager when I first saw this, and it was an "old" movie then....but this film is timeless, and the performances of the actors are untouchable! The entire movie is so engrossing, with it's costumes, dialogue, storyline, and actors, that anyone who watches, young or old, will be entranced....Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn are absolutely STUNNING....not to mention Anthony Hopkins and a future James Bond....it's twenty years since I first saw this film, and I fall in love with it again every time I see it.

O'Toole and Hepburn--you can't go wrong
This is one of my all-time favorite films, and I can't say how disappointed I am that it is not available for purchase--I bet one can find any number of copies of Friday the 13th part 8 on video, but great classics get yanked. Anyhow, Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole are fabulous as the famously conflicted royal couple Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane. A really young Anthony Hopkins also stars as the (future) Richard the Lion Hearted. the film doesn't suffer from that 1960s glamorization of the medieval era--the sets and costumes are authentic. Hepburn is perfect as the strong willed and infamous Eleanor of Aquitane--and O'Toole holds more than his own as the king who married then imprisoned her. Pray that they rerelease this film--there aren't many out there that can hold a candle to it! ... Read more

Reviews (351)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

Inside the walls of St. Vincent’s Orphanage, young boys fall victim to sexual, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their guardians. Henry Czerny (Mission: Impossible, Clear and Present Danger) gives a terrifying performance as Brother Lavin, the head of the orphanage who must juggle the teachings of the church with his own personal demons. The plight of the boys under his care remains a secret until the orphanage janitor and a local policeman speak out against the Brothers’ appalling treatment of the orphans. During the ensuing investigation, the boys courageously testify against the Brothers. Fearing a scandal, religious and civil authorities conspire to shut down the case and quietly transfer the accused Brothers to new postings. Fifteen years later, still unhealed, the victims go public with their ordeal. As the veil of secrecy is finally lifted, their story will shock the world.

From the director of Dangerous Minds comes this controversial story that was one of the year’s most powerful and critically acclaimed films. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Truth is More Disgusting than Fiction!!!!
The movie, about the sexual abuse of children in an orphanage, the cover up on the part of everyone in the know, and the truth coming to light several years later, is based on a true story.

In the late 80s St. Johns, Newfoundland was the sight of a major sex abuse scandal. The Mt. Cashel orphanage located there, which was supposed to a model institution, had been the scene of repeated instances of sexual abuse of its charges several years earlier. Investigations revealed that authorities had been made aware that approximately 30 boys had been victimized, but chose not to proceed with criminal prosecutions. As the scandal widened the Catholic church, social services agencies, the police, and certain politicians were implicated in the cover up.

Once all was said and done, several former officials at the school were jailed for their crimes.

Regretfully, it was only the tip of the iceberg. In the years following, there have been so many instances of institutionalized sexual abuse of children, particularly those involving the Catholic church, that it is no longer shocking.

POWERFUL, EMOTIONAL....
After just having viewed the VHS version of this film, I felt compelled to come back to this site and re-read the reviews posted by customers. Overall, I must say that I agree with the majority (particularly the praise for Henry Czerny, who portrays Brother Lavin) of positive recognition. The main things I had a slight problem with, however, were that I felt there were several important unaswered questions and was left wondering if I had missed a 3rd tape. By far, tape 1 of this 2 tape set was the more powerful & emotional of the 2.
Overall, a great movie for those who like true life drama (this is loosely based on actual events) but be forewarned: there are several scenes with (in my opinion) complete unnecessary child nudity. There, to me, was no need for the lingering shots of the young male backsides in the shower and it left me with more than a little bit of uncomfortable feelings and I question the need for those clips.
Excellent acting, great production value, great direction.

Priestly Abuse
An excellent movie for those interested in the law enforcement aspects of pederasty as practiced and hidden in the hierarchy of the Church. A good look at reality and is a movie to enlighten those who do not believe that this kind of abuse continues today. Used in my criminal justice course entitled Child Abuse, Investigation and Prevention. A Good teaching vehicle for those who wish to stop this most heinous of crimes.

The Boys of St. Vincent
This was a great movie, But for every man who seen it got so mad and upset. my son,husband, and other family men just left the room with so much anger. The movie is a True Story.

Fearsome
Horror films as such have nothing on the THE BOYS OF ST. VINCENT. Loosely based on the Roman Catholic child molestation scandals as they unfolded in Canada, this 1991 film was first show on Canadian television but later shown theatrically in the United States. Directed by John N. Smith, featuring an extraordinary cast, and boasting an excellent script, the film is one of the most fearsome experiences you could ever endure.

The story falls into two parts, first offering a portrait of St. Vincent, a Catholic orphanage for boys, as it existed in the early 1970s; then presenting a portrait of the various characters some fifteen years later as the original accusations of child molestation and abuse result in a high profile court case. The film focuses on a number of characters, but most particularly on Henry Czerny, who begins the film as Brother Lavin of St. Vincent--a truly dangerous pedophile who uses his position to sate his desires while also looking the other way re abuse of children by other Brothers at the orphanage. When the scandal at last breaks around him, it is quickly hushed up by the authorities, and Lavin leaves the church. Some fifteen years later he is a respected businessman, a husband, and the father of two sons when the long-forgotten and covered-up case begins to explode relentlessly in the public eye.

The cast is truly amazing here, chief among them Henry Czerny as Lavin, who creates a truly multilayered portrait of a man at once pitful but both vicious and dangerous. Equally amazing are the cast of children and their adult counterparts in the latter half of the film, most particularly Johnny Morina and Sebastian Spence, who play the role of Kevin as a child and an adult respectively.

Perhaps the single most impressive accomplishment of the film is the delicate balancing act director Smith achieves, a stance which does not attack the Catholic Church as an institution but which relentlessly exposes the corruption that can exist within it. The film does contain some child nudity, all of it "back shots," and while some may find this in questionable taste it is all carefully filmed and not explotational--and indeed has the effect of further demonstrating the innocence of the children while emphasizing the evil of those who abuse them.

Painful as the film it is, I cannot recommend it too strongly. It should be seen by every responsible adult, not simply for the artistry involved in its presentation, but for the warning it offers. A must see.

--GFT (Amazon.com Reviewer)-- ... Read more

Reviews (216)

At least a comedy that is not only to laugh
The fifth star of this movie is awarded to the DVD itself. It's really enjoyable not only the making off, but the cut scenes and the off-commentaries of the directors. It is interesting to see the real job of editing and making off this excellent film.

I like it very much the way Hugh Grant (Will) and the boy Nicholas Hoult (Marcus) tell the story as it goes for both of them. It seems that complicity of both characters is totally represented by both actors. I have seen Hugh Grant in a huge number of romantic comedies and I didn't expect much of him but THIS IS DIFFERENT. As he says in the extra material he represents 100% a British, rich, handsome, useless bachelor. He is even more irresistible for children than for women.

Some acting parts are beautifully absurd: when Will plays guitar helping Marcus to sing "Killing Me Softly", when he goes to the SPAT to meet all divorced women into therapy, when Marcus tries to conquer the older girl by singing his brand-new rap CD...

And taking in mind the work of the directors, I think now I am even able to go and watch "American Pie".

Great Light Entertainment!
This is a really entertaining if slightly lightweight film. Good story line, wonderful characters, witty dialogue and excellent acting throughout. In fact all the main characters give wonderful performances-none more then Hugh Grant who was an actor I really didn't care much for until recently. He is superb as the spoilt likeable rogue who is the centrepiece of the movie. He's inherited mountains of money from his father who happened to have a fluke Christmas hit in the 50's. The substantial royalty acts as both a blessing and a curse as this journey of discovery takes him from being someone who has brief romances, never has to work, has all the latest gadgets and fashion accessories and of course lives a complete live of leisure. Yet he soon comes to realise that his life is pretty shallow-there's nothing interesting about him, he may as well be a handsome cardboard caracuture. He discovers that single mothers are a great source of romance and it is here he eventually discovers the other lead-the boy Marcus. This boy lives with his closetted, veggie, depressed hippy Mom played by the amazing Toni Colette. Grant pretends to have a son but Marcus discovers his secret and sort of inflicts himself on Grant. You see both characters need each other but obviously in very different ways.
This is a great piece of light entertainment-some of the scenes are hilarious and the dialogue is generally sharp, witty and yet cringe-inducing at the same time. Like another film based on Nick Hornby's writing High Fidelity-some of About A Boy's funniest moments come through the characters expressing their thoughts in a monologue. This film kept me entertained throughout-and even the duller moments you still have the stupendous soundtrack composed by Badly Drawn Boy to enjoy.

A contemporary classic...
First and foremost, I want to state that Hugh Grant, as an actor and screen presence, deserves to be respected more. Some of the abuse this guy has endured, at the hands of the media and general public has been unwarranted and cumulative to the point where one of this