danpatter2002

A superb script is perhaps the best reason to see this movie, but it's a splendid film on all counts. I saw it during its original theatrical release and once since then, but it's the kind of movie that sticks in the memory.

Brandauer gives his usual splendid performance. The man has never given a bad one as far as I know, and this is one of his best. The camera loves him and you can read this character's thoughts from his eyes alone. The sometimes uneven Dunaway is just wonderful here, and still very beautiful when this was made. David Eberts, as her son, is also very fine and believable.

The atmosphere created by this movie will haunt you. Yes, I suppose it is an "art film," whatever that means. There are no car chases and the themes are very adult and provocative in the best sense. Photography and settings are beautiful. Give this a look, it will stick with you.

The movie is reasonably enjoyable and often attractive to look at. The leading lady, Keira Knightley, is charming, lovely and frequently bewitching as Elizabeth Bennett, but this Miss Bennett is not quite Jane Austen's Miss Bennett, nor is this Pride and Prejudice quite Miss Austen's Pride and Prejudice. For one thing, the humor has been leached out and the whole story taken very seriously indeed. This has the effect of making Austen's affectionately caricatured folks (such as Mrs. Bennett or Mr. Collins or even Lady Catherine) into somewhat monstrous characters. Instead of seeming silly, they seem almost malevolent. The whole picture is very realistically depicted: the assembly ball feels claustrophobic, hot and stuffy; the Bennetts live on a working farm, with plenty of messy livestock. The whole emotional tone of the picture is serious indeed. Elizabeth's final interview with Lady Catherine is brutal, played with heightened emotion, far from the mannerly but cleverly hostile scene written by Austen.

Judi Dench is in her dowager duchess mode as Lady Catherine, effective but too little used; a treat nevertheless. Matthew McFayden's rather hangdog Darcy passes muster, but I think most fans will prefer Colin Firth in the A&E miniseries. Simon Woods as Bingley and Rosamund Pike as Jane are just perfect, the best ever. Brenda Blethyn is fine indeed as this particular kind of Mrs. Bennett, but I can't say as much for Donald Sutherland's Mr. Bennett; he seems miscast much of the time, and what in blazes is he doing at the assumbly ball? (He grins entirely too much, too).

I prefer the old BBC miniseries (with its limited production values) even to the very lavish, handsome and enjoyable A&E miniseries. The BBC version was scripted by Fay Weldon, who maintained the perfect Austen tone throughout. While A&E did not manage to do that all the time, the new movie doesn't even seem to try. The final tacked-on scene will be a real jolt for Austen purists: a romantic scene for the married Darcys in the garden at Pemberly, very atmospheric and purple dialog abounding. Why not just tuck us in bed for the wedding night?

But you know, maybe this will lead a few more people to the immortal book itself, so I wish the movie a huge success. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying it.

This stylish and refreshing take on Barrie's classic tale has a lot going for it. It is very faithful to the spirit of the original, and a lot of Barrie's matchless script has survived. Both the juvenile leads are charming and believable, but acting honors must go to Jason Isaacs, who gives Captain Hook both menace and malice, as well as a seductiveness I would not have believed possible. One fears him, pities him, loathes him and relishes him, as he rises to the tragic grandeur of the part. Just to hear him utter Barrie's wonderful line, "Back you puling spawn, I'll show you the road to dusty death," is itself worth the price of admission. Bravo, Mr. Isaacs. (I do wish Hook's monologue, "How still the night air," had made it into the film - it would have been nice to see Mr. Isaacs do this.)

And bravo to Mr. Hogan for giving us one of the most beautiful films ever made. It is a pleasure to look at and Hogan wisely never lets the special effects get in the way of the story. I've taken several batches of kids to see this movie and all were enchanted and excited. So was I, who grew up on the Mary Martin and Walt Disney versions and have seen both the play and the musical version many times live. This one's a winner. Go see it.

A potpourri of star turns lift the charming but silly plot above itself. Worth seeing for the Dick Powell/Mary Martin number alone. I kept backing the tape up and watching this part again and again. Why Martin wasn't a greater Hollywood star is a mystery to me, but H'wood's loss was B'way's gain. Many other nice things to see, but I have a feeling some numbers were cut from the final print. Wonder what they were?

Somewhat "old-fashioned" but redeemed by sincere performances, striking and beautiful photography, this film is enjoyable and worth seeing. The accents are a bit off at times, and there are a few questionable details - would a genteel English girl in Victorian days have kissed her fiancee in public quite so passionately? - but nothing really jars. Djimon Hounsou takes the screen like a star and almost steals the picture; his performance of a somewhat stereotypical role is remarkable, almost mesmerizing - he's what you'll remember, along with the stunning vistas. As for the other actors, they pass muster (or better in some cases) without leaving much impression. Mr. Pigott-Smith is excellent (as always) as a crusty father.

This charming fairy tale features some fine performances, especially from Dick Shawn, Valerie Perrine and Beverly D'Angelo. The movie is sweet and enjoyable, and there are a couple of nice songs, too. Suspend your disbelief, pop the corn, sit back and enjoy.

This film preserves Helen Hayes in one of her most celebrated roles, and Brian Aherne and the rest of the cast are quite fine as well. Indeed, Lucile Watson is a particular delight as the Comtesse de la Briere. The first half of the film hews closely to J. M. Barrie's play, yet it never feels "stage-bound" in the least. It has been opened up for the film quite effectively and none of Barrie's humor or clear-eyed sentiment have been lost. However, in an apparent attempt to simplify some of Barrie's plot devices, the last half of the film has been changed considerably from the play; and not to its benefit. Indeed, the rest of the script is pretty much a mess and makes nonsense of Barrie without improving the story in the least, as well as vitiating the entire thrust of the drama. Still, the film is worth seeing for Miss Hayes' excellent performance and Mr. Aherne's very capable one.

The wit and glinting malice of this film, combined with stellar performances by Michael York, Angela Lansbury and the completely delectable Jane Carr, keep it as fresh as the day it was released. I've watched it over a dozen times in my life, always with renewed enjoyment. Delicious!

This version of the Hugo novel is more faithful in both tone and plot than is the earlier Charles Laughton version. That said, it's not nearly as much fun.

La Lollo is quite fetching and earnest as Esmeralda and gives an effective, if slightly bosom-heaving, performance. Quinn, with his simian features accented by makeup, is a good Hunchback. He doesn't milk the role for pathos, and let's the viewer see several sides to Quasimodo. Alain Cuny is dark and brooding as Frollo, but he doesn't register as vividly as Cedric Hardwick in the earlier version.

Then there's some pretty bad acting from others in cast, but the script is pretty flat and misses some good opportunities. In the earlier version, Laughton (his double, actually) swings across the plaza, scoops up Esmeralda (the gorgeous Maureen O'Hara) and swings back into the church. Quinn just shinnies down a rope and yanks Lollo into the church. More probable, perhaps, but not so exciting.

It's a gorgeous, colorful widescreen epic, nicely served by the DVD release. It's not a sentimental movie; neither is the novel. And it's worth a kind look.

This new Polish version of a Polish novel, written in the 1890's by Henryk Sienkiewicz (who won the Nobel prize), is an excellent movie, gripping, exciting and deeply moving. Unlike the 1951 MGM version, which was a costume epic typical for its time, this new film seems to be about real people caught in the maelstrom that was Nero's Rome, in the struggle between decadent paganism and the emerging new faith of the Christians. The book is a favorite of mine and the screenplay's fidelity to the novel is highly commendable. The actors are vivid in their portrayals. This Nero, for instance, seems like a real madman, not a fine actor hamming it up (as did Ustinov in the 1951 film). The Petronius is excellent, the two leads both young and handsome. The conversion of Vinicius and Chilon are convincing and moving. This nearly-three-hour film moves quickly and covers a lot of ground. The ending gave me pause, and it's a stunner. The movie deserves a much wider audience than it's going to get in the US, because, face it, most people who go see foreign language films are not the same people who go to see religious, historical epics. I hope it gets a video release, at least. Hollywood would have given this film costlier and better special effects - the burning of Rome is a bit anemic - but Hollywood could not have filmed this movie as honestly, truthfully and brilliantly.