Reviews

I've been a nurse for 20 years, and have been around many patients who must contend daily with what "normal" people would consider to be adversities and handicaps. I've always looked upon them with (1) great admiration for their personal strength and determination, and (2) a pervading sense of sorrow and an aching heart, for their "misfortune" in having been denied the opportunity to interact in the world with the benefit of an intact, healthy body.

This movie really struck an emotional chord with me, and made me realize how my feelings for these `unfortunates' could be construed as condescending and insensitive. I've often wished that I had the power to "heal" the handicapped, or to make them whole and "normal." The idea that they could feel totally satisfied, complete, and happy, despite their limitations -- and that it is presumptuous of us to think otherwise -- was intelligently brought to light in this screenplay.

This film is based upon a true story of a man who had come to terms with his blindness, and who, instead of wallowing in bitterness and self-pity, had learned to use his remaining senses of hearing, touch, smell, and taste -- along with a delightful sense of humor -- to become a happy, positive, and resourceful human being, with a keen sensitivity toward -- and appreciation of -- the world and the people around him. This is very much like handicapped patients I have cared for through the years, who left me in wonder at their strikingly positive attitudes and warmth toward humanity, despite the obstacles they face on a daily basis.

One of the reasons that I enjoy Val Kilmer's performances so much, is that he has the uncanny ability to capture the subtlest nuances of the characters he is portraying, whether it's Virgil, Doc Holliday, Jim Morrison, etc., and then is willing to bare his soul to bring the role to fruition for public enjoyment/critique. It's a risky, daring, thing to do -- and I applaud him for his courage! I appreciate the effort he makes to hone his performances by extensively researching the people and situations he is contracted to portray, instead of just showing up on the set, spewing his lines, picking up the paycheck, and moving on. His portrayal of a blind man was COMPLETELY believable, and I forgot for two hours that he was a sighted actor playing a part. One reviewer criticized him for smiling too much when his character interacted with people. I have to ask whether that person has ever watched Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles or Jose Feliciano, while they are interacting in social situations. Kilmer nailed this part, and beautifully expressed the gamut of emotions experienced by Virgil in the transformations that took place in his life.

Other issues that have been mentioned by reviewers: (1) -- A supposed `lack of chemistry' between Kilmer and Sorvino – I have to wonder if we were watching the same film! (2) -- Yes -- as a warning to households with young children -- there is nudity, but their intimate scenes were enacted beautifully, with sensitivity and tenderness; there was nothing raunchy or sensationalistic about them. However, some might take offense at the scene in the strip club – it wasn't essential to the plot development, and could have been omitted. (3) -- The only `bad language' in the film were rare, scattered expletives, which conveyed the understandable frustration of the main character when he was confronted with overwhelming emotions and tribulations, and (4) – the scene of confrontation between Virgil and his father, which some people thought unnecessary, but which I felt was very appropriate, since their relationship and the father's abandonment of the family had been such traumatic, devastating events in Virgil's life.

This film is an emotional roller-coaster ride, but WELL worth the trip – LOVED it! :o)

P.S. – If you haven't seen Kilmer as Doc Holliday in `Tombstone,' RUN, don't walk, to your nearest video store, and grab the Vista Series DVD – it's absolutely one of the best performances EVER recorded on film! The Academy must have slept through 1993!!!!

This is truly one of the most ridiculous pieces of garbage to have ever been filmed! Having enjoyed Bullock in movies such as, "While You Were Sleeping," and "Hope Floats," I am stunned that she would even have entertained the thought of playing such an incredibly vapid, stupid part! The script was juvenile, the acting was terrible, the story -- what there was of one -- was predictable and p-a-i-n-f-u-l-l-y boring -- the list just goes on and on -- just like the movie. I sat in numbed silence when it had FINALLY ended, thinking to myself that I had just wasted a small part of my life. I was disappointed by "Miss Congeniality," but this one is far, FAR worse! This dog needs to be put out of its misery.

This is one of my all-time FAVORITE films! I'm not particularly partial to movie westerns, but I AM very much interested in history, and even though there were minor liberties taken with certain details, this version was surprisingly accurate in MOST aspects of the story of the Earps, the Clantons, the "Cowboys," and Doc Holliday -- moreso, in fact, than in any other film that I've seen on the subject. (The DVD version comes with a great "bonus" disk which includes interesting interviews with cast and crew members, and behind-the-scenes production information. It's fascinating to see how much painstaking effort was put into the production details, by cast and crew alike, in order to make the sets, costumes, and characters appear as authentic as possible).

The story is SO well-acted, and so engrossing and entertaining, that I found it impossible to sit and nit-pick about historical accuracy; instead, I just relaxed and went along on a VERY enjoyable ride! As an example, in one scenario in which fact is unknown but theories abound --i.e., the circumstances surrounding the demise of the real Johnny Ringo -- the screenwriters presented a theoretical, but AWESOME, showdown scene between Ringo and ....oops!...won't spoil it for those of you who haven't already seen the movie -- but it's a MUST SEE!

The cast was SUPERB, with special kudos to Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp -- EXCELLENT!!! -- (made me realize that he's capable of SO much more than I'd ever seen from him before) -- and to Val Kilmer, for his BRILLIANT portrayal of Doc Holliday -- he came, he saw, and he conquered the HELL out of that part! Also, Sam Elliot delivers his usual high-calibre performance, as Virgil Earp, and...well, there really wasn't a weak link in the entire cast! -- It is truly one of the greatest groups of actors that has EVER been brought together for any one production! I've bought the DVD for myself, and two others as gifts for friends/family. I think that most people -- male OR female -- would find this film more than worthwhile. Enjoy! :o)

...so I rented and watched this again -- and I was every bit as bored and unimpressed as I remembered feeling after having watched it the first time!

Having read this book more than once (it is my favorite Thomas Hardy book, and one of my favorite books of all time), and having seen both filmed versions, I have to say that this version (with Alan Bates, Julie Christie and Peter Finch) cannot hold a candle to the BBC remake, released in 1998, with Nathaniel Parker, Paloma Baeza and Nigel Terry.

This Bates/Christie version was a great disappointment to me. Julie Christie was too old for the part of Bathsheba, did not fit Hardy's description of her at all, and has never impressed me as much of an actress -- an opinion which has only been substantiated by her high-school-calibre performance in this film -- a MAJOR casting faux pas! (and a slap on the hand to the makeup artist who made this supposed 19th-century character even more farcical by piling on the makeup until she looked like a Vogue cover girl, rather than the mistress of Weatherbury Farm).

Peter Finch's performance, as Boldwood, was admirable (actually the best of the film, in my opinion), but just did not elicit the strong feeling of empathy from me, as Nigel Terry did in the BBC version. In all fairness, Finch did not seem to have as much screen time, so character development was lacking.

The greatest surprise to me, in regard to this film, was that I also felt the same about Alan Bates' performance as Gabriel Oak -- he just did not convey the emotions and the quality of Oak's character, as described by Hardy in the book, and I found his portrayal to be PAINFULLY bland and boring. He seemed as though he was reading his lines straight off a teleprompter -- emotion and warmth were virtually non-existent! (a STRIKING contrast to Nathaniel Parker's sensitive, powerful, heart-wrenching portrayal of Oak in the 1998 film).

Part of the blame would have to be shared by the director of this version -- the actors APPEARED to be acting, and neither they, nor the director, seemed to have a firm grasp or understanding of the explicit emotions and personalities of the characters, which Hardy had gone to great effort and detail to describe in the book.

I highly recommend to anyone who has seen only this version -- or to anyone who has never seen either version -- that you rent or buy the 1998 BBC film, which is truer to Hardy's book (although some changes were made in that adaptation also, due to time constraints, it wasn't nearly as "choppy" as this one), and is a quality production in every way, and brilliantly acted, from the main players right down through the supporting cast.

Having read this book more than once (it is my favorite Thomas Hardy book, and one of my favorite books of all time), and having seen both filmed versions, I have to say that the original version (with Alan Bates, Julie Christie and Peter Finch) cannot hold a candle to the second (with Nathaniel Parker, Paloma Baeza and Nigel Terry).

The original version was a great disappointment to me -- Julie Christie was, as another reviewer pointed out, too old for the part of Bathsheba, did not fit Hardy's description of her at all, and has never impressed me as much of an actress -- a major casting faux pas, in my opinion. Peter Finch, as Boldwood, did not elicit the strong feeling of empathy from me, as Nigel Terry did in his portrayal of the character. The greatest surprise to me, in regard to the first version, was that I also felt the same about Alan Bates' performance as Gabriel Oak -- he did not convey the emotions and the quality of Oak's character, as described by Hardy in the book, and I found his portrayal to be bland, boring, and, at times, overacted. Part of the blame would have to be shared by the director of that version -- the actors appeared to be acting, and neither they, nor the director, seemed to have a firm grasp or understanding of the explicit emotions and personalities of the characters, which Hardy had gone to great effort and detail to describe in the book.

After having seen Nathaniel Parker's interpretation of Gabriel Oak, I cannot imagine anyone else playing the part -- it was the first time I had seen Mr. Parker in any performance, and he ripped my heart out with his portrayal of this noble, dignified, aggrieved and tormented soul. He and Ms. Baeza, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Firth (Sergeant Troy), seemed to have a thorough comprehension of, and sensitivity toward, the characters as they were intended by Thomas Hardy -- they appeared to have walked straight out of the pages of the book! In addition, the sensitive and intuitive direction by Nicholas Renton drew powerful performances from all, including a superior supporting cast. The accurate period costumes, and beautiful sets and cinematography, serve to round out a production of true quality.

I highly recommend to anyone interested in this story, that he or she consider reading the book first. Although this screenplay remains true to the book, some of the detail which enhances understanding and feeling for the characters, the time period, and the plot, was edited due to time constraints, as is common with filmed productions of great pieces of literature.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand the mediocre ratings this movie has received from the other reviewers! I thought that it was wonderfully written, beautifully and sensitively acted, and, overall, a pleasure to watch -- which I have done, SEVERAL times!

I am a huge fan of Sandra Bullock and Gena Rowlands, so I expected great things from them, and was NOT disappointed in the least. The surprise for me was in the casting of Harry Connick, Jr., as the man still carrying the torch for "Birdie," after all those years. I had never seen him act in anything before -- but he was PERFECT in this role! Also, the young actors, who played the parts of Bernice and Travis, were commendable in their ability to exhibit the maturity required to portray children who were suffering great emotional turmoil as a result of their parents' behavior.

OK! -- I admit to being a pushover for feel-good movies and happy endings -- when I sit down to watch a movie, I want it to leave me feeling relaxed and happy. This movie succeeded in doing just that, by the QUALITY and originality that went into the acting, the directing, the writing, the sets, the lighting, the soundtrack, and so many other details of the production. I never tire of watching it, and it still provokes tears, smiles and laughter, just as it did the first time I saw it.

The only flaw that I can find in the movie was in the decision to base the beginning on one of those sleazy daytime TV "expose" shows, in which people air their dirty laundry and scandals for all the world to see -- although it did contribute to some of the funny lines later in the film. It was a bit embarrassing, though, in front of my adolescent children, to hear them speaking, in graphic detail, of the affair between Birdie's husband and her best friend. Mature viewers would have understood the extent of his unfaithfulness, if they had spoken with a little more tact and subtlety, but where would those shows be without their shock value? -- off the air, which I can only hope for in my lifetime!

I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who is in the mood for a sentimental, funny, romantic, and uplifting story. Enjoy!

After having viewed every filmed version of this story, including the most recent one with Patrick Stewart in the starring role, and after having seen it performed on stage MANY times, I still consider this version, with Alastair Sim as Scrooge, to be the very best! Alastair Sim, by far, seems to have grasped the character in a way that no other actor has done, and delivers a powerful, yet subtle and understated, touching, and thoroughly believable performance. His unsurpassed interpretation of the role, along with excellent performances by a strong supporting cast (also the best I've seen), combine to make this movie a true classic treasure!

During his long and celebrated career, Olivier brilliantly portrayed, on stage and screen, a greater variety of characters than any other actor, past or present. His tenacity and ambition are astonishing and admirable, and his versatility and talent are, in this writer's opinion, unmatched.

This interview, of Olivier himself, and of several friends and associates, at last gives us the opportunity to actually get to know a bit about his true personality and character, sans makeup, wig or costume, and only served to deepen my admiration and respect for the man.

He speaks articulately, and with a delightful, often self-deprecating, humor, about his career, from his first Shakespearean roles as a schoolboy in England, to his early roles in the legitimate theatre, and of his culture shock upon his arrival in Hollywood in the '30's.

He describes his initial, mutually antagonistic relationships with some of Hollywood's greatest movie producers and directors, and how they eventually succeeded in instilling, in this classically-trained theatrical purist, a love and respect for the medium of film and a recognition of its potential -- and of how that revelation eventually led to his own successes as an award-winning film producer and director.

The viewer gets an inkling as to the fortitude of the man, in his visions of bringing Shakespeare to the screen as it had never been done before, in discussions of his tribulations as director of the Old Vic, in his long-fought battle to finally bring to reality the National Theatre of England, and in his determination to continue working throughout his lifetime, despite financial and professional setbacks, and, in his later years, chronic, painful, debilitating illness.

Although I thought the interviewer was weak and ineffectual, the video itself, which includes photos and discussions of many of Olivier's theatrical roles, as well as excerpts from several of his films, is a great overview of the accomplishments of an extraordinary man!

Kirk Douglas plays the title character with charm and panache, Lancaster delivers one of his best performances, and Olivier is an absolute delight in his smooth-as-silk portrayal of "Gentlemanly Johnny!" A pleasure to watch -- Bravo!

The pairing of Katharine Hepburn and Laurence Olivier for this delightful production was a stroke of casting genius! Although they had known each other since 1934, this was their first and only professional collaboration, and came to be as a result of Hepburn's suggestion. Olivier, in his book, "On Acting," called it "my happiest professional film experience."

These two celebrated veterans of theatre and cinema, with a wealth of experience between them, played off one another brilliantly -- Hepburn as the wealthy dowager, Jessica Medicott, who is being sued for breach of promise by a much younger man, and Olivier as the renowned barrister, Sir Arthur Granville-Jones, who is retained to defend her in the lawsuit. The irony here is that Jessica had, almost 50 years before, jilted Sir Arthur, when he was a young law student, and he has carried a torch for her ever since -- but SHE, long-married and now widowed, doesn't even remember him! Now, Sir Arthur must subdue his own feelings of resentment and longing, for a passion which has consumed him for over forty years, as he presents her case to the court.

The acting is perfection, including that of a strong supporting cast, the script is intelligent, witty, and well-written, the sets and costumes are beautiful (it is set in England in the early 1900's), and the direction by George Cukor, in his first venture into television, is sensitive and masterful. It is one of those rare productions which leaves the viewer with an overall sense of pleasure at having witnessed storytelling and acting at its VERY best!