Reviews (596)

A marvelous adaptation of one of the great novels.
This A&E/BBC miniseries is a true masterpiece, bringing Jane Austen's most popular novel to life in a near perfect production. It has everything: authentic Regency Period atmosphere, costumes, settings, a beautiful musical score, excellent performances by a well-chosen cast. Andrew Davis's script does full justice to Austen's original. Colin Firth is excellent as Mr. Darcy, but Jennifer Ehle just takes my breath away with her magnificent performance, which catches every nuance of Elizabeth Bennet's character exactly right in every scene. It is a pleasure to watch all 4 1/2 hours straight through again and again. As a longtime devoted admirer of Jane Austen's works, I am very critical of any movies based upon her novels, but this has to be one of the very best adaptations of any major literary work.

WORTH OWNING AND REPEAT VIEWING
I'm usually very hesitant about adaptations from book to film (especially classics), but this movie does justice to Jane Austin's timeless masterpiece. I rented this movie on a whim, thinking that it would at least be somewhat entertaining, but to my surprize and great pleasure, it not only captivated the true essence of the novel but the characters really came alive and stayed true to the story the whole way through. I eventually bought the DVD and I have NOT had "buyer's remorse" ever since. I get caught up in every moment of every scene of every viewing.

There are no annoying "Hollywood stars" in it like in Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility, yet the acting is incredible. Although I enjoyed Sense and Sensibility (on the second viewing because the first time I watched it I fell asleep), it doesn't hold a candle to Pride and Prejudice. This adaption lets your imagination steep in the imagery, language, and essence of the film so you never get "pulled out" of a scence. If you're unsure as whether or not to buy this gem, just do what I did and rent it for the weekend. You'll soon discover that your movie collection will be lacking without this rendition of Pride and Prejudice.

Superb, true to Jane Austen adaption
This version of Pride & Predjudice is my absolute favorite. I have owned the tapes and the original DVD. As far as the movie itself goes, the characters are all perfectly cast. From the embarassingly annoying Mrs. Bennet, the sweet oldest sister Jane, the condescending and IQ challenged Mr. Collins, to the feisty Elizabeth and the Proud Mr. Darcy, you will find yourself engrossed in every character's story. The script was written to stay true to the original novel. The scenery in breathtaking, and you will find yourself paying as much attention to the beautiful countryside as you will the drama.
As for technical details, the biographies that are included on this special version are simply printed words on the screen. Interesting information, but each bio is only one or two paragraphs long with a complete list of credits for only a few of the characters. The mini featurette is okay.
My bottom line: if you love romance, drama, and history then this is the movie for you. If you already own it on tape or have the original dvd, save your money and enjoy the version you have.

Period Movie - Lovely to watch
As an avid lover of period movies, I received this particular one last Christmas. I've been able to watch it multiple times. I love Colin Firth's portrayal of a proud and prejudice man who finally learns there are more important things. It's funny and romantic and the dialogue, as with any period piece, will keep you on your toes . . . maybe that's why I can re-watch so many times. It is a timeless movie!

Colin Firth...need I say more? Great Movie Colin Firth aside
This movie is so amazing I've watched it so many times and I never get tired of it. I thought this was by far the best film adaptation of the novel. Colin Firth portrayed Mr. Darcy exactly as I pictured him in my mind. I loved all the characters and felt like the actors/actresses lived up the their characters in the novel. While the picture quality may not be that great (read several comments about it) it didnt bother me one bit. The locations they filmed were simply beautiful, the story and characters entralling, and the costumes and scenes eye catching....I didnt even notice the quality. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the best films of 2004, Kinsey pays tribute to the flawed but honorable man who revolutionized our understanding of human sexuality. As played by Liam Neeson in writer-director Bill Condon's excellent film biography, Indiana University researcher Alfred Kinsey was so consumed by statistical measurements of human sexual activity that he almost completely overlooked the substantial role of emotions and their effect on human behavior. This made him an ideal researcher and science celebrity who revealed that sexual behaviors previously considered deviant and even harmful (homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) are in fact common and essentially normal in the realm of human experience, but whose obsession with scientific method frequently placed him at odds with his understanding wife (superbly played by Laura Linney) and research assistants. In presenting Kinsey as a driven social misfit, Condon's film gives Neeson one of his finest roles while revealing the depth of Kinsey's own humanity, and the incalculable benefit his research had on our collective sexual enlightenment. With humor, charm, and intelligence, Kinsey shines a light where darkness once prevailed. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Pretentious Attempt
In retrospection, Kinsey is over-rated. It rides on the 21st century's fetish of sexuality and pretends to be another "Beautiful Mind" but fails and flops. It is one of those pretentious artistic attempt.

Truth or Perversity?
This became more and more difficult to watch as the movie went along.A selected biography in the style of Ray or Delovely, but quite a different choice of subject matter.

Kinsey's father set the tone of Kinsey's own life, with a certainty that becomes obnoxious.The certainty that he knows what the answer is, in this case to the issues of human sexuality and its associated ignorance and taboos, and as with all people who think they know, there is a fall.At the time that Kinsey was achieving his fame there were restrictions on the entire subject of sex practices and sex mores.It stands to reason that the only people who were working in this area were strange themselves, or at least unconventional.That's where I had difficulty.Were Kinsey and his associates really as perverse as they appeared in the movie?Or were their banter and actions exaggerated for the sake of a good story.

I found no sympathy for Kinsey nor for anyone else in the movie.And some of the conclusions that they reached seem so counter-intuitive that they defy belief.I didn't know whether they were trying to find truth or to present perversity.

Potent Film with Certain Foundation for Heated Debate...
Galileo Galilei and scientists alike announced through in-depth research that the Earth was not flat and faced heavy persecution.Their different thinking broke the standards of the 16th century pious beliefs, which had been used a long time before scientists questioned the validity and reliability in what they observed.This offended the Catholic Church who proclaimed that they held the highest truth, a truth deeply rooted in unquestioned morality.The questioning of the religious beliefs triggered a witch-hunt of the scientists that disagreed with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.However, the truth eventually emerged, as Galileo's theories are still the instruments of current astronomical research that continues to evolve the human existence beyond the earth.

The Catholic Church and Lutheran Church persecuted people with different ideas of Christianity.Those who desired to exercise their own freedom of religion sought refuge in America where they could exercise their freedom to express their own ideas of religion.After the War of Independence, the founding fathers formed the Congress that drafted the 10 amendments.The first amendment brings the people freedom of speech, which includes religion.However, the very same ideas that sought freedom in America later turned from being the persecuted to the persecutor, as these notions harassed new different thinkers.The notion of cyclical history comes to mind when scientists like Alfred Kinsey are being silenced based on morality and unfounded facts.

Kinsey (Liam Neeson), a biologist, was brought up under strict puritan rules, as his father consistently proclaimed being the ultimate source of knowledge.In a sense he grew up with similar persecuting standards as Galileo, but instead of conforming to the rules he broke the bond with his father when he accepted a partial scholarship to Bowdoin to study biology.Kinsey's father wanted him to become an engineer, which has a certain level of irony to it, as his father believed that all modern inventions at the beginning of the 20th century were evil.The pursuit of the biology degree brought him through Harvard to Indiana University where he took a position as an assistant professor while studying stag beetles and later the American Cynipidae also known as the gall wasp.

Years of research and collecting the American Cynipidae allowed Kinsey to meticulously catalogue his gall wasp library.During this time Kinsey met his wife Clara (Laura Linney) with whom he had three children.However, before having the children they had difficulties in the bedroom, as Clara assumed it was because they physically would not fit together.This was an unacceptable answer for Kinsey who approached the problem, as if there were an answer, which there was.It simply was painful for Clara to have sex as her hymen was too thick, and with a quick procedure by a doctor she had this fixed.Consequently, Kinsey continued to help other couples with problems of sexual nature, but realized that he did not have any real answers to the questions that were posed to him.

In the 1940s, Kinsey got his chance to do teach a marriage course in regards to sex and the social aspects of sex between husbands and wives.As the class went on his interest deepened through the vast number of questions people asked in regards to sex.This concluded in Kinsey beginning to research the taboo ridden topic, which so many have been taught to avoid at all costs except for the purpose of having children.Kinsey opposed the abstinence with his statement, "society has interfered with what should be a normal biological development..."

The sex research forced Kinsey to travel uncharted waters, as he had to find a way to collect data that were valid and reliable.Through this process he design an interview style that had to be nonjudgmental in order for the interviewee to reveal everything without having to feel any negative feelings.This process gave them surprising facts about sex, as they also encountered homosexuality, extramarital affairs, and premarital affairs.They also found evidence of deviant sexual practices, which most of the society rightfully did not tolerate such as pedophilia.An important note to this is that Kinsey was only collecting data, he did not advocate harmful sexual practices.However, in the eyes of the society Kinsey was in the end drawn into the mud, as much of his intentions was misunderstood.

Nonetheless, Kinsey helped breaking the ice of the forbidden issue that in the end opened up the society to understanding this hushed, but normal behavior.If Kinsey did not push the envelope the society might have continued its intolerance towards sexual issues, an intolerance that would force many to hide their true identity in the fear of repercussions and prejudice based on hatred and fear.For example, John Edgar Hoover created a profiling center for homosexuals and other undesirables.The very same intolerance would function as a shield that would have protected many of the Catholic priests that have been uncovered to molest children.It is thanks to Kinsey and researchers alike that it has become acceptable to discuss this taboo topic in media, where horrendous crimes such as child molesting can be caught.Yet, there are still many who believe that Kinsey was wrong to do what he did, and they are naturally free to have their own opinions.As they should let the truth be unveiled from darkness and not let erotophobia, i.e., learned negative emotional response to information of sexual nature, affect any decision-making that could help human beings discover a better future.

Kinsey is a political and potent film that will undoubtedly make many feel awkward and uncomfortable.Yet, it is also an important film, as it displays the importance of learning the truth and not hiding behind groundless rules and laws based on fictionalized morality.The film also has historical value to our contemporary society where many laws often are passed based on morality, which ends up hurting a fraction of the society and slows the progress of humanity.When this happens, history seems to be have drifted into oblivion as prejudice and intolerance continues to haunt the society.Hopefully, the film Kinsey offers an opportunity for debate and insightfulness, and not continued narrow-mindedness.

On balance, a positive contribution to human understanding
Alfred Kinsey did a great service to the study of sex.Yes, some of his methodologies were suspect, "self-selection" throwing a monkey-wrench in the whole randomization requirement.His subjects were perhaps not the most representative sampling of the population.Furthermore, he and his staff became too personally involved in the work.His assistants comprised a sort of swinger's club.Kinsey could be faulted for not having anticipated the conflicts brought about by such activities among colleagues.

Unfortunately, these aspects of his life and the film will obscure - for many - the more significant meaning of his work: Bringing the discussion of sex out of the dark corners of human consciousness and into the light.Also, by removing the shame factor from sex, a natural healthy aspect of the human animal, Kinsey legitimized the scientific study of sex.

As far as the film per se, I was impressed with the honesty of the piece.Contrary to what some reviewers have said, this film does not make Kinsey a hero.It rightly credits him for his work, yet reveals a conflicted, troubled psyche at the same time as Kinsey tries to navigate the line between his objective scientific observation and his subjective sexual experiences.This blurring is where Kinsey erred.

Interesting insight into groundbreaking study
Alfred Kinsey was a pioneer in the study of human sexuality. He was a professor at Indiana University and spent the first 20 years of his career studying an insect, the "gall wasp." This movie, starring Liam Neeson in the title role, depicts Dr. Kinsey as having an obsession with his study of the gall wasp, collecting hundreds of thousands of specimens and devoting his life to studying this species. Tapped to teach a course on marriage and the family, Kinsey developed an interest in human sexuality and he bacame as obsessive in this study as he was in his earlier endeavor. He was driven and pushed his staff hard. He employed interviewers who spoke with thousands of people in taking sexual histories. Kinsey was very hands on as he personally instructed his staff on how to put subjects at ease as they conducted the interviews.

Dr. Kinsey was the son of a morally strict father, convincingly played by John Lithgow. Neeson's depecition of Dr. Kinsey shows the results of this upbringing. His characterization of Kinsey comes across as very stiff and uptight. He is not one to really let his hair down yet, in his groundbreaking study, there is no taboo that he is unwilling to explore. Indeed, he explores his own sexuality as he has an extramarital gay affair. Despite serious misgivings at first, his wife, played by Laura Linney, is accepting.

The studies were very controversial, having been done in the 1940s, long before the "sexual revolution." Some people found his findings to be very liberating in that they discovered that they were not alone in their sexual feelings. Other people were shocked, believing that the subject was taboo and should not be discussed. There is one brief scene in which a woman, who agonized over her lesbian inclinations, was liberated by Dr. Kinsey's findings and, thereby allowed herself to enter into a relationship. Others, including Kinsey's father, were scandalized. Ultimately, however, Kinsey's father allows himself to be interviewed by his son and reveals his own, painful secrets of a repressed childhood.

We live in a more sexually open era than we did, generations ago. This movie gives an insight into one of the reasons this is so. I recommend this dvd. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

East of Eden is an acknowledged classic, and the starring debut of James Dean lifts it to legendary status. John Steinbeck's novel gave director Elia Kazan a perfect Cain-and-Abel showcase for Dean's iconic screen persona, casting the brooding star as Cal, the younger of two brothers vying for the love of their Bible-thumping father (Raymond Massey) in Monterey, California, at the dawn of World War I. Massey is a lettuce farmer, striving for market domination with an ill-fated refrigeration scheme. Having discovered that his presumed-dead mother (Oscar^® winner Jo Van Fleet) is a brothel owner in nearby Salinas, Cal convinces her to finance an investment that will restore his father's lost fortune, but neither money nor the tenderness of his brother's fiancée (Julie Harris) can assuage Cal's anguished need for paternal acceptance that comes nearly too late. Kazan's oblique camera angles and Dean's tortured emoting may seem extreme by latter-day standards, but their theatrics make East of Eden a timeless tale of family secrets and hard-won affection. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (44)

A true classic!
I can't wait until May 31, 2005..I have this film on VHS tape and have practically worn it out..This is one of my alltime favorite films!I think after I saw this film for the first time I immediately became a big fan of James Dean's and had to read and find out everything about this young actor who died tragically at the young age of 23.I hope the special edition DVD will contain interviews with the principals involved with this film..that would be very interesting!

This film is still very powerful today and the scenes that stand out the most for me are the scenes with the lovely Julie Harris..Julie was the perfect choice to play Abra and her innocence and tenderness toward Dean's character in the film really drove the film for me..The chemistry between the two actors was amazing and I keep thinking if Dean had lived this could have been a great screen pairing!

This film showcased the talents of a wonderful actor and influenced generations of actors to come..Dean was amazingly gifted and was fortunate to catch the eye of Elia Kazan who knew talent when he saw it..What a wonderful film!It is a joy to see this film finally being released on DVD!

James Dean's debut
This is a good film (arguably Dean's best), and is very worthy of having in your dvd collection.

A masterpiece finally arrives on DVD! This is James Dean!
EAST OF EDEN is truly, and undoubtedly one of the greatest films ever made. Timeless. Brilliant...and unavailable to buy for over a decade due to legal squabbles...

At last, all has been settled, and in time to commemorate the sad, tragic premature death of James Dean.....

To those unfamiliar with the film, it is as vital and relevant (and painful) as the day it was made...

To those who know the genius here, I can only share in the celebration that the best home video company (WB) has cut through the legal red tape to get this film out (finally) on DVD, and I'm sure it will be as exceptional a presentation as any of their other exceptional releases.

This is filmmaking at its height, acting at its greatest, and writing at its most subtly exceptional. Do not pass over the miracle of John Steinbeck's amazing story & this perfect film!

A Long Overdue DVD Classic
Taken from us so soon James Dean with only 3 great films is an icon of America Cinnema. Unfortunatelly, on this great clasic, directed by the great but controversial Elia Kazan. Still awaits it's "Full Restoration Great DVD Release."

Wonderful acting by James Dean and Jo Van Fleet.
East of Eden is a great, sprawling American novel by nobel prize winning author John Steinbeck.The film East of Eden, directed by Elia Kazan, dramatizes only a small part of the magnificent book.However, what the film does, it does exceptionally well, thanks to the riveting performances of James Dean and academy award winner Jo Van Fleet.

Much has been written about Dean as an actor and what is certainly true is that when he is on screen, you can't take your eyes off him.As young Cal Trask, Dean vies for the attention and love of his father, Adam, Raymond Massesy, with his twin brother Aaron, Richard Davalos.Cal is a loser, no matter what he does, and Dean portrays sensitively the conflict Cal feels as he grows to manhood unloved and uncared for.

The rivalry between Cal and Aaron for their father's love as well as the affections of Abra, Aaron's girlfriend played by Julie Harris, generates much of the action and dramatic tension of the film. All Cal's gifts are rejected by his father, in contrast to Aaron, whose presents are appreciated and valued.

Like Cain in the Bible, Cal has a dark side which he thinks comes from his mother Kate, who abandoned him at birth and whom he has discovered runs a brothel in Salinas, California, a short train ride from the Trask ranch.Cal introduces himself to Kate, played to perfection by Jo Van Fleet, first to try to learn about himself, who he is and why he experiences his inner rage and frustration.Later he will borrow money from her to invest in order to help his bankrupt father.Cal's investment in bean futures, just prior to America's entry in World War I,pays off, but his father rejects his money in a confrontation which moves us toward the dramatic conclusion of the film.

The scenes with Dean and Van Fleet are the highlight of the film and a treasure of American movie making.Both actors are electric with Dean drawing from his inner uncertainty and fire and Van Fleet, the consumate professional, using all her skills and intelligence.They approach one another gingerly, each testing the response of the other, not trusting themselves and their own emotions, and finally becoming frustrated with their inablility to connect with one another.These scenes are wonderful to watch.We should not expect a happy ending and we don't get it.

East of Eden, released in 1955, justly takes its place in a small list of fine American films, not just because of the great performances of James Dean and Jo Van Fleet, but also because it dramatizes timeless themes in a most convincing fashion.Those viewers who love the film and like to read will almost certainly enjoy the novel on which the film is based. ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Love & Tumult in 1968 Paris
Once past the excessive, graphic nudity, or perhaps because of it, Bertolucci fashions a jarring glimpse of three fascinating young people against the backdrop of the 1968 French General Strike, which nearly toppled the government. For the three principals, hedonism, narcissism, and intoxication seem to dominate against what appear as lightly held political beliefs - socialism, love, compassion, tolerance. For example, siblings Theo and Isabelle sleep together naked, their sculpted bodies entwined. The All-American Matthew (well played by Michael Pitt) comes upon them sleeping nude (and slowly grows to love them), gathering some deeper yet perplexing knowledge. This learning process for Matthew weaves its way throughout the film: a likable youth from San Diego doing his best to slip into the idiosyncratic lives of these very French '60s eccentrics and their almost invisible, '60s uptight parents.

Bertolucci abruptly intercuts continuously with memorable past film scenes: for example, Garbo's soulful eyes laughing at Gilbert's insipid love from "Queen Christina." There are many of these lovely, thoughtful old film scenes that weld the humanity of these three characters to that of past lovers and haters. I found myself virtually loathing the insouciance of Theo and Isabelle, their adolescent adoration of things kitsch, such as Delacroix's 'Liberty Leading the People" with Liberty's face that of Marilyn Monroe. All this while exchanging drunk, violent words over politics, cinema and ragout when true fighters faced the formidable barricades in the streets of Paris.

But this is a film, I think, that one must settle into. Much of the first half appears about nothing much, perhaps a light titillating comedy. Slowly, we understand it is not that at all. The nudity, arguments, sex, politics, brilliant film cuts, and memorable period scoring give satisfaction to those of us 'lucky' enough to have lived through that tumultuous time. Perhaps younger, less authoritarian generations will view it with more intuition than we boomers. One of the director's realized intentions was to impart with his typical lyricism an inner realization of why love, even silly vacuous sex, is so much preferable to war (the General Strike and Vietnam, here). The ending is doubly startling. But by then, the parts have become the whole, the trivial vital. The significant beauty of this film lies in the director's wise, consummate vision. Well worth seeing. (For an amazingly contrasting view of the same period, see "Fog of War").

An Incisive Criticism of the '60s and Hypocrisy
The Dreamers is a new, primarily English-language film from the Italian king of cinematic controversy, Bernardo Bertolucci. If you've seen his past works, including 1900 and Last Tango in Paris, they provide a fairly clear idea of what to expect in this NC-17 foray into 1960's youth culture in France. The film is an extended analysis, really, of radicalism and some of the hypocrisies seemingly inherent in it. It forces us to confront the question of what truly is revolutionary, or conservative for that matter. The film answers that question in a way many of us will find unexpected.

Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an American student spending time abroad in France. He takes in the student protests with wide eyes, gazing in awe at the pure passion igniting these young people. Though the period is the '60s, Matthew still reflects the tucked-in conservatism of a decade past, wearing a jacket and tie almost as a shield from the craziness surrounding him. He soon meets two French siblings, Isabelle and Theo (Eva Green and Louis Garrel), both of whom are full of the revolutionary spirit. They are new and therefore attractive to Matthew, who shares a mutual love of movies with both. Not long after, he moves into the home of his two new friends, whose parents have gone away on an extended trip.

Now is the time audience members may begin to squirm. In between quoting movies to one another and acting out favorite scenes, Matthew begins to notice an unnaturally clingy relationship exists between Isa and Theo--they sleep and bathe together, and play sexually-laced games that often leave one in some state of undress. But this quasi-incest has a strange effect on Matthew, as slowly, the jacket and tie disappear, he begins to walk around barely dressed, and he starts to take part in the sex games, at first begrudgingly and then yearningly.

But as intoxicated as Matthew becomes with the lifestyle, he also is disturbed when Isa confides in him that she's never been on a date before. Harboring some genuine feelings for the young beauty, Matthew tries to lead her away from a life entirely dependent upon Theo and toward one of independence. In this way, the film draws a very interesting parallel. It really is conservatism--a resistance to change--that is keeping so-called radicals Isa and Theo in their exclusive relationship. The young innocent, Matthew, has become the revolutionary in trying to shatter what has become the comfortable tradition.

The film boasts three good, but not great performances. With stronger leading work, a good film could possibly have reached the next level. Gilbert Adair's screenplay, based on his own novel, is wonderfully subtle in weaving its critique of the radical movement, but is in fact so subtle that in some ways the film feels "small." Nevertheless, the film raises probing questions, particularly in the last scene, as a throng of protesters march down a street, all chanting in unison, not a single one distinguishable from the next. It begs the old question, "If a group of anarchists organize an anarchists' meeting, are they really anarchists anymore?"

Finally, credit must be heaped upon Fox Searchlight for not yielding to any suggestion that Bertolucci's vision be compromised by editing the film to achieve an R rating. Even without such censorship, it is disturbing enough that film footage of bare genitals and some sex is considered more damaging by the MPAA than, for example, the wholesale slaughter of recent horror offerings. In any case, when going to see The Dreamers, leave any prudish tendencies (or family members) at home.

Final Grade: B

Bold, brave and inquisitive
Bertolucci displays with this unnecessarily controversial movie more bravery than many other directors half his age. Anyone who is young should see it to observe the contradictions that youth's idealism brings upon the three protagonists. Anyone who is older should watch it to remember the bravery of times gone by, to remember a time when many of us still believed protests could change the world and to acknowledge the validity of both youth's panache and experience's fountain of knowledge.

Not all said up front
There are alot of things that are underneath the serface of this film. You might have to watch the film more than once to get it all. Things that have to obtained from the time and the charecters themselves.(I will not ruin them for you finding them is half the fun) The film is not one that you watch when you are bored with your buddys it is a film that takes all your attention to actually get it.The film ends with no changes in the people only an experience that changed their lives but could not change who they were nomatter how much they tried. I hate movies that charecters change because of an experience this movie seems real in that aspect because the people dont change. It is a little overthe top in certain aspects but it makes you think and is an enjoyable experience.

dreamy
Beautiful, disturbing, erotic, political, comic, thrilling, and thoroughly immersing. One of the most satisfying cinematic experiences I've had in a long time. Not to be missed! Much thanks to Bertolucci, who continues to make exquisite and exciting films! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Ranking No. 21 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American films, this 1940 classic is a bit dated in its noble sentimentality, but it remains a luminous example of Hollywood classicism from the peerless director of mythic Americana, John Ford. Adapted by Nunnally Johnson from John Steinbeck's classic novel, the film tells a simple story about Oklahoma farmers leaving the depression-era dustbowl for the promised land of California, but it's the story's emotional resonance and theme of human perseverance that makes the movie so richly and timelessly rewarding. It's all about the humble Joad family's cross-country trek to escape the economic devastation of their ruined farmland, beginning when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns from a four-year prison term to discover that his family home is empty. He's reunited with his family just as they're setting out for the westbound journey, and thus begins an odyssey of saddening losses and strengthening hopes. As Ma Joad, Oscar-winner Jane Darwell is the embodiment of one of America's greatest social tragedies and the "Okie" spirit of pressing forward against all odds (as she says, "because we're the people"). A documentary-styled production for which Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland demanded painstaking authenticity, The Grapes of Wrath is much more than a classy, old-fashioned history lesson. With dialogue and scenes that rank among the most moving and memorable ever filmed, it's a classic among classics--simply put, one of the finest films ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Ford and Fonda do justice to Steinbeck
Take John Steinbeck's Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Novel. Turn it into a movie and let John Ford direct it, and get Henry Fonda to star. In 1940 you could hardly find a more certain recipe for a cinema classic.

As good as the film is, it really should be a companion-piece to Steinbeck's original masterpiece, and if you haven't read it I recommend setting aside enough time to read one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.

That being said, the medium of the cinema allows for a visual impact that can't be matched with the written word.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family during the great depression. That period of economic hardship hit the farmers in Oklahoma a little harder than the rest of the world, at the time of the dust bowl the "Okies" were at the end of their ropes, financially speaking.

Thousands of Okies packed up the house after being foreclosed and moved out to California - many winding up around Bakersfield, at the California end of old US Route 66. (Merle Haggard's family did so and the "Okie from Muscogee" wrote about it in songs like "California Cottonfields".)

Anyway, this is the historical context of the movie. The theme of the movie, and of Steinbeck's book, is the ability of the human spirit to remain intact in these worst of times. The Joads suffer terrible humiliations, one after another, most of them because of their desperate financial status. But as the story proceeds we see that they are fundamentally decent, hard-working people, and every time life knocks them down they get back up, brush the dirt off themselves, and keep moving forward. As a national characteristic, this was an important trait because this was the generation that produced the hard-working, high-minded individuals who did important things like win World War II, followed by America's greatest financial flourishing and the Baby Boom. Tom Brokaw called them "America's Greatest Generation".

The cast is picture-perfect, with Henry Fonda as the spirited Tom Joad and John Carradine as the former preacher with a new social consciousness. Jane Darwell won a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Award as Ma Joad, and the remainder of the cast is in every way equal to the story and the film.

An American Classic
This is a great movie based on a great novel, and I am surprised by how honestly the film captures the raw humanity of the book. Steinbeck weaved social commentary into the story, and the movie makes many points about the human condition and spirit without being heavy-handed. The story of the Joads and their fight for survival rings very true, thanks to the realistic performances and the atmosphere created by director John Ford. Henry Fonda gives one of the best performances I have ever seen him give, and his "I'll be there" speech is one of the great movie moments. Jane Darwell is also very impressive, and her direct, down-to-earth style of acting makes the quiet strength and the suffering of Ma Joad seem very real. The Grapes of Wrath is an American classic, both as a novel and as a film.

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loos'd the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on." - Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead. "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies," Steinbeck described the result in one of his 1936 articles, collectively published as "The Harvest Gypsies;" and in another piece ("Starvation Under the Orange Trees," 1938) he asked: "Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?"

By the time he wrote the latter article, Steinbeck had already published one novel addressing the agricultural laborers' struggle against corporate power ("In Dubious Battle," 1936). Shortly thereafter he began to work on "The Grapes of Wrath," which was published roughly a year later. Although the book would win the Pulitzer Prize (1940) and become a cornerstone foundation of Steinbeck's Literature Nobel Prize (1962), it was sharply criticized upon its release - nowhere more so than in the Midwest - and still counts among the 35 books most frequently banned from American school curricula: A raw, brutally direct, yet incredibly poetic masterpiece of fiction, it continues to touch nerves deeply rooted in modern society's fabric; including and particularly in California, where yesterday's Okies are today's undocumented Mexicans - Chicano labor leader Cesar Chavez especially pointed out how well he could empathize with the Joad family, because he and his fellow workers were now living the same life they once had.

Having fought hard with his publisher to maintain the novel's uncompromising approach throughout, Steinbeck was weary to give the film rights to 20th Century Fox, headed by powerful mogul and, more importantly, known conservative Daryl F. Zanuck. Yet, Zanuck and director John Ford largely stayed true to the novel: There is that sense of desperation in farmer Muley's (John Qualen's) expression as he tells Tom and ex-preacher Casy (Henry Fonda and John Carradine) how the "cats" came and bulldozed down everybody's homes, on behalf of a corporate entity too intangible to truly hold accountable. There is Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin), literally clinging to his earth and dying of a stroke (or, more likely, a broken heart) when he is made to leave against his will. There is everybody's brief joy upon first seeing Bakersfield's rich plantations - everybody's except Ma Joad's (Jane Darwell's), that is, who alone knows that Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) died in her arms before they even started to cross the Californian desert the previous night. There is the privately-run labor camps' utter desolation, complete with violent guards, exploitative wages, lack of food and unsanitary conditions; contrasted with the relative security and more humane conditions of the camps run by the State. And there is Tom's crucial development from a man acting alone to one seeing the benefit of joining efforts in a group, following Casy's example, and his parting promise to Ma that she'll find him everywhere she looks - wherever there is injustice, struggle, and people's joint success. In an overall outstanding cast, which also includes Dorris Bowdon (Rose of Sharon), Eddie Quillan (Rose's boyfriend Connie), Frank Darien (Uncle John) and a brief appearance by Ward Bond as a friendly policeman, Henry Fonda truly shines as Tom; despite his smashing good looks fully metamorphosized into Steinbeck's quick-tempered, lanky, reluctant hero.

Yet, in all its starkness the movie has a more optimistic slant than the novel; due to a structural change which has the Joads moving from bad to acceptable living conditions (instead of vice versa), the toning down of Steinbeck's political references - most importantly, the elimination of a monologue using a land owner's description of "reds" as anybody "that wants thirty cents and hour when we're payin' twenty-five" to show that under the prevalent conditions that definition applies to virtually *every* migrant laborer - and a greater emphasis on Ma Joad's pragmatic, forward-looking way of dealing with their fate; culminating in her closing "we's the people" speech (whose direction, interestingly, Ford, who would have preferred to end the movie with the image of Tom walking up a hill alone in the distance, left to Zanuck himself). Jane Darwell won a much-deserved Academy-Award for her portrayal as Ma; besides John Ford's Best Director award the movie's only winner on Oscar night - none of its other five nominations scored, unfortunately including those in the Best Picture and Best Leading Actor categories, which went to Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and James Stewart ("The Philadelphia Story") instead. Still, despite its critical success - also expressed in a "Best Picture" National Board of Review award - and its marginally optimistic outlook, the movie engendered almost as much controversy as did Steinbeck's book. After the witch hunt setting in not even a decade later, today it stands as one of the last, greatest examples of a movie pulling no punches in the portrayal of society's ailments; a type of film regrettably rare in recent years.

"Ev'rybody might be just one big soul - well it looks that-a way to me. ... Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, that's where I'm gonna be, ma. That's where I'm gonna be." - Woody Guthrie, "The Ballad of Tom Joad."

"The highway is alive tonight, but nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes. I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light, with the ghost of old Tom Joad." - Bruce Springsteen, "The Ghost of Tom Joad."

The Grapes--and Apples and Oranges--of Wrath
It's striking how many reviewers here base their comments on a simplisitic comparison between the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" and the Steinbeck novel on which it was based. For many such a comparison seems to function simply as an excuse to proclaim the inherent superiority of the Steinbeck original--and, by extension, the superiority of their own literary taste values-- when all it really does is highlight the patent silliness of trying to pit different artforms into some sort of evaluative competition. Literature and cinema are two vastly different modes of representation each with their own strengths and limitations, so the framing question shouldn't be which version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is "better"--as if there were a universal yardstick with which to measure such things--but rather how do they perform in terms of their respective mediums? On that count, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate with both the Steinbeck and Ford versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" to have two masterworks that operate consummately at the peak of their respective artforms. What each does well, it does brilliantly. As a verbal medium that unfolds slowly, literature is good at offering rich, layered descriptions of person and place and mapping complicated narrative links and Steinbeck makes the most of this in his novel. Cinema, by contrast, is an expressive medium that works best through registers of visual and aural metaphor, allegory and performance...and it's on this ground that I think the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" more than merits its classic status. It is a magnificently "cinematic" film that uses the expressive capacities of the medium to produce a richly layered experience that is truly moving and that lingers long afterward, sometimes for years or even a whole lifetime. I first saw "The Grapes of Wrath" on TV one rainy afternoon in my childhood and it left indelible impressions that have impelled me to go back to the film time and again: The haunted eyes of Jane Darwell's Ma Joad as she sits in the truck cabin, lit from beneath, driving into an uncertain future, the winds of history howling oustside; the terrifying collision montage as the monstrous "cats" move in to destroy the Okies' homes; the soulless gas station attendants, standing together in uniforms like corporatized automata, muttering that the Joads are too miserable to be human. It's a film dense with iconic richness and an enduring testament both to the artistry of the many workers that created it, and to the democratic spirit of popular cinema at its very best.

As good a restoration as possible
This DVD restoration is probably as good as possible given that the original camera negative was lost. This is the one to get.

By the way, there is NO widescreen version of "The Grapes of Wrath." This DVD release exhibits the full frame aspect ratio of the original (1.33 to 1 ratio). Essentially, films made between 1917 and 1952 were filmed with a full frame aspect ratio. Standard televisions were proportioned 4:3 to copy the standard cinema ratio. Widescreen (Cinemascope, etc) was a gimmick introduced by Hollywood in the 1950s to compete with television. So if a film was made between 1917 and 1952 don't go looking for a widescreen version of it because there isn't any! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Sweetness that doesn't turn saccharine is hard to find these days; Finding Neverland hits the mark. Much credit is due to the actors: Johnny Depp applies his genius for sly whimsy in his portrayal of playwright J. M. Barrie, who finds inspiration for his greatest creation from four lively boys, the sons of widow Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet, who miraculously fuses romantic yearning with common sense). Though the friendship threatens his already dwindling marriage, Barrie spends endless hours with the boys, pretending to be pirates or Indians--and gradually the elements of Peter Pan take shape in his mind. The relationship between Barrie and the Llewelyn Davies family sparks both an imagined world and a quiet rebellion against the stuffy forces of respectability, given physical form by Barrie's resentful wife (Radha Mitchell, High Art) and Sylvia's mother (Julie Christie, McCabe and Mrs. Miller). This gentle silliness could have turned to treacle, but Depp and Winslet--along with newcomer Freddie Highmore as one of the boys--keep their feet on the earth while their eyes gaze into their dreams. Also featuring a comically crusty turn from Dustin Hoffman (who appeared in another Peter Pan-themed movie, Hook) as a long-suffering theater producer. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (245)

A very beautiful movie.
I agree with T burger.I did do some research after watching this & the main point of the movie is the same.He created this world after meeting & falling in love with those boys.If they made every movie that's based on fact word for word they would probably be boring.They're usually loosely based & meant more to entertain than to inform.I loved it.Story, great, sets, great.Johnny Depp Double great.

wow...
This movie is truly captivating. I am a sucker for fantasy-sort and movies packed with lots of imaginiation. I guess its the kid coming out of me. (which doesn't often go away)
This movie really does make you go back and remember all your dreams as a little child. Wishing you could fly, dreaming of far off places, magic, fantasy lands, and so on.
The reason for this movie is to take a look at how Peter Pan related to its author and his life. It is really interesting to see the parallels between the movie and the events and people he had in his life. I highly recommend it. Its touching and captivating.

Handsome-looking, sentimental tripe
Marc Forster's FINDING NEVERLAND isn't a bad movie, I suppose. In its depiction of playwright J.M. Barrie's creation of the classic PETER PAN, it has its occasional moments of real wide-eyed wonder (mostly during re-enactments of moments in the actual play), and it has generally fine performances from its cast---not even the prestige-pic atmosphere of this movie can keep the wide-ranging actor Johnny Depp down. And, of course, the movie looks sumptuous and handsome (which counts for something in my book).

But FINDING NEVERLAND is yet another example of the kind of sentimental, non-threatening tripe that Hollywood has a tendency to produce and foist upon the masses during Oscar season. This particular Oscar-bait picture has as its mantra "Just believe," but the movie rarely ever elicits the same sense of innocent wonder that this film's Barrie clearly believes in. (Its brief "fantasy" sequences---which includes Barrie dancing with a dog, or Barrie playing a pirate with a widower's kids---are too cheesily done to make us believe in anything.) Nor does it have much of a sharp edge to its potentially disturbing depiction of a writer's sudden fixation on the widower's kids; his attraction to the innocence of these kids---at least, in most of the kids; one of them, played by Freddie Highmore, still carries the pain and anger of loss with him---is depicted (and romanticized) by Forster and screenwriter David Magee as mostly pure and rather beautiful. (Yea right; so is Michael Jackson's, too?) By smoothing away almost all of the rough edges, by manipulating events to fit its banal message, by toning down Johnny Depp's usual actorly exuberance, Marc Forster comes up with a film that, for all its impressive production values, is never very intellectually stimulating. It's insufferably pleasant rather than challenging. Is it deeply moving? For me, not really; when Forster finally unveils his visual depiction of Neverland towards the end, it is mawkish rather than transporting; so is its final scene, in which Barrie tells disillusioned young Peter Davies to "just believe" that his relatives still live on.

Look, it's a nice idea, to be able to hold on to your child-like innocence and all that. But, just because you become an adult, that doesn't mean you have to lose your imagination or sense of child-like wonder. (That's one of the things movies can do best---but not this movie.) But it's hardly a good idea either to be as child-like as this film's Barrie is; in this difficult world, you'd never survive if your only purpose in life was to remain an innocent child throughout, the way Barrie tries to be. Growing up is something everybody has to do; it's something FINDING NEVERLAND apparently doesn't believe in. It's better to remain a naive kid rather than live in the real world. And of course this potentially dangerous philosophy gets applause from gullible viewers who find the movie "enchanting": it's a fantasy that appeals to them, which is precisely why I think the film is intellectually empty. Sorry if that sounds terribly cynical, but that personal reaction to the film's message is the only way I can explain why there was only one scene in the movie that genuinely moved me: a scene in which an angry Peter Davies shouts out to Barrie, "I will not be lied to." It's the only scene with any real dramatic weight to it, because it is the closest the movie comes to challenging its own sentimental, simple-minded "just believe" philosophy. Peter has glimpsed the cold, hard reality of death, and is trying to deal with it in his own way; this film's Barrie, instead, would probably try to tell himself that no one ever really dies, as long as his/her memory is kept alive. Again, a comforting notion; but it can be plain delusional to deny the harsh reality of death.

FINDING NEVERLAND is well-made enough that it's worth the 3 stars I'm granting it here. The movie probably makes worthy family entertainment; there's nothing all that offensive for parents to get too worried about. But if you're expecting something truly insightful or deeply moving from this trite Hollywood prestige pic, you might be disappointed. For all of its adult pretensions, FINDING NEVERLAND is, at heart, as childish as its real-life hero.

Neverland not the place to be
Johnny Depp put in a good performance in this movie. And that's the problem. I expect an actor of his caliber to show me something on the screen that will blow me away every single time. (Sorry about that,but Johnny has spoiled me). Instead what I saw was an actor reigned in. Did the money-mafia intercede somewhere along the line and say "no funny stuff..we're going for main stream here. Think Oscar."Kate Winslet just was not credible in the role of a woman dying of a progressive, wasting disease.Really?!When Barrie finally reveals Neverland to her, supposedly on the eve of her death, she looks like nothing but the beautiful English girl that she is. As fresh and as robust as the proverbial milkmaid. As for Julie Christie and Dustin Hoffman...what about them? Their parts could of been played by actors of lesser talent and the final product would not have suffered for it . This is not the worst movie ever made but it's got to be the worst misuse of acting talent in recent history. Finding Neverland is a medicore commercial product. The invitation implied gourmet but on arrival I got fast food. And I really, reallywanted to LIKE this movie.

An amazing movie, never mind the background...
Although I understand that J. M. Barrie was not perfect, there is no reason to relate him to the "Michael Jackson" scandal. It might be true that he *was* a pedophile, but in this movie, nothing of the sort was shown. The movie is *based* upon events that happened in the past, but is not a documentary of any sort or kind, and therefore cannot be deemed untruthful. Since the movie is not a historical film, nor does it portray any sort of pedophilia, it is unjust to give this movie a bad review for the past events.

Depp came across as a truly kind being who became very close with a family, and especially with that family's kids. He enjoyed being around them because maybe he felt that they needed a father figure, or maybe that he saw himself in the children and just wanted to have fun with them because he had no children of his own. Depp played Barrie in a manner which might have not been accurate, but his performance was amazing.

Winslet, who as well gives a rather good performance, fits with Depp like pieces of a puzzle, and the dynamics between Depp and the boys are amazing in all scenarios.

Overall, this was a stunning movie, and never you mind the reviews that say that this film was boring or stupid. This brings out emotion in almost everyone, from kids to seniors, and the only people who don't find it interesting are those who dislike a movie that actually has a good plot/doesn't have "action"/actually has in-depth characters.

I HIGHLY HIGHLY RECCOMEND THAT YOU PUT THIS ON THE TOP OF YOUR LIST TO RENT OR BUY. I GUARANTEE THAT IF YOU WATCH IT ONCE, JUST ONCE, YOU WILL FALL IN LOVE WITH IT IMMEDIATELY. ... Read more

Reviews (147)

Early DiCaprio is great
This is a great movie, which features Leonardo DiCaprio, playing a role which is so distant from any other roles he's ever done, and he really shines. If you've seen Titanic, and a couple of his other movie roles, you'll be really shocked, that he can play a totally different role. He's not a pretty-boy as he normally is.

It's never really explained what's the matter with Leo's character, Arnie. He has a lot of different characteristics which relate to different special needs people. I tend to think he's autistic, but he never comes across as especially autistic. So it does get a bit confusing.

There is a really powerful connection between Johnny Depp's character, Gilbert, and Arnie. Gilbert is really protective of his younger brother, and ashamed by everyone else in his family. This relationship comes to a terrific climax later in the movie, which will shock everyone who's enjoyed their relationship up until then.

Juliette Lewis plays the girl Gilbert falls in love with, and who he gives up his older, married lover for. Most people in other reviews I've read don't seem to like her character, but I do. She was great for the part, and although I wasn't keen on her too short hair, I loved everything else about her role.

Darlene Cates plays the abnormally obese mother, who hasn't stepped out of the house in 7 years, until Arnie gets arrested. I'm not sure whether the sheer size of her was for real, or whether it was body padding/suit kinda thing. Her size is almost too realistic to be a body suit.

All in all, this is a terrific movie, which wrenches at your heart strings, and has you in tears with the dramatic finale.

THIS IS AN ENTERTAINING, ENJOYABLE AND SWEET MOVIE.
"What's Eating Gilbert Grape" is the kind of movie which you don't expect too much before you see it, but after you've seen it, a smile in your face will appear.

The movie tells the story of Gilbert Grape, a nice guy trapped in a small town, with a dysfunctional family (as almost every family is), a job without a future and a relationship with a married woman. And despite all this, he is not a sad man, he is not depressed, he is not worried about himself; his main reason to live is to take care of his family. Everything else comes in a second place, including himself.

Johnny Depp is the center of the movie and his low-key performance is excellent, but the reason why this movie works so fine is the supporting cast; Leonardo DiCaprio is terrific as the mentally retarded brother, he and Depp are the fuel of the story. The rest of the cast includes: Darlene Cates as the big, big, big mother, John C. Reilly as Gilbert's best friend, Juliette Lewis as Gilbert's new love interest and Mary Steenburgen as the married woman who is having an affair with Gilbert, all of them are terrific in their roles.

The main purpose of "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" is to entertain audiences, and it does...a very enjoyable movie.

Excellent
This movie is indeed a tear jerker, yet work seeing.

What's eating Gilbert Grape?
..Well that's very simple. It's Gilbert's (Johnny Depp) disfunctional family. His brother (Leonardo DiCaprio) is mentally challenged, his mother (Darlene Cates) is morbidly obese, his youngest sister is a brat, there is also a house wife (Mary Steenburgen) who orders groceries from the store Gilbert works at, she has reasons of her own that does not include the need for food. She's quite capable of going to the supermarket herself. Let's just say she has more than a little thing for Gilbert. Gilbert's father passed away years earlier. Now only himself and the older sister seem able to take care of the home and family. I would like to mention that actress Darlene Cates has lost over 200 lbs. since this film was made. What's Eating Gilbert Grape is a wonderful, funny, sad and off beat drama that is sure to have something for everyone. I think it was very silly for one reviewer to say that this film makes fun of obesity and mentally impaired people. Are we not ever to have these types of characters in movies? I'm not sure if this person watched the entire film. It does have a positive message about these issues. This film doesn't make fun it only points out ignorance in people who do. When you see an overweight person do you stare at them? What if they are very overweight? I really liked the scene when Gilbert's mother said "I haven't always been like this." and Becky (Juliette Lewis) said "I haven't always been like this either." As if Becky didn't even notice that Gilbert's mother was of a beyond plus size. I myself work with mentally challenged kids everyday so Arnie just seemed like a kid to me. But in reality I have to say Leonardo DiCaprio was superb. On a less superb note however the DVD has zero extras. Well I guess if you wanna call having a theatrical trailer an extra feature go right ahead. I think a few featurettes and a director commentary is a must now days. Other than the lacks of DVD features this is a must purchase. Add it to your movie library ASAP.

the heart: you'll know it when you see it.
Needless to say this movie is NOT about making fun of the mentally retarded, the obese, grocery store stockers, randy housewives, or anyone else.
This movie is about the human heart, its complexity, pain, love, and cruely.
Gilbert is trapped by his heart. He wants to be a 'good person', but really he's already good enough, and its killing him: his spirit, his hope, and his love.
This is a wonderful movie if you can withstand the bleakness of Gilbert's life and not despair.
In the end, the story is lovely and the actors are marvelous. And where there's a good heart, there's hope. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the best films of 2004, Kinsey pays tribute to the flawed but honorable man who revolutionized our understanding of human sexuality. As played by Liam Neeson in writer-director Bill Condon's excellent film biography, Indiana University researcher Alfred Kinsey was so consumed by statistical measurements of human sexual activity that he almost completely overlooked the substantial role of emotions and their effect on human behavior. This made him an ideal researcher and science celebrity who revealed that sexual behaviors previously considered deviant and even harmful (homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) are in fact common and essentially normal in the realm of human experience, but whose obsession with scientific method frequently placed him at odds with his understanding wife (superbly played by Laura Linney) and research assistants. In presenting Kinsey as a driven social misfit, Condon's film gives Neeson one of his finest roles while revealing the depth of Kinsey's own humanity, and the incalculable benefit his research had on our collective sexual enlightenment. With humor, charm, and intelligence, Kinsey shines a light where darkness once prevailed. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Pretentious Attempt
In retrospection, Kinsey is over-rated. It rides on the 21st century's fetish of sexuality and pretends to be another "Beautiful Mind" but fails and flops. It is one of those pretentious artistic attempt.

Truth or Perversity?
This became more and more difficult to watch as the movie went along.A selected biography in the style of Ray or Delovely, but quite a different choice of subject matter.

Kinsey's father set the tone of Kinsey's own life, with a certainty that becomes obnoxious.The certainty that he knows what the answer is, in this case to the issues of human sexuality and its associated ignorance and taboos, and as with all people who think they know, there is a fall.At the time that Kinsey was achieving his fame there were restrictions on the entire subject of sex practices and sex mores.It stands to reason that the only people who were working in this area were strange themselves, or at least unconventional.That's where I had difficulty.Were Kinsey and his associates really as perverse as they appeared in the movie?Or were their banter and actions exaggerated for the sake of a good story.

I found no sympathy for Kinsey nor for anyone else in the movie.And some of the conclusions that they reached seem so counter-intuitive that they defy belief.I didn't know whether they were trying to find truth or to present perversity.

Potent Film with Certain Foundation for Heated Debate...
Galileo Galilei and scientists alike announced through in-depth research that the Earth was not flat and faced heavy persecution.Their different thinking broke the standards of the 16th century pious beliefs, which had been used a long time before scientists questioned the validity and reliability in what they observed.This offended the Catholic Church who proclaimed that they held the highest truth, a truth deeply rooted in unquestioned morality.The questioning of the religious beliefs triggered a witch-hunt of the scientists that disagreed with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.However, the truth eventually emerged, as Galileo's theories are still the instruments of current astronomical research that continues to evolve the human existence beyond the earth.

The Catholic Church and Lutheran Church persecuted people with different ideas of Christianity.Those who desired to exercise their own freedom of religion sought refuge in America where they could exercise their freedom to express their own ideas of religion.After the War of Independence, the founding fathers formed the Congress that drafted the 10 amendments.The first amendment brings the people freedom of speech, which includes religion.However, the very same ideas that sought freedom in America later turned from being the persecuted to the persecutor, as these notions harassed new different thinkers.The notion of cyclical history comes to mind when scientists like Alfred Kinsey are being silenced based on morality and unfounded facts.

Kinsey (Liam Neeson), a biologist, was brought up under strict puritan rules, as his father consistently proclaimed being the ultimate source of knowledge.In a sense he grew up with similar persecuting standards as Galileo, but instead of conforming to the rules he broke the bond with his father when he accepted a partial scholarship to Bowdoin to study biology.Kinsey's father wanted him to become an engineer, which has a certain level of irony to it, as his father believed that all modern inventions at the beginning of the 20th century were evil.The pursuit of the biology degree brought him through Harvard to Indiana University where he took a position as an assistant professor while studying stag beetles and later the American Cynipidae also known as the gall wasp.

Years of research and collecting the American Cynipidae allowed Kinsey to meticulously catalogue his gall wasp library.During this time Kinsey met his wife Clara (Laura Linney) with whom he had three children.However, before having the children they had difficulties in the bedroom, as Clara assumed it was because they physically would not fit together.This was an unacceptable answer for Kinsey who approached the problem, as if there were an answer, which there was.It simply was painful for Clara to have sex as her hymen was too thick, and with a quick procedure by a doctor she had this fixed.Consequently, Kinsey continued to help other couples with problems of sexual nature, but realized that he did not have any real answers to the questions that were posed to him.

In the 1940s, Kinsey got his chance to do teach a marriage course in regards to sex and the social aspects of sex between husbands and wives.As the class went on his interest deepened through the vast number of questions people asked in regards to sex.This concluded in Kinsey beginning to research the taboo ridden topic, which so many have been taught to avoid at all costs except for the purpose of having children.Kinsey opposed the abstinence with his statement, "society has interfered with what should be a normal biological development..."

The sex research forced Kinsey to travel uncharted waters, as he had to find a way to collect data that were valid and reliable.Through this process he design an interview style that had to be nonjudgmental in order for the interviewee to reveal everything without having to feel any negative feelings.This process gave them surprising facts about sex, as they also encountered homosexuality, extramarital affairs, and premarital affairs.They also found evidence of deviant sexual practices, which most of the society rightfully did not tolerate such as pedophilia.An important note to this is that Kinsey was only collecting data, he did not advocate harmful sexual practices.However, in the eyes of the society Kinsey was in the end drawn into the mud, as much of his intentions was misunderstood.

Nonetheless, Kinsey helped breaking the ice of the forbidden issue that in the end opened up the society to understanding this hushed, but normal behavior.If Kinsey did not push the envelope the society might have continued its intolerance towards sexual issues, an intolerance that would force many to hide their true identity in the fear of repercussions and prejudice based on hatred and fear.For example, John Edgar Hoover created a profiling center for homosexuals and other undesirables.The very same intolerance would function as a shield that would have protected many of the Catholic priests that have been uncovered to molest children.It is thanks to Kinsey and researchers alike that it has become acceptable to discuss this taboo topic in media, where horrendous crimes such as child molesting can be caught.Yet, there are still many who believe that Kinsey was wrong to do what he did, and they are naturally free to have their own opinions.As they should let the truth be unveiled from darkness and not let erotophobia, i.e., learned negative emotional response to information of sexual nature, affect any decision-making that could help human beings discover a better future.

Kinsey is a political and potent film that will undoubtedly make many feel awkward and uncomfortable.Yet, it is also an important film, as it displays the importance of learning the truth and not hiding behind groundless rules and laws based on fictionalized morality.The film also has historical value to our contemporary society where many laws often are passed based on morality, which ends up hurting a fraction of the society and slows the progress of humanity.When this happens, history seems to be have drifted into oblivion as prejudice and intolerance continues to haunt the society.Hopefully, the film Kinsey offers an opportunity for debate and insightfulness, and not continued narrow-mindedness.

On balance, a positive contribution to human understanding
Alfred Kinsey did a great service to the study of sex.Yes, some of his methodologies were suspect, "self-selection" throwing a monkey-wrench in the whole randomization requirement.His subjects were perhaps not the most representative sampling of the population.Furthermore, he and his staff became too personally involved in the work.His assistants comprised a sort of swinger's club.Kinsey could be faulted for not having anticipated the conflicts brought about by such activities among colleagues.

Unfortunately, these aspects of his life and the film will obscure - for many - the more significant meaning of his work: Bringing the discussion of sex out of the dark corners of human consciousness and into the light.Also, by removing the shame factor from sex, a natural healthy aspect of the human animal, Kinsey legitimized the scientific study of sex.

As far as the film per se, I was impressed with the honesty of the piece.Contrary to what some reviewers have said, this film does not make Kinsey a hero.It rightly credits him for his work, yet reveals a conflicted, troubled psyche at the same time as Kinsey tries to navigate the line between his objective scientific observation and his subjective sexual experiences.This blurring is where Kinsey erred.

Interesting insight into groundbreaking study
Alfred Kinsey was a pioneer in the study of human sexuality. He was a professor at Indiana University and spent the first 20 years of his career studying an insect, the "gall wasp." This movie, starring Liam Neeson in the title role, depicts Dr. Kinsey as having an obsession with his study of the gall wasp, collecting hundreds of thousands of specimens and devoting his life to studying this species. Tapped to teach a course on marriage and the family, Kinsey developed an interest in human sexuality and he bacame as obsessive in this study as he was in his earlier endeavor. He was driven and pushed his staff hard. He employed interviewers who spoke with thousands of people in taking sexual histories. Kinsey was very hands on as he personally instructed his staff on how to put subjects at ease as they conducted the interviews.

Dr. Kinsey was the son of a morally strict father, convincingly played by John Lithgow. Neeson's depecition of Dr. Kinsey shows the results of this upbringing. His characterization of Kinsey comes across as very stiff and uptight. He is not one to really let his hair down yet, in his groundbreaking study, there is no taboo that he is unwilling to explore. Indeed, he explores his own sexuality as he has an extramarital gay affair. Despite serious misgivings at first, his wife, played by Laura Linney, is accepting.

The studies were very controversial, having been done in the 1940s, long before the "sexual revolution." Some people found his findings to be very liberating in that they discovered that they were not alone in their sexual feelings. Other people were shocked, believing that the subject was taboo and should not be discussed. There is one brief scene in which a woman, who agonized over her lesbian inclinations, was liberated by Dr. Kinsey's findings and, thereby allowed herself to enter into a relationship. Others, including Kinsey's father, were scandalized. Ultimately, however, Kinsey's father allows himself to be interviewed by his son and reveals his own, painful secrets of a repressed childhood.

We live in a more sexually open era than we did, generations ago. This movie gives an insight into one of the reasons this is so. I recommend this dvd. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Driven by intelligent, constantly surprising and moving performances from the film's leads, Dear Frankie stars Emily Mortimer (Lovely and Amazing) as Lizzie, Scottish mother of Frankie (Jack McElhone), a deaf and highly intelligent 9-year-old. Constantly uprooting themselves and relocating from town to town, Lizzie and Frankie are on the run from the latter's abusive father, a fact unknown to the boy, who believes his dad is a busy seaman sending letters full of adventure and love. In fact, Lizzie is writing those missives, but she is faced with a challenge when Frankie discovers his father's ship will dock nearby. Lizzie hires a kind, handsome stranger (Gerard Butler) to play Frankie's dad, creating an odd situation in which ever-growing lies become a conduit for love, and Lizzie's repressed desires come to the fore with a man posing as her husband. The moral tangles are of interest in director Shona Auerbach's charmingly paced, quietly insightful drama-comedy, but so is the glorious feeling of watching these characters come fully alive. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Astounding
Many people have figured out that some low-budget films are as good as any expensively advertised films--even better. Well, Dear Frankie is one of them.
Starring a hugely talented Emily Mortimer as Frankie's mom, Lizzie, the film follows a family around that constanly has to move, because of the fear that Frankie's estranged father will show up and take him away. As Lizzie puts it in the movie, "Frankie wasn't born deaf. It was a gift from his daddy." However, Lizzie wants to protect her son from his disturbing past, and tells him his dad is on a boat. She has him write letters to his "dad", and then reads and answers them herself. This is not, however, a sob story for a unfortunate deaf boy. Frankie is perfectly fine being the way he is, and others are at ease around him, because he is happy.
Anyway, one day, Frankie reads that the boat that his father is supposedly on is coming to a dock very near to his house. His friend bets him his father will not visit, and Lizzie decides to do something about it. She meets a Stranger (Gerard Butler) and he agrees to be Frankie's father. The story unfolds from there beautifully, but I won't spoil it; you have to see the movie!!
I admit, the reason I wanted to see this movie was because the spectacular Gerry Butler was in it! And fans of his, you will be very pleased if you see him in this movie. But everyone and everything about this movie is what really kept it in my memory. It is easy to tell that it truly came from all the actor's hearts, and this really pays off. So, instead of seeing a high budget movie, please, do a favor for yourself and find Dear Frankie. You won't be disappointed.

A must see.
Though not cheery because of the dramatic nature of the plot, the film is wholly entertaining and not in anyway dissappointing, even though I strained at times to understand what little Frankie was saying. (HIs accent is quite thick)

Performances were top shelf and everything, including the music, worked well with the scenery, the climax and the ending of this film.

Suitable for children who would enjoy and understand the yound child's compelling drive to know his father.

Emily Mortimer is so expressive, and you yearn for her and Gerard Butler to end up together, even though that'snot real life, and Dear Frankie is a slice of real life.

Take a bite.

90 mile drive and completely worth it!
My mom and I drove 90 miles to get to see this movie. We had been looking forward to it for months, and were afraid that it wasn't going to play anywhere near us. When we saw it, we loved it so much that we went to lunch and came back for the next show. It was an amazing cast and a beautiful story. I can't wait to add it to my movie collection

One of my favorite all time movies
Dear Frankie is one of the best movies I've seen.Its gritty and raw, while at the same time being so warm and sweet.It brings every emotion to the surface, you can't help but feel everything Frankie and his mom are feeling.I can't wait till its out on dvd, I know I will watch this one again and again.It's a movie that will stay with you for a long time.

worth the search
Because Miramax saw fit to bury this movie and spend zero dollars on advertising, anyone who wanted to see it had to track it down.I didn't think I would get a chance to see it in a theater, but it finally came to a small theater 75 miles from me.My family and I made the trip and it was certainly worth it.From the wonderful, haunting piano music at the beginning to the final credits, it was a thoroughly enjoyable movie.The story has been described elsewhere.I will just say that all the actors gave phenomenal performances.I had never seen Emily Mortimer before, but she was great.Gerard Butler has to be one of the most underrated actors today.He can express more with facial expressions and his eyes than most actors can with their whole bodies and loads of dialogue.The young actors were all good.I especially like Frankie's little girl friend.The Scottish locations werepicturesque and evocative.Like I said, there are lots more accessible movies out there, but there are few that are worth the film they are printed on.Dear Frankie is heads and tails above most rubbish in the theaters today.Do yourself a favor and track it down.It is worth the trouble. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A clear-eyed look at the Rwandan genocide is offered in Sometimes in April, a frank take on the 1994 slaughter that claimed upwards of 800,000 lives. Some overlap with Hotel Rwanda is inevitable, and this HBO feature does have similarities, but without the strong suspenseful storyline of Hotel. Its protagonist (the strong Idris Elba, from The Wire) pieces together the past tragedy from the perspective of a decade-later war-crimes tribunal, where his brother is on trial. It's hard to know which is less bearable--the depiction of atrocities, such as mass murder at a girls school, or the second-guessing of the international community, which largely stood by while the horror was unfolding. (Like Hotel Rwanda, this film zeroes in on the U.S. government's distinction that "acts of genocide" occurred in Rwanda rather than "genocide," a Joseph Heller-like absurdity.) The plain style of director Raoul Peck, shooting on location in Rwanda, works for the subject; his film Lumumba was also a direct, blunt account of a tragedy in Africa. The approach doesn't work as well in the U.S. scenes, which feature Debra Winger as a concerned official; these just look clumsy. But the subject itself remains worthy of close attention. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (15)

A must watch movie to know catastrophic loss of human lives
I have watched both the movie - this and the Hotel Rwanda; and to my utter disappointment one question roams in my mind after watching these movies. How could international community be so indifferent when one part of our world was seeing one of the horrific loss of human lives?

I applaud HBO for their wonderful effort on depicting war time atrocities with such an intensity and perfection; it really touched my heart.

Powerful, Must-See Movie
Deeply unsettling portrayal of Rwandan genocide. Strong performances by entire cast -- very believable. Slow paced at times. Liked HOTEL RWANDA better -- more suspenseful. How can such horrors be ignored repeatedly by major powers in Africa, Europe, Asia, & the Americas? A must see.

Fine companion to Hotel Rwanda
I really enjoyed this movie-as well as Hotel Rwanda.No sense saying one is better then the other-as both are excellent and well worth watching. This story centers around a Hutu Army man with a Tutsi wife.There are of course similarities at times--since both movies cover the same period of genocide (or is that "acts" of genocide?)IMO--both movies should be watched as they compliment each other!Due to the nature of the ev