Jamies Place

Posts Tagged ‘actress’

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants-Retail —-! Sale Only $2.99! Compare & Purchase The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants at Amazon by clicking here! List Price: —- Amazon Price: $2.99 Click Here To Purchase At Amazon!

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2580 in Movie
• Released on: 2008-12-01
• Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Running time: 119 minutes

Customer Reviews:

Friendship is in Their Jeans
The impression that “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2″ gives is that it’s a bubbly, bright, and–for all intents and purposes–meaningless sequel to the first film. To my relief, it follows the example set by its predecessor, a surprisingly levelheaded friendship story. Four years after discovering a magically fitting pair of jeans, best friends Tibby Tomko-Rollins (Amber Tamblyn), Carmen Lowell (America Ferrera), Lena Kaligaris (Alexis Bledel), and Bridget Vreeland (Blake Lively) have returned for a second chapter that remains on perfectly equal ground with the first, focusing on coming-of-age issues like maturity, self-discovery, family, and love. Unoriginal ideas? Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean they’re any less effective. If anything, they make the film’s message that much clearer. It helps that many of the girls’ problems are based in reality–high school issues, like being pretty and popular, are pushed aside in favor of adult issues, like pregnancy scares and family crises.

If there’s anything we learned from the first film, it’s that the magic of the titular jeans was symbolic; by in large, the girls worked through their own ups and downs on their own, with no miraculous intervention other than their friendship with one another. We learn pretty much the same thing in this film, which sees each character facing new, more mature challenges. Let’s begin with Carmen, who doubles as the film’s bookend narrator. She now attends Yale, working as a stagehand for the theatre department. Her mother (Rachel Ticotin) has since remarried and is now pregnant with her second child. When Carmen’s hopes of spending the summer with her friends are dashed, she decides to join a Shakespearian theater company in Vermont with a prima donna named Julia (Rachel Nichols). Once there, a British actor named Ian (Tom Wisdom) coaxes Carmen into auditioning for “A Winter’s Tale”; to her shock–and to Julia’s horror–she’s cast as Perdita. As rehearsals continue, she begins to fall in love with Ian.

Next, there’s Bridget, who plays Soccer at Brown University. Lately, her interests have shifted to archeology. While on an expedition in Turkey, her instructor, Professor Nasrin Mehani (Shohreh Aghdashloo), opens her eyes to the fact that she’s only running away from her past. Bridget, it seems, is still haunted by the suicide of her mother. And her relationship with her father (Ernie Lively) is worse than ever; before leaving for Turkey, she discovered a box full of letters her grandmother had written her, letters her father wanted to keep hidden. Returning to the United States, Bridget takes a bus to Alabama and finally meets her grandmother, Greta (Blythe Danner), an accommodating woman with a matter-of-fact outlook on everything, including her daughter’s mental illness.

The next in line is Tibby, who continues to pursue her filmmaking dreams at NYU. Forced to stay in New York for the summer to rewrite her screenplay, she gets a job at a local video store. She’s now dating Brian McBrian (Leonardo Nam), who was introduced in the first film as the “Dragon’s Lair” champion. When their relationship is threatened (for reasons I won’t reveal), Tibby begins to wonder if she was meant for happiness. She does put up a wall every time she gets close to someone, and that’s because, deep down, she believes that those you love the most will eventually abandon you. Her attempts to get sympathy from Carmen are flatly rejected; she doesn’t appreciate how uncommunicative Tibby has been all summer.

Finally, there’s Lena, who attends an art college in Rhode Island on a scholarship. Heartbroken after breaking up with her Greek boyfriend, Kostos (Michael Rady), she reverts to her old timid ways. She then meets Leo (Jesse Williams), the male model hired to pose nude in her art classes. It isn’t long before they fall in love, although we suspect it’s for all the wrong reasons. All she really knows about Leo is that he’s a nice guy, and he’s incredibly handsome. But does she know what she wants out of life? Does she even know who she is? How can know she when she’s torn between two men?

Naturally, the pants themselves have to play a part in this story, and indeed, they’re continually FedEx-ed from friend to friend. The question is: Do any of them need the pants anymore? You’d think that, at this point, a pair of old jeans traveling the world would reveal itself as a big metaphor. They may realize that by the time the film ends. I’m not entirely sure, though.

Moments of this movie are perhaps a little too sentimental, and the general plot may be a little too formulaic. At times, the dialogue is a bit contrived. Consider this conversation: When Tibby says drearily, “I suck at relationships. I should have been a guy,” Lena calmly responds, “A guy wouldn’t care about sucking at relationships.” Only best friends in a coming-of-age story could get away with lines like that. Then again, I never expected a reinvention of the wheel. Movies like “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2″–and its predecessor–are aimed at a very specific audience, namely teenage girls; if they can get something out of it other than the sight of four young women looking pretty, if they can leave the theater understanding the more complex aspects of the story, then the filmmakers can include all the predictable dialogue they want. I think this movie will get the job done, not merely for teenage girls, but for anyone open to the idea.

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants grows up pretty quickly in this sequel
First of all, it is certainly an interesting experience to be the only guy in the theater for a movie like “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2.” At least I was not the oldest person there, and while that person was my date at least we could take comfort in knowing that we have both read all four of Ann Brashares’ novels about the “Sisterhood,” and therefore were entitled to be there with all the young folks. Screenwriter Elizabeth Chandler (“What a Girl Wants”) is working mainly from the final book in the series, “Forever in Blue: The Fourth Summer of the Sisterhood,” which means that Tibby (Amber Tamblyn) has a pregnancy scare in New York City, Carmen (America Ferrera) is doing a Shakespeare play in Vermont, Bee (Blake Lively) is on a archeological dig in Turkey, and Lena (Alexis Bledel) is drying to figure out how to draw a nude male model. However, some key elements from earlier novels are worked in the story, specifically Lena finding out Kostos is married and Bee meeting her grandmother from “The Second Summer of the Sisterhood,” and Carmen’s mother having a baby from “Girls in Pants: The Third Summer of the Sisterhood” (to be clear, the movie tie-in paperback being published as “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2″ is the fourth book, “Forever Blue” and not the book about the second summer).

Having read the books can be a key factor in enjoying the movie because things move really quickly and fans of the series will constantly be filling in gaps. The best indication of how fast things move is that when Bee goes to Alabama her grandmother (Blythe Danner) immediately reocgnizes her, so they forgo the entire bit about Bee pretending to be Gilda. The biggest element missing from the final book is Bee’s romance in Turkey, but the decision to create a new character, Shohreh Aghdashloo as Professor Nasrin Mehani, is a good move because it places the emphasis on Bee coming to terms with her mother’s suicide, which was arguably the most important thing that happened to her in the four books. Additionaly, following Tibby’s pregnancy scare with having to be in the delivery room with Carmen’s mother added an additional resonance to Tibby’s story.

Circumstances have certainly changed for the four actresses since the release of “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants” three years ago can simply be expressed by noting that when the first movie came out Tamblyn was doing “Joan of Arcadia” and Bledel had “Gilmore Girls,” and now those shows are done and Ferrera with “Ugly Betty” and Lively on “Gossip Girl” are currently in the front seat of American pop culture. There was reportedly some reluctance to get the band back together for this second film, but at least everybody got to go to Santorini this time around and watch Bledel freckle. However, the main thing I noticed in this second movie is that Amber Tamblyn is clearly the best actress in the bunch, which is saying something if you have seen Ferrera in “Real Women Have Curves.” But this is Tamblyn’s movie and most of the best moments (and virtually all of the good lines) belong to her.

The other thing I noticed is that the guys in this movie are all good guys. Brian (Leonardo Nam) is everything Tibby is not, which is exactly what she needs, Ian (Tom Wisdom) is the proverbial Prince Charming for Carmen, and the only downside for Lena choosing between Leo (Jesse Williams) and Kostas (Michael Rady) is that one of the two does not believe there is one person who everybody to love, which is not exactly a deal breaker. The only really villain in the proceedings would be Carmen’s supposed friend, Julia (Rachel Nichols), but that just underscores the point that the girl’s are in many ways their own worst enemies. Their faults, dear readers, lie in themselves more in than others, and for the Sisterhood actualization truly comes from within. Again, because the film is covering so much, flipping from character to character as the Traveling Pants make their appointed rounds, there is a sense of sketching characters and connecting dots. Not knowing the back stories, which are necessarily reduced to assumptions without the benefit of actual exposition, can put viewers at risk for enjoying this summer of 2008 film. Director Sanaa Hamri made her mark directing music videos, so at least she has an appreciation for having to be concise in her scenes. The net result is not a great film, but certainly a satisfying one for the Sisterhood readership.

A male point of view
I watched this movie as a favor to my wife (she agreed to watch Batman). First of all from a male standpoint, this was definitely a chick flick and I went into it with dread. A story with no car chases, fights, foul language or nudity, how was this going to keep my interest? What you do get is a touching story of 4 young ladies that are life long friends that have moved on and now for the first time are experiencing things on their own for the first time. They each have their own growing pains and find life on their own is more difficult than thought. What ties them together and eventually brings them back together is a pair of pants (see the first movie for more on this). Of course the movie is filled with cliches and is a bit sappy, however at the end of the longest two hours of my life I was still alive and deep down the movie was not as bad as I feared.

Watch Orphan Movie Online. Movie Title: Orphan Average customer review: Orphan is available for streaming or downloading. Click Here to Stream or Download Orphan

I saw this film when it opened on July 24, 2009. Mixed reviews from fans and critics were the usual flair upon its release, but something struck me about this movie. The film went on to wrong $37 million at the box-office despite the thrashing it took from critics, but everyone couldn’t aid but peruse the Oscar-nomination noble performance of its 12-year-old star Isabelle Fuhrman. I honest viewed the film on DVD for the first time since its theaterical speed and I’m unexcited seeing honest how riveting and lively this movie really is.

Buy,Download, Or Stream Orphan! Click Here

“Orphan” is NOT a scare film. It’s more along the lines of a SUSPENSE THRILLER. When I consider of awe films, I reflect of sex-crazed teenagers being sliced up one-by-one by a machete-wielding maniac (Jason Voorhies, Freddy Krueger, Micheal Myers, etc.) . The only staunch weapons wielded here is fair a hammer, a knife, and a .38-caliber pistol. You reflect scary when it comes to alarm films and “Orphan” isn’t scary. Has some monstrous moments, yes, but scary? Wishful thinking!

Set in the winter-bound parts of Conneticut & Canada, the fable centers on the Coleman family: Kate (Vera Farmiga), a Yale University music teacher recovering from alcoholism and bouts of depression after having a stillborn from her third pregnancy; John (Peter Sarsgaard), an architech whose nice guy persona overshadows his increasing issues with Kate that led to past affairs; Max (Aryana Engineer), their deaf 5-year-old daughter who communicates through tag language and their oldest son Daniel (Jimmy Bennett), who feels bitterly neglected & increasingly isolated from his parents. As a plot of coping with the loss of their would-be 2nd daughter, Jessica, and to amend their existence as a family, Kate & John perform a fateful decision to adopt a young girl at the local orphanage.

Buy,Download, Or Stream Orphan! Click Here

It is here where they meet Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), a sweet-looking 9-year-old Russian girl harboring some deep-seeded issues of her believe despite her angelic smile and sympathetic mannerisms. Upon arriving home with fresh stepdaughter in tow, a series of events unravel to originate everyone inquire the background and sincerity of this exiguous girl. Daniel dislikes her immediately, Max forms an unhealthy bond with her recent stepsister, Kate begins to gape out further information about Esther’s background, & John impartial plays Devil’s Advocate with all that occurs intriguing Esther. What’s harmful with Esther? Is it upright that unhurried the smile of this small angel beats the heart of a psycho killer?

The reply, and the stout secret about who she really is, lies within the confines of this 123-minute thriller. I agree with everyone here that it moves at a near-torturous snail’s waddle, that being the film’s major fatal flaw. But the record itself is so entralling and though-provoking, you can’t abet but to excuse that misfire. Fuhrman’s performance alone keeps you keen in the twists and turns entrenched here. Only a young, superbly talented actress like Fuhrman was able to pull off a psychological undertaking of switching from sympathetic manipulator to tremulous sadist and it’s why I feel she should obtain an Oscar nod. But due to the overall abhor of the film itself from most critics and for her young age, she probably won’t collect anywhere reach sniffing distance of the balloting.

Nonetheless, I was so inspired by this film and became such a fan that I created my possess 20-song, hard-rock CD Mix (liner notes & all) of songs inspired by the movie (my fill psuedo-soundtrack, if you will, but John Ottman’s salvage was frosty) . Seemingly destined to go down as a cult common, if not a classic, “Orphan” was a solid & savory thrill traipse that’s essentially “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle”, “The Respectable Son”, “The Crush”, and a more mean-spirited version of “Spot Child” all rolled into one. That’s why this movie isn’t a alarm despite being classified as one. This film has a depth, substance, and intuitiveness to it that Jason, Micheal, & Freddy couldn’t touch with a bloddy axe. Objective catch sweet, tiny Esther home and let her occupy you, thrill you, kiss you, …. demolish you!!! Can someone out there please say “CULT CLASSIC”? – DEM –

Many people score that describing the movie to give a movie review is the device to go. Usually, I refrain, but on this occasion, I will include the spot. A husband and wife, already with two children of their maintain (one who is deaf) lose their third child during labor. They resort to adopting an orphan–a 9-year-old, seemingly lustrous and kind-hearted, diminutive Russian girl. Considerable to their alarm, what seems to be the perfect adoption turns into anything but. The movie moves at a listless but distinct whisk for the first 45 minutes or so, but then the rockin’ starts to rollin’ as the anecdote spirals into a cacophony of strangeness accompanied with mountains of vindictive mayhem. Many reviews I have read had a pickle with the twist; I understanding it to be VERY Wintry, and something that could become reality in the realm of possibility, which makes it all the more founded, thus being all the more horrific. Impartial before the twist; however, something happened that made me assume, “Okay, here we go…moral wait on into the comic Hollywood anxiety film crap that has been bombarding us throughout the beginning of the unusual century.” But when the twist hits and everything finally makes sense, I was thankfully pulled from that impart of view and taken relieve into a bizarre and astonishing narrative. Gloomy Castle Entertainment has done a LOT of movies that I simply like (Gothika, Ghost Ship, and Thirteen Ghosts.) This one will have to go into that group of five-star movies. Don’t miss it!

FIVE STARS ***** for everything being done the device it should be done!
arcadia handbags
watchmovieonline

The Accused Sale-$9.99! Compare & Purchase The Accused at Amazon by clicking here! List Price: —- Amazon Price: $9.99 Click Here To Purchase At Amazon!

The Accused Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #19402 in Movie
• Released on: 2009-12-29
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Running time: 111 minutes

Customer Reviews:

Excellent Performance by Jodie Foster
This film is pretty much a run of the mill made for TV flick up until the startling, graphic rape scene. However this distinction must be made. First, TV movies just weren’t made about this subject until after this film came out–it opened many doors, and for that it should be applauded. Second, Jodie Foster gives an excellent performance and provides an unflinching look at how rape can ruin a victim’s life.
Also, this film deserves credit for portraying the victim as a strong willed character who is far from perfect-and it sends the message that flirting with someone does NOT mean that you deserve to be raped. And I applaud the fact that this film doesn’t take the extreme view (hello Lifetime channel) that all men are pigs who either enjoy victimizing women or don’t see anything REALLY wrong with doing so. On the contrary, this film has many likeable male characters (even one who helps the victim with her case, despite the fact that one of his friends raped her).

Though it’s not perfect, there are many redeeming qualities to this ground breaking film.

An Unforgettable Learning Experience
Jodie Foster and Kelly McGillis star in the unforgettable 1988 film “The Accused”. Its plot of a young woman, Sarah, getting raped and struggling to get past it is emotional through every second. Its hardhitting scenes, namely the rape scene, hold enough power to hit audiences’ hearts like nothing else. Such events express truth in the court system about rape cases. It teaches audiences that it’s difficult to convict rapists, even with a lot of evidence. The emotional stance of the film is true. The trauma and fears during and after is expressed to the fullest. Every struggle keeps audiences interested in every event, leading to a surprising conclusion. Its certain graphic scenes were necessary to film to show the issue’s depth. The details prove that the writers researched rape to its fullest, which deserves them tremendous respect.

Jodie Foster’s Oscar winning role (Best Actress) as Sarah is one of her career bests. She performs with every drop of heart and soul that adds to the film’s powerful message. Kelly McGillis’s role as Sarah’s determined lawyer is wonderful. However, she was wrongfully overlooked by the Oscars for Best Actress. As a real-life rape victim, she used her own life experiences as influence for her performance quality. It resulted highly powerful. All other actors, major or minor, also performed their roles wonderfully.

“The Accused” is a great film for everyone to watch. This is sure to touch many viewers for a long time. Afterwards, keep the film playing for a few more seconds after it ends. The rape statistics shown are interesting, yet shocking.

When no means no.
The Accused is a excellent movie about how a woman is treated after being raped. Kelly McGillis and Jodie Foster make a great team. Foster plays a gang-raped survivor looking for justice in hyprocritical world where men are not held responsible for their actions. Foster received a well-deserved Oscar as her fearless performance of Sarah. There is a graphic rape scene towards the closing of the film that is to be expected since the main theme of this film is about the outcomes of a terrible and vicious rape. Unfortanely, females are still considered “damaged goods” when something this hineous occurs. McGillis’s character seeks justice from the men who raped her in a downtown bar and even goes after the men who watched and cheered on the rape and did nothing to stop it. A powerful and superb film all around. This film will force you to see the truth and make you want to change the legal system. Not recommend for younger viewers.

Stream Mulholland Drive Online. Movie Title: Mulholland Drive Average customer review: Mulholland Drive is available for streaming or downloading. Click Here to Stream or Download Mulholland Drive

I won’t bother to add to the already monolithic body of magnificent reviews of this film; I believe it is a masterful work, equivalent to and perhaps surpassing “Blue Velvet” in artistic merit. I am writing mostly because many of those who claim that they hated the film because it “doesn’t create sense,” or loved it even though it is “initiate to interpretation” may not have taken tag of the clues David Lynch included in the DVD sleeve. They clearly notify the logic of the film to those who choose the requisite time to assume them through. My review is essentially one giant “spoiler,” so if you haven’t seen the film, buy imprint.

Buy,Download, Or Stream Mulholland Drive! Click Here

The film most certainly does “compose sense” and follows a completely rational and logistically righteous state structure. The film begins with a stylized jitterbug contest gradual the opening credits, showing Naomi Watt’s character (Diane Selwyn) winning a straggle to LA from her native Canada to tryout for a Hollywood production. We then contemplate the suggestion of a sleeping figure (Diane again) in red sheets prior to the inaugurate of her dream, which opens with the hypnotic figure of a limosine traveling down a dusky road, containing Diane’s idealization of her real-life paramour, Camilla Rhodes. In reality, Camilla is Diane’s used lesbian lover, who betrayed her by stealing the coveted role in the film Diane unsuccessfully tried out for, and spurned her affections for the director of the film. Diane is so jealous and infuriated that she hires a hitman to destroy Camilla; when the two meet to discuss the deal, the hitman says he will leave a blue key on her coffee table to signify that Camilla has been successfully dispatched. The film’s dream sequence begins after Diane has received the key, and Diane’s fantasies of a happier outcome are manifest in what we stare.

In her dream, she is her idealized self, free of insecurities, more innocent and charismatic–nailing her tryout for the film, but explaining “Camilla’s” victory by the influence of the mafia (“Camilla” in the dream is replaced by a woman whom the real-life Camilla tauntingly kisses at a party to madden Diane) . Other characters who describe real-life counterparts also resurface in the dream, in various roles: “Coco,” played by Ann Miller, is actually the film director’s mother, the man timid of the ghoul unhurried Winkie’s is an accomplice of Diane’s hired hitman, and the mafiosos played by Dan Hedaya and Angelo Badalamenti were other attendees of the humiliating party where Camilla taunts Diane with news of her engagement to the director. In the dream, Diane refashions her hitman as a bungling idiot who botches Camilla’s cancel, subsequently leaving Camilla helpless with amnesia for who she is or where she came from so that “Betty,” Diane’s counterpart in the dream, can become her heroine, and have a utopian, romantic fancy affair with her.

Buy,Download, Or Stream Mulholland Drive! Click Here

Throughout the dream, omens occur that suggest the truth leisurely Diane’s fantasy; the forboding man gradual Winkie’s, Lee Grant’s wacko Cassandra-character with her warnings of anguish, the Cowboy, and the MC at the late-night Cabaret who insists that all is not as it seems. The blue key becomes expressionistically rendered in the dream, and opens the proverbial Pandora’s Box, at which time Diane mysteriously disappears from her beget dream, leaving Camilla alone to initiate the box–and then Lynch imposes a couple of his haunting frame shifts, here done with lighting effects, before the Cowboy enters Diane’s bedroom, telling her “it’s time to wake up, blooming girl.”

Now we glimpse Diane’s reality when she awakens, and evidence of her crushing guilt (spy her initial relief when she hallucinates that Camilla has returned from the tiring,, and her subsequent breakdown when she realizes the truth) . Eventually, the gravity of what she has done overwhelms her when she realizes that the police want her for questioning, and the weak couple from her dream, whom I presume record her conscience, are released by the demon tedious Winkie’s (that is, she loses her sanity) . Her demons sprint her to her bedroom, where she hysterically grabs a gun from her nightstand, and takes her bear life.

Check out Lynch’s clues–there’s worthy more to them than what I’ve included here. He’s a master–I don’t deem he produces a frame of film without agonizing over it for weeks, and I highly doubt someone who produced something as lovingly detailed as this film let any inconsistencies or gaffes pace past him. What a movie this is–I’ll never forget it.

Don’t listen to anyone who tells you that this movie is impossible to understand. That’s not factual. Difficult, yes…especially on first viewing, but there is way to David Lynch’s madness and there is an explanation to be found for those willing to observe.

Mulholland Drive is a brilliantly structured film even though the structure is unconventional. Basically the first two hours play out as the dream of a very afraid young woman by the name of Diane Selwyn. In the final 30 minutes we are taken into Diane’s reality. Mullholland Drive is a very disturbing portrait of the inner world of a woman about to commit suicide and we learn about her life and what led her to execute and suicide through the dream imagery of the first two hours.

What confuses many people the first time they leer Mulholland Drive is that David Lynch doesn’t exercise the normal cinematic techniques to tip his audience off that they are watching a dream segment. In fact, the dream plays out in fairly aged linear fashion while it is the reality fragment of the film that plays out in non-linear acquire, jumping abet and forth in time and introducing psychotic hallucinations as well. This further blurs the line between reality and fantasy in this film.

Contrary to well-liked opinion Mulholland Drive is actually very intricately plotted, although the sage is not readily apparent on the first viewing. The dream allotment is a mirror image of reality and it displays a reversed reflection of Diane’s loyal world. A few examples: In the dream Rita exits the limousine and walks downhill; in reality Diane exits the limousine and walks uphill. In the dream Aunt Ruth is alive; in reality Aunt Ruth is lifeless. In the dream Adam Kesher’s world is spinning out of control and he is losing everything; in reality Adam Kesher’s world is very remarkable in control and he has everything. In the dream the hitman is incompetent; in reality he turns out to be all too competent. In the dream Camilla is alive and Diane is dead; in reality Diane is alive and Camilla is stupid.

Betty is, of course, the idealized dream version of Diane. She’s a prettier, more wholesome, and more talented version of Diane. However, Diane is not Betty in her dream as most people automatically hold…she’s Rita.

Mulholland Drive is a entertaining and haunting film that I fill will only rise in stature as the years go by. David Lynch spoonfeeds nothing to his audience but challenges them to view the nightmarish inner world of Diane Selwyn for themselves and advance their gain interpretations and conclusions. There are large rewards for those willing to do so.

Nov. 1, 2007 Edit:

I unbiased watched Mulholland Drive again after a few years and I was kind of surprised to survey this traditional review of mine written years ago at the top here. I do judge my notion and appreciation of the film has deepened over the years and, although I peaceful hold most of what I originally wrote is true, I’d probably modify it a bit, especially the piece about Diane being Rita in her dream. I now absorb that Betty and Rita both represented different parts of Diane: Betty was her idealized, innocent side while Rita was the darker, more seductive side that she believed would succor reach her career in Hollywood. One of the saddest parts of the movie, in my thought, is my understanding that the very likeable and fine Betty was the person that Diane could have been if not for her tragic childhood and the series of destructive choices she made in her life.

For those who’ve read and commented on my unique review and are alive to, here’s a somewhat revised version that represents my unusual interpretation of the film.

Mulholland Drive is a rather chilling scrutinize into the psyche of a deeply insecure and suicidal woman named Diane Selwyn who is guilt stricken over her involvement in the kill of her estranged lover. The entire movie takes situation in her apartment over the course of a few hours on the day she commits suicide.

The first two hours is a dream Diane has during a heavy, drug-induced sleep that attempts to rewrite a happier, idealized version of herself and her life from the time she arrives in Hollywood, but gradually grows darker over time and eventually collapses benefit into her reality. The final piece of the movie is her reality which is told through a series of flashbacks, memories, and psychotic hallucinations. First-time viewers often don’t realize they’re watching a dream since Lynch doesn’t spend the usual cinematic techniques (other than a brief first-person descent into a pillow at the beginning) to signal a dream sequence and this section of the film is told in fairly aged linear sequence, while it’s the reality portion of the film that jumps around in non-linear fashion.

The dream fragment is kind of a dim, crooked version of Dorothy’s dream from the Wizard of Oz where she casts people she knows from her loyal life into various roles in her dream. But since her subconscious is the producer, writer, and director of the dream these people are fair actors on her stage and everything is really about Diane and her life even if she doesn’t appear to be represented in a scene. For example, there’s no reason to occupy that a wealthy film director like Adam Kesher would check into a fleabag hotel like the Park Hotel when he idea he serene had access to all his money nor would he know the hotel manager by name. Diane, however, who had lived on the fringes of the Hollywood dream, might well be familiar with this kind of seedy hotel and its manager.

Once you realize that everything you’re seeing in the first two hours springs from Diane’s subconscious mind it’s possible to pick the clues and symbolism that Lynch plants in the dream and create a remarkably deep and complex examination of Diane’s life which also peels help the layers on a psyche that’s been irreparably damaged by sexual molestation by her grandfather, prostitution, and a destructive relationship with an actress named Camilla Rhodes which ultimately leads to slay and suicide.

Mulholland Drive is not only David Lynch’s masterpiece, it’s one of the most chilling movies I’ve ever seen.
golf glove
mobile gps online

1408 Review. Compare & Purchase 1408 at Amazon by clicking here! List Price: —- Amazon Price: $2.99 Click Here To Purchase At Amazon!

1408 Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2456 in Movie
• Released on: 2010-01-02
• Running time: 113 minutes

Customer Reviews:

An above- average, atmospheric horror thriller
1408 is one of the best film adaptations of a Stephen King story, and is highly atmospheric. I too am growing weary of movies masquerading themselves as horror films these days, when all they offer are ludicruous plot lines and excess gore, violence and gratuituous sex.

By comparison, 1408 exceeds all expectations when taken for what it is – an intelligent horror movie that despite being rated a tame PG-13 delivers chills, thrills, and a strong performance by its lead actor, John Cusack, as well as a good supporting role by Samuel L Jackson. The story centers around a jaded author, Mike Enslin [John Cusack] who pens ‘true horror’ books but is actually a skeptic who doesn’t believe in the afterworld or entities associated with it. He receives a cryptic postcard one day that tells him ‘Do Not Enter 1408′ -being a room in the Dolphin Hotel in NY, where Enslin has left behind a painful past.

The rest of the movie picks up pace very quickly and viewers are in for a thrill ride as Enslin manages to overcome the protestations of the hotel manager [Samuel Jackson] and spends the night in 1408, which has one of the grisliest & bloody reputations in the annals of hotel history. Enslin finds his skepticism melting in the face of the unbelievable horrors he faces in 1408, and struggles to keep his wits about him to survive.

The horror in this movie is very palpable – there is no gore or excess violence, but there’s a pervasive sense of menace and evil that sends chills down one’s spine, and a couple of jump-out-your-seat moments[not to mention a couple of plot twists]. But what truly lifts this movie is the strong & riveting performance by John Cusack. The whole movie basically revolves around him and it is amazing to watch an actor bring so much depth to his role as well as portray a feeling of alienation, isolation and paranoia as Enslin tries to face his fears in 1408.

I am a fan of atmospheric horror movies, and 1408 ranks as one of my favorite horror movies [ The Haunting, Changeling, Rosemary's Baby, The Shining being some of my other favs]. If you’re a fan of the horror genre, or simply a fan of psychological drama & thrillers, then 1408 should please you.

A Good Movie Made Stronger By Masterful Pacing…
My wife and I went to see 1408 the other night. It was a birthday gift–otherwise she’d never have gone. She hates horror movies.

Interestingly, we both ended up enjoying the movie.

I read (or should I say listened to?) the short story prior to seeing the movie. Much like I prefer the movie version of the Shawshank Redemption, I prefer the movie version of 1408.

John Cusak is great. He usually is. Samuel Jackson gives a wonderful performance. Whoever the little girl actress is–she also did a remarkable job.

The ending rocks (I promise I won’t spoil anything).

What makes this movie a little stronger than most horror fare is this:

1. The pacing is great. Things never go over the top by being too intense for too long. This has been a big issue in horror films lately. They lose their suspension of disbelief from too much emotional weight. I don’t know about you, but I find myself mentally withdrawing from such stories to come up for air. When I re-engage, much is lost.

2. Speaking of suspension of disbelief wreckers…there is very little gore here. In this movie, when gore does come, it usually comes in the old photos. I feel this lack of abundant gore strengthens the pyschological impact of the movie as a whole. It also prevents the movie from turning plain old silly like recent gore-fests along the lines of The Hills Have Eyes.

While this is not my favorite Stephen King adaptation–Shawshank still reigns there–1408 is a solid, intelligent and emotionally resonant movie. You will not be wasting your money if you go to see this over the 4th of July holiday.

I give 1408 a strong recommendation.

PS- This also gets the award for best use of a Carpenters song in a horror film since In the Mouth of Madness.

Great movie… wrong ending. This is not what you saw in theaters!
First things first. This is one of the best horror movies I’ve seen in years. I’m happy that three of my favorite, recent horror films (1408, EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE and THE RING) have been PG-13. They rely more on great writing than gore. The two-disc DVD of 1408 had a second disc with the director’s original ending, which was a bit of a downer. I understood why it was reshot, as the ending shown in theaters framed the action with a bit more meaning and a bit less nihilism. Anyway, I bought the blu-ray version for the better picture quality and the slimmer, space-saving package. In checking the packaging, it looked like the blu-ray was pretty much the same as the two-disc DVD. WRONG! THE BLU-RAY HAS THE DIRECTOR’S CUT ENDING! Nowhere on the package is this indicated. Granted, the ending seen in theaters is available in the special features as an isolated scene… but I don’t want that. I want what the package implies: the theatrical cut in the blu-ray format. So, buyer beware. Doesn’t make this a bad film, but I’m not going to be able to get rid of my DVD.

Streaming Miss Potter Online. Movie Title: Miss Potter Average customer review: Miss Potter is available for streaming or downloading. Click Here to Stream or Download Miss Potter

“Because you are fond of fairy tales,” Beatrix Potter wrote to one of her current children in 1901, “I have made you a anecdote all for yourself, a modern one that nobody has read before.”

Buy,Download, Or Stream Miss Potter! Click Here

Now, a century later, “Miss Potter” (directed by Chris Noonan, starring Rene Zellweger) has a current legend to say, and quite a fairy fable it is, too, with all the scrumptious magic of one of Beatrix Potter’s occupy stories: winsome characters, enjoyable settings, strong period details. I was charmed by this film (viewed on DVD, with all the extras), and spent an enchanted evening watching it. As a movie, it is dazzling family entertainment–something that’s hard to approach by, these days.

But the film has been widely billed as a biopic, and if you were looking for a epic that’s legal to Beatrix’s life, this one might mislead you. Richard Maltby (who wrote the script and spent some 10 years trying to bag it produced) and Chris Noonan have teamed up to give us a heavenly fairy chronicle, but one that is based on some fairly fundamental misrepresentations of Beatrix’s staunch life.

Buy,Download, Or Stream Miss Potter! Click Here

Take that justify Christmas party, for instance, in a festooned Potter mansion. This dramatically pivotal event could never have happened, for Rupert and Helen Potter were Dissenters who did not celebrate Christmas–much to Beatrix’s disappointment, as a child longing for a tree and the trimmings. (In life, both the Potters seem to have been grand more dour people than their on-screen representations.)

Or grasp those childhood visits to the Lake Districts, which never happened either. The Potters holidayed in Scotland until Beatrix was 16. Which means that she could not have met Willie Heelis, who was nearly five years younger than Beatrix, anyway (not older, as the film portrays him) . Oh, and Willie was the son of a rector and the Heelis family belonged to quite a different social class from the one in which Willie is placed in the film. More misrepresentation (although the on-screen Willie is a loyal charmer.)

But the most heart-broken distortion of all is the decision to collapse the eight years it took for Beatrix to become independent enough to leave her parents. The film portrayed Norman’s death as the lever that pried her from the Potters’ buy. Not so. Beatrix bought Hill Top a few months after Norman died in 1905, but did not leave her parents until 1913, when she married Willie. For eight long, difficult years, Beatrix commuted from her parents’ home or holiday site to Sawrey. During that time, she could score away only five or six times a year, sometimes for a few days, sometimes for as considerable as a fortnight. Norman’s death was indeed the prod she needed to compose a change, but it wasn’t until Willie offered her another choice that she was finally able to free herself. Compressing this long-running family conflict into a matter of months and hinging the whole thing on Norman’s death distorts Beatrix’s character and makes her seem more decisively “new” than she was in actual life.

As a novelist engaged in creating historical fictions (some of them featuring Beatrix Potter), I am always aware of the challenges of representing right people in fictional contexts, and difficulty when proper lives are seriously distorted to create a myth more animated. I enjoyed this film as a film, and give it five stars for its entertainment value. As a biopic, I’d give it a two, three to be reliable. Putting the two together, a four-minus.

Oh, and for the sincere sage of Beatrix’s life, you’ll want to read Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature by Linda Lear.

Susan Wittig Albert is the author of The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter: The Account of Hill Top Farm (The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter), The Epic of Holly How, The Anecdote of Cuckoo Brow Wood (Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter Mysteries), The Yarn of Hawthorn House: The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter, and four other forthcoming novels in the series.

I saw this elegant film this past week in Chicago at a preview showing and was simply gay by it. Only five years ago this would have been a Miramax film, but following the messy departure of the Weinsteins from Miramax to gain their gain production company, they are distributing this joint production. State in the early decades of the twentieth century, in a sort of extended Edwardian age, the film possesses a fabulous period feel and leer. Like the best of the Miramax films, it feels like a time capsule more than a contemporary production.

With only some shame I have to admit to shiny very itsy-bitsy about Beatrix Potter. To inject some autobiography, I was not read Potter as a child and though after my divorce I raised my daughter, reading to her constantly, there was an agreement that on her periodic visits to her mother she would be allowed to read her Beatrix Potter (because of a Potter obsession by her occupy godmother) and Laura Ingalls Wilder. I read my daughter every other children’s’ writer, but was forbidden to dip into either of those. So I saw this biopic smart next to nothing about her. The film seemed to me to give a pleasant impression of who she was. She emerges in the film as a sort of timorous feminist, not a activist, but quietly insisting on taking her contain path. Though there are flashbacks to her childhood and the final quarter of the film focuses on her piquant to the Lake District, most of the film deals with the period of partnership and eventually romance between her and her publisher, Norman Warne. One suspects that of necessity a gigantic deal is left out, but as it exists it is compelling. I did a bit of checking on the Internet and discovered that she was not 32 in 1903, so the film obviously fudges some numbers, but as presented the film unruffled provided a exquisite portrait.

Renée Zellweger is unbelievable in the title role. I have seen photographs of Beatrix Potter and there does not seem to be distinguished of a resemblance between the two. To the film’s credit, they do a tremendous deal to de-emphasize Zellweger’s loveliness. She isn’t exactly humdrum, but she isn’t as sparkling as usual. But she brings a delectable simplicity to her role. Ewan McGregor is elegant in his role, but unlike their wretched film DOWN WITH Like, his role is not equal to hers in this one. He manages to be everything he needs to be. Emily Watson plays his sister. There are movie stars and there are actresses, and she is an actress. I have always been amazed at great her various roles can differ from one another. A lot of actresses, unfortunately, as they approach the age of forty, have probably reached cessation to the demolish of their career. Watson is so fine, however, and those gigantic eyes so expressive, that you sense that she probably hasn’t reached half of her eventual film resume. I’m determined we’ll be seeing her in roles thirty-five years from now. It was grand to peep Bill Paterson as Beatrix’s father. He has always been one of my well-liked supporting actors and for my money we have always seen far too small of him. Mature British actress Barbara Flynn is estimable as well as Beatrix’s mother.

Chris Noonan directed the film. The last time we encountered him as a director was in one of the most delectable films of the nineties, BABE. I have absolutely no notion what he has been up to the past decade, but this film has some of the same lush scrutinize that BABE did. Interestingly, animals feature prominently in both films.

The last piece of the film, that centers on the beginning of the final chapter of Potter’s life as a farmer in the Lake District, features some of the most pleasing landscapes you can ever hope to witness in a movie. The kill of the film indicates that Miss Potter left 4,000 acres of Lake District property to the National Trust. I hope that some of those scenes were filmed on some of that property.

Finally, I want to add that while I’ve never been one to be on the lookout for “family” (which to me usually are synonymous with “plain” or “bland”), this film, which could easily receive a “G” rating, is a film that any parent could feel comfortable showing any child. Younger children might regain it a bit plain, but any fan of Beatrix Potter, whether young or stale, will surely devour this film. Indeed, as someone who cannot count himself among her fans (entirely through a complete lack of acquaintance), I can attest that those irregular with her work will like the film as well.
france travel packages
bed bugs covers for mattress

Mommie Dearest Lowest Price! Compare & Purchase Mommie Dearest at Amazon by clicking here! List Price: —- Amazon Price: $2.99 Click Here To Purchase At Amazon!

Mommie Dearest Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #10739 in Movie
• Released on: 2010-01-27
• Running time: 129 minutes

Customer Reviews:

Mommie Dearest – an underrated film
I’ve always believed that this film has been misunderstood. Admittedly I can understand why people would laugh at scenes like the one where Faye Dunaway shouts to her daughter, “Tina bring me the ax!” But is child abuse really funny? I don’t think so. I must admit that the scenes of child abuse, perhaps exploitative, are chilling and realistic. Thanks to the vivid performances by Faye Dunaway, Diana Scarwid and the actress who played young Christina, you really feel like you are in that house with these characters. You just want Joan to stop.

Faye Dunaway’s career has never been the same since this film since it is now regarded as a camp classic, yet I think this is one of her best performances. She makes Joan a complicated woman: cruel, irrational, beautiful, pathetic, perhaps mentally ill and yet also sympathetic.

I don’t know how accurate the film is and unfortunately Joan Crawford was never able to defend herself, but the film is based on the book, and it is true to the spirit of Christina Crawford’s memoir: it is relentless, frightening, sad and unforgettable.

“Say it like you mean it!”
Faye Dunaway portrays Joan Crawford realistically and vividly in this emotionally-charged “true” story. She is excellent because she captures the desperation and vulnerability of the Movie Queen as well as her neuroses and ruthlessness. At stages, her mannerisms, voice and look are uncannily like Crawfords. I remember a review of a Joan Collins film called “The Bitch” in which a reviewer said “Only for campaholics who delight in the misfortunes of aging actresses.” Doubtlessly, this film will attract this element, but lets hope viewers also see Crawfords pain as well as her toughness. She fought her way from scrubber to star. Is it any wonder that in her lower ebbs, she scrubbed floors to metaphorically keep everything perfect? One can empathise with Christina’s bewilderment at her mothers outbursts, but we also see Crawfords difficulties. Some scenes are campy and superficial, but interest never wanes. Some scenes (especially near the end) are heartbreaking and equal Joan Crawfords oscar winning performance in “Mildred Pierce” in terms of emotional pathos.

Dunaway Is As Good As Brando Ever Was
I don’t know if this review will reach anyone. Hopefully someone. This dvd is a must for anyone who has seen this film and loved it or anyone who wants to see it. Also an excellent way to learn more about Joan Crawfod and more importantly, Faye Dunaway.

Dunaway disowns this part and I think I get why. The part took its toll on her emotionally and is, in my opinion, one of the greatest screen performances ever on film. And what did this gifted actress get in return? Bad reviews, jokes and a “cult” film on her behalf. Come on, I wouldn’t really want to talk about it either.

Dunaway did take the time to express some feelings in her book Looking For Gatsby. So I would appreciate it if all you reviewers on amazon who trashed this film or (God help us) Dunaway herself, to read about the time and effort she put into this performance and how she did it. I’m sorry but i’m tired of people laughing at this movie and not taking it seriously. You can’t throw descriptions like “over the top” at this woman because you lack perspective and appreciation of talent.

No one ever tore apart: Al Pacino in Scarface, Marlon Brando in the Godfather/Last Tango in Paris or Anthony Hopkins in Scilence of the Lambs (Hopkins,by the way,felt that her portrayal of Crawford is one of the best performances of all time). But when a woman dares to even come close to Marlon Brando’s talent, people make fun of her. Also, Dunaway has made some other incredible films, i can’t list them, it would take too long. Check out 3 Days of the Condor. She had to play second fiddle to Robert Redford and stole the show with a touching, sad and heartfelt character. Simply put,stop with the disrespectful reviews.

Now, this dvd did an incredible job with the extras. The commentarty with John Waters is hysterical but also very informative and touching in a way. The interviews with Diana Scarwid, Runalta Alda and Frank Yablins gives us even more information, gossip, background stories that help us understand the film and how it was made.

I hope this helps people who are interested in the dvd or are fans of Ms. Dunaway. The second reviewer of this dvd wanted to defend Crawford and I wanted to defend Ms. Dunaway. You can’t defend one and not the other.

Miss Potter Product: Miss Potter-Retail —-! Sale Only $2.99! List Price: —- Amazon Price: $2.99 Click Here To See Amazon Sale Price Add to cart to see low price@ Availability: In Stock Usually ships in 24 Hours Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Miss Potter

• Amazon Sales Rank: #10931 in Movie
• Released on: 2009-09-17
• Running time: 93 minutes

“Because you are fond of fairy tales . . . “
“Because you are fond of fairy tales,” Beatrix Potter wrote to one of her favorite children in 1901, “I have made you a story all for yourself, a new one that nobody has read before.”

Now, a century later, “Miss Potter” (directed by Chris Noonan, starring Rene Zellweger) has a new story to tell, and quite a fairy tale it is, too, with all the delightful magic of one of Beatrix Potter’s own stories: winsome characters, luscious settings, strong period details. I was charmed by this film (viewed on DVD, with all the extras), and spent an enchanted evening watching it. As a movie, it is fine family entertainment–something that’s hard to come by, these days.

But the film has been widely billed as a biopic, and if you were looking for a story that’s true to Beatrix’s life, this one might mislead you. Richard Maltby (who wrote the script and spent some 10 years trying to get it produced) and Chris Noonan have teamed up to give us a lovely fairy tale, but one that is based on some fairly fundamental misrepresentations of Beatrix’s real life.

Take that elaborate Christmas party, for instance, in a festooned Potter mansion. This dramatically pivotal event could never have happened, for Rupert and Helen Potter were Dissenters who did not celebrate Christmas–much to Beatrix’s disappointment, as a child longing for a tree and the trimmings. (In life, both the Potters seem to have been much more dour people than their on-screen representations.)

Or take those childhood visits to the Lake Districts, which never happened either. The Potters holidayed in Scotland until Beatrix was 16. Which means that she could not have met Willie Heelis, who was nearly five years younger than Beatrix, anyway (not older, as the film portrays him). Oh, and Willie was the son of a rector and the Heelis family belonged to quite a different social class from the one in which Willie is placed in the film. More misrepresentation (although the on-screen Willie is a real charmer.)

But the most unfortunate distortion of all is the decision to collapse the eight years it took for Beatrix to become independent enough to leave her parents. The film portrayed Norman’s death as the lever that pried her from the Potters’ grasp. Not so. Beatrix bought Hill Top a few months after Norman died in 1905, but did not leave her parents until 1913, when she married Willie. For eight long, difficult years, Beatrix commuted from her parents’ home or holiday residence to Sawrey. During that time, she could get away only five or six times a year, sometimes for a few days, sometimes for as much as a fortnight. Norman’s death was indeed the prod she needed to make a change, but it wasn’t until Willie offered her another choice that she was finally able to free herself. Compressing this long-running family conflict into a matter of months and hinging the whole thing on Norman’s death distorts Beatrix’s character and makes her seem more decisively “modern” than she was in real life.

As a novelist engaged in creating historical fictions (some of them featuring Beatrix Potter), I am always aware of the challenges of representing real people in fictional contexts, and worry when real lives are seriously distorted to make a story more entertaining. I enjoyed this film as a film, and give it five stars for its entertainment value. As a biopic, I’d give it a two, three to be generous. Putting the two together, a four-minus.

Oh, and for the real story of Beatrix’s life, you’ll want to read Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature by Linda Lear.

Susan Wittig Albert is the author of The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter: The Tale of Hill Top Farm (The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter), The Tale of Holly How, The Tale of Cuckoo Brow Wood (Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter Mysteries), The Tale of Hawthorn House: The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter, and four other forthcoming novels in the series.

A marvelous period film in the best Weinstein tradition
I saw this lovely film this past week in Chicago at a preview showing and was simply delighted by it. Only five years ago this would have been a Miramax film, but following the messy departure of the Weinsteins from Miramax to form their own production company, they are distributing this joint production. Set in the early decades of the twentieth century, in a sort of extended Edwardian age, the film possesses a wonderful period feel and look. Like the best of the Miramax films, it feels like a time capsule more than a contemporary production.

With only some shame I have to admit to knowing very little about Beatrix Potter. To inject some autobiography, I was not read Potter as a child and though after my divorce I raised my daughter, reading to her constantly, there was an agreement that on her periodic visits to her mother she would be allowed to read her Beatrix Potter (because of a Potter obsession by her own godmother) and Laura Ingalls Wilder. I read my daughter every other children’s’ writer, but was forbidden to dip into either of those. So I saw this biopic knowing next to nothing about her. The film seemed to me to give a good impression of who she was. She emerges in the film as a sort of timid feminist, not a activist, but quietly insisting on taking her own path. Though there are flashbacks to her childhood and the final quarter of the film focuses on her moving to the Lake District, most of the film deals with the period of partnership and eventually romance between her and her publisher, Norman Warne. One suspects that of necessity a great deal is left out, but as it exists it is compelling. I did a bit of checking on the Internet and discovered that she was not 32 in 1903, so the film obviously fudges some numbers, but as presented the film still provided a delightful portrait.

Renée Zellweger is wonderful in the title role. I have seen photographs of Beatrix Potter and there does not seem to be much of a resemblance between the two. To the film’s credit, they do a great deal to de-emphasize Zellweger’s loveliness. She isn’t exactly plain, but she isn’t as beautiful as usual. But she brings a delightful simplicity to her role. Ewan McGregor is fine in his role, but unlike their unfortunate film DOWN WITH LOVE, his role is not equal to hers in this one. He manages to be everything he needs to be. Emily Watson plays his sister. There are movie stars and there are actresses, and she is an actress. I have always been amazed at much her various roles can differ from one another. A lot of actresses, unfortunately, as they near the age of forty, have probably reached close to the end of their career. Watson is so splendid, however, and those huge eyes so expressive, that you sense that she probably hasn’t reached half of her eventual film resume. I’m certain we’ll be seeing her in roles thirty-five years from now. It was good to see Bill Paterson as Beatrix’s father. He has always been one of my favorite supporting actors and for my money we have always seen far too little of him. Veteran British actress Barbara Flynn is excellent as well as Beatrix’s mother.

Chris Noonan directed the film. The last time we encountered him as a director was in one of the most delightful films of the nineties, BABE. I have absolutely no idea what he has been up to the past decade, but this film has some of the same lush look that BABE did. Interestingly, animals feature prominently in both films.

The last part of the film, that centers on the beginning of the final chapter of Potter’s life as a farmer in the Lake District, features some of the most stunning landscapes you can ever hope to see in a movie. The end of the film indicates that Miss Potter left 4,000 acres of Lake District property to the National Trust. I hope that some of those scenes were filmed on some of that property.

Finally, I want to add that while I’ve never been one to be on the lookout for “family” (which to me usually are synonymous with “boring” or “bland”), this film, which could easily receive a “G” rating, is a film that any parent could feel comfortable showing any child. Younger children might find it a bit slow, but any fan of Beatrix Potter, whether young or old, will surely enjoy this film. Indeed, as someone who cannot count himself among her fans (entirely through a complete lack of acquaintance), I can attest that those unfamiliar with her work will love the film as well.

Wonderful Movie
I saw “Miss Potter” at the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed it. With beautiful scenery, moments to laugh out loud, times to cry, and a few delightful animations, “Miss Potter” takes us through the joys and frustrations of being a talented female author and illustrator in London at the turn of the century but being unrecognized as such by her own mother. I would heartily recommend this film!

Sherlock Holmes And The Woman In Green Review. Compare & Purchase Sherlock Holmes And The Woman In Green at Amazon by clicking here! List Price: —- Amazon Price: $1.99 Click Here To Purchase At Amazon!

Sherlock Holmes And The Woman In Green Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #13500 in Movie
• Released on: 2009-08-12
• Running time: 69 minutes

Customer Reviews:

It’s Elementary, this is a Must Purchase!
MPI Home Video has made a terrific decision here, combining all of its previously released DVD boxed sets of this classic 14-film series into one affordable package. It is a must buy for any Sherlock Holmes fan, or anyone who enjoys classic mysteries, who does not already have all of these wonderful films.

When these were first released on DVD it was truly a cause for celebration, as it represented the completed painstaking restoration of all 14 classic films by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.

The UCLA Theatre Archives did an award-winning job in restoring and thus preserving these great films from 35mm master copies into the digital format, sometimes literally being forced to piece together the celluloid remnants that they found.

It took the archivists several years to complete the entire project, but was well worth the wait. The result is that the black and white images seem as fresh today as when the films were released to theatres more than 40 years ago. The archivists deserve a hearty thanks from all movie fans concerned with preserving America’s classic cinema heritage for future generations to enjoy.

This boxed set includes a facinating feature on what it took to restore the films. Well worth watching, it’s wonderful that it’s included.

Atmospherically, “The Hound of the Baskervilles” is arguably the best of the 14 Holmes films, and the only one based specifically on a Conan Doyle story. It, and “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,” are the only two “period” films in the series and run longer, the remainder taking place in then modern-day England and America of the late 30s and early 40s and run about 90 minutes each.

Because the “regular” series was made during World War II, there are many references to it, as well as some facinating patriotic drum beating on the part of Holmes that concludes many of the films.

In both “Hound” and “Adventures,” Holmes dons his deerstalker cap, popularized by original Strand Magazine illustrator Sidney Paget who made the image synonymous with the great detective. It is interesting to note that in the first of the non-period films in the series, Holmes reaches for his handy deerstalker, but is stopped by Watson. “Holmes,” Watson said, “you promised.” Leaving the deerstalker on the peg, Holmes grabs a “modern” hat instead.

Rathbone is especially sharp in “Hound of the Baskervilles,” and is partnered by Bruce, who plays a bumbling Watson throughout the 14 films that was not Conan Doyle’s vision of the great sleuth’s biographical “Boswell.” Nonetheless, the pairing is hugely entertaining and satisfying.

The creation of the moor, the sinister grimpen mire and truly terrifying hound remains fantastic and does much to engender this story as one of Conan Doyle’s most popular with modern-day
readers and viewers alike.

The final scene represents the only reference any of the 14 films made to Holmes’ “seven-percent” cocaine habit as Rathbone asks Bruce to retrieve “the needle.” The scene, criticized as too risque by 1939 audiences, caused the film’s producers to make a conscious decision to omit any additional mention of Holmes’ recreational drug use in future outings.

All of the films are really enjoyable and bear up wonderfully well under repeat viewings. For me, two of the best films of the “regular” series are The Scarlet Claw, where a village believes the supernatural is at work killing people, and Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, where Holmes must solve the riddle of the Musgrave Ritual.

Not matter your age, these films deliver hours of enjoyment, and thanks to the UCLA Theater Archives and MPI, will for generations to come. I only wish that Rathbone and Bruce had lived to see their great work released to new audiences in this pristine DVD condition.

14 Rathbone-Bruce flicks complete on 5 excellent 5-star DVDs but in clumsy 1-star box
Philip St. John Basil Rathbone (13 June 1892, Johannesburg–21 July 1967, New York) and William Nigel Bruce (4 Sep. 1895, Ensenada–8 Oct 1953, Santa Monica) starred in 14 Sherlock-Holmes films as, respectively, Holmes and Watson. The first two films (1939) are period pieces whereas the last 12 (1942-46) are contemporary (“modern”).

“The complete Sherlock Holmes collection” is a 6/06 reissue on 5 DVDs of a 14-DVD set (in 5 boxes) previously issued by MPI 10/03-4/04. The reissues by MPI, which involve restorations of the 1942-46 films, have been critically acclaimed. This review thus just compares the 2006 and 2003-04 sets of reissues (this review also supplements the previous two reviews by R. Smith, 7/18, and E. Hornaday, 4/10):

OVERVIEW: 2006 reissue = 14 films on 5 DVDs (see below for track listing) in 1 box 1 1/4″ wide VERSUS 2003-04 reissue = 14 films on 14 DVDs in 5 boxes totaling 4 3/8″ wide.

DVD CONTENT: Same in both reissues except the 2006 box set has for “Dressed to kill” an added (i.e., unfortunately, not on the earlier issues) commentary by actress Patricia Morison and Holmes scholars David Gregory and Richard Valley.

BOOKLET/INSERT AND TEXT CONTENT: The 2006 box set has 2 pages of text besides the front cover. The 2003-04 reissues have 5 booklets (“production notes”) written by Richard Valley, 8 pages each for “Hound” and “Adventures,” 16 pages each for volumes 1-3. Although there is some overlap material, these 64 pages have many pictures and have much information on the 14 films, including cast listings.

SUMMARY OF PROS AND CONS OF 2006 BOX SET:

PROS: (1) much less expensive–$129.99 list ($119.99 Amazon in 7/06) versus $249.90 list ($224.95 Amazon in 7/06); (2) takes about 3″ less shelf space; (3) more convenient to shuffle only 5 DVDs than 14; (4) added commentary for “Dressed to kill.”

CONS: (1) no booklet insert and thus almost no information on the films included–a major deficiency; (2) appearance rather stark, with only 1 picture of Rathbone on the box (a pic of Bruce should also have been included); (3) flimsy cardboard case with 5 slim clear plastic DVD holders that fold out clumsily with the aid of a cloth puller and that are awkwardly hinged with only cellophane tape (and thus becoming easily unhinged, that is, DVD trays 1-4 separating from tray 5).

TRACK LISTING (dates from IMDb, times by reviewer):

DVD #1:
Introduction by restorer Robert Gitt (2003)–TT0:4:38
(film 1) The hound of the Baskervilles (Mar. 1939)–TT1:19:38 (13 scenes), with commentary by David Stuart Davies
(film 2) The adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Sep. 1939)–TT1:21:37 (13 scenes), with commentary by Richard Valley
(film 3) Sherlock Holmes and the voice of terror (Sep. 1942)–TT1:05:17 + 12-second war-bond trailer (11 scenes)

DVD #2:
(film 4) Sherlock Holmes and the secret weapon (Jan. 1943)–TT1:08:23 + 12-second war-bond trailer (12 scenes)
(film 5) Sherlock Holmes in Washington (Apr. 1943)–TT1:11:20 + 12-second war-bond trailer (13 scenes)
(film 6) Sherlock Holmes faces death (Sep. 1943)–TT1:07:54 + 12-second war-bond trailer (12 scenes), with commentary by David Stuart Davies

DVD #3:
(film 7) Sherlock Holmes and the spider woman (Jan. 1944)–TT1:02:00 + 12-second war-bond trailer (12 scenes)
(film The scarlet claw (May 1944)–TT1:13:48, but no war-bond trailer (11 scenes), with commentary by David Stuart Davies
(film 9) The pearl of death (Aug. 1944)–TT1:08:29 + 12-second war-bond trailer (12 scenes)

Note: From “The scarlet claw” onward “Sherlock Holmes” was dropped from the titles to appeal to a wider audience.

DVD #4:
(film 10) The house of fear (Mar. 1945)–TT1:09:06, but no war-bond trailer (14 scenes)
(film 11) The woman in green (June 1945)–TT1:07:32 + 12-second war-bond trailer (12 scenes), with commentary by David Stuart Davies
(film 12) Pursuit to Algiers (Oct. 1945)–TT1:05:05 (12 scenes)

DVD #5:
(film 13) Terror by night (Feb. 1946)–TT0:59:40 (13 scenes)
(film 14) Dressed to kill (May 1946)–TT1:11:50 (13 scenes), with commentary by actress Patricia Morison and Holmes scholars David Gregory and Richard Valley
Additional bonus material:
(a) Photo galleries 1-5 (each TT0:2:35 with same musical background): gallery 1 = of Hound; gallery 2 = of Adventures; galleries 3-5 = of films 3-6, 7-10, 11-14, respectively
(b) Theatrical trailers (6, not restored–for films 7-10, 13, 14–TT0:7:05)
(c) Footage of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle–TT0:1:15. Note: This is from a summer 1927 Movietone film of Conan Doyle (1859-1930) and is much abbreviated. The film is TT0:11:45 on the 2001 DVD of “Terror by night” by Focus Films.

FINAL COMMENT: The 2006 box set crams 3 films on one DVD (e.g., DVD #1 with 232 min.). Some compression may be involved, but film quality seems equal to the 2003-04 issues with only one film per DVD.

The HOUND Limps! Ridiculous!!
Of course I’m talking one star for this release, NOT the classic films — five stars there. But same as other reviewers, my set froze on THREE different DVD players at the exact same spot on HOUND. There is no doubt in my mind that every set issued has this problem, though some rare players seem to be able to process it. What is so ridiculous is that nobody caught this in quality control!!! Are you kidding? Look at what this has cost the manufacturer and vendors by now. I returned mine (to another, lower priced seller) and got a full refund, but only after they paid shipping to and fro for another set (with the same exact problem). All this because nobody believed quality control was important. Again, HOLMES fans here — so you have to be joking if you think they will put up with such obscene flaws. As well, I totally agree with some others that the price is absurdly high — way too much money compared to comparable sets. And though the book style package is visually pretty neat, the quality is an embarrassment to say the least. The piece of tape hinge was a really, REALLY stupid idea — cheap and insulting to classic film fans — especially at this price level. And where is the booklet?? Where are the all the extras that OZ got for example?? Well, at least give us a few token features here for this rather large investment! I’m not going to touch this set until it all gets fixed — and the price subsides tremendously. What a disappointment to fans — Basil must be rolling over in his grave.

Star! Streaming. Movie Title: Star! Average customer review: Star! is available for streaming or downloading. Click Here to Stream or Download Star!

Julie Andrews portrays British musical theatre star Gertrude Lawrence in “Star!” (1968) . Because it was crafted by the same team responsible for “West Side Legend” and “The Sound of Music,” most notably director Robert Wise and producer Saul Chaplin, mammoth things were expected of “Star!” Dismissed by most critics and overshadowed by Barbra Streisand’s “Laughable Girl,” released the very same year, “Star!” is a fantastic movie musical soley due to the performance of Julie Andrews, who delivers a exquisite, tour-de-force. Andrews performs a dozen major musical numbers, ranging from seedy music halls circa WWI to Lawrence’s stage triumph in the Kurt Weill-Ira Gershwin musical play “Lady in the Unlit” in 1941. The fetch represents some of the best of the Gershwins, Cole Porter, and Noel Coward, the latter winningly played by Coward’s godson, Daniel Massey. His performance alone is reason enough to gape the film. However, it the skilled, winning performance of Julie Andrews that makes this long (3 hours) musical biography worth watching. Julie not only sings but dances and acts to perfection, displaying immense versatility. This film would be most animated to those who fancy Julie Andrews and the by-gone era of the musical theatre between the two world wars. The film suffers from being somewhat overblown and poorly paced – the thin screenplay gives the viewer miniature or no insight into what made Gertrude Lawrence really tick, but Julie Andrews delievers the goods – and then some.

Feverish debate always surrounds the correct merits of this controversial 1968 musical. Thoughts seem to be continually divided as to whether “Star!”,was the “the film that deservedly sank the career of Julie Andrews”, or that it was “the greatest fragment of work Julie Andrews has ever done on film”. From the moment of this film’s modern release in 1968 they are the two most hotly contested viewpoints about this Robert Wise production that reteamed him with his “The Sound of Music”, leading lady Julie Andrews. I tend to judge after repeated viewings that “Star!”,contains some of the best work by a musical comedy actress in the whole 1960′s decade and certainly is one of the crowning achievements in the acting career of Julie Andrews despite the films lack of financial success. Why wasn’t this film then the success many feel it ought to have been? Firstly by behind 1968 the musical genre was definately going out of style with the advent of remarkable more permissive “socially questioning” dramas such as “Midnight Cowboy”, and “Easy Rider”, and the period saw a very high number of mountainous budget movies like “Paint Your Wagon”, and “Sweet Charity”, not being successful at the Box Office. Also the role of the feisty, nefarious mouthed Gertrude Lawrence was a colossal departure from the usual type of role that had endeared Julie Andrews to movie goers. While different from her roles in “The Sound of Music”, and “Thoroughly Novel Millie”, “Star!”, needs to be judged on its have individual merits and is a marvellous showcase for the multi talents of Julie Andrews.

Undertaking a film biography of such a complex and multifaceted lady as Gertrude Lawrence who was one of the shiny lights of the stage in the early years of the 20th Century would have been a daunting task for any producer to undertake. “Star!”, in an almost 3 hour running time however succeeds beautifully in tracing Lawrence’s very humble beginnings in Clapham, London where she spent more time ducking ripe fruit being thrown at her on stage than singing, legal through to her toast of Broadway successes in “Private Lives”, and “Lady in the Dusky”. The production is rich in graceful musical numbers where the beefy force of the modern talent of Julie Andrews is amply in evidence. “Limehouse Blues”, the fine “Parisian Pierrot”, “Piccadilly” and my personal favourite the lovely finale of “Jenny” really are in a class of their bear as far as 1960′s musicals go. Julie Andrews is superlative as Gertrude Lawrence and despite many people at the time feeling she was miscast and that the film overall misrepresented Lawrence, I contain she does admirably as the brassy cockney entertainer who from sheer force of personality reached the top of the entertainment world. A fatal mistake is to observe “Star!”, expecting to discover a cramped variation on Mary Poppins or Maria Von Trapp. Here Julie Andrews creates a totally different type of character who is in turn amusing, exasperating, tragic, self centred and reflective, all in the one package. Her progression through the film from frantic twenties flapper to a goddess of the depression era of the 30′s, and then a ancient self assured leading lady in the 40′s is achieved with a certain gaze for what is suitable for the characters progression by Andrews. Daniel Massey plays Lawrence’s life long friend Noel Coward in a masterful performance that is among his best ever and in his interpretation of Coward he manages to be respectful while composed showing the spacious wit and sardonic viewer of life that Coward was reported to be.

“Star!”,has the feel of an weak fashioned musical comedy about it and I gain that one of the film’s most titillating qualities. Entertainment and history are intermingled through the innovative expend of newsreel footage of the time and reenactments of scenes from Lawrence’s vast successes on stage in “Private Lives”. The film is rich with lavish production numbers with music penned by such illustrious artists as the Gershwins and Cole Porter. The “Jenny”, musical number which comes at the conclusion of the film in particular is startling in it’s construction and Julie Andrews displays an energy and fluidity here that is a revelation as far as dance sequences go. Nominated for seven Academy Awards “Star!”, really came along at the contemptible time and another musical extravaganza that year “Droll Girl”, featuring an astounding film debut for Barbra Striesand totally eclipsed it both in financial success and awards. Visually the film is a exact treat for the viewing seek as Julie Andrews wears an astonishing wardrobe throughout the film which grows increasingly lavish over the 40 year running period of the film. Designed by Donald Brooks, Julie Andrews had the rare honour of having the largest single wardrobe created for an actress in the one film up to that time.

Buy,Download, Or Stream Star!! Click Here

I always feel that “Star!”, in some respects gave us an early scrutinize of the Julie Andrews that amazed the world in her sizable comeback film of 1981 “Victor/Victoria”. As Gertrude Lawrence she is in turn extroverted, tender, regretful of many of her actions, and always the live wire. Rarely have I heard her in better sigh than in “Star!”, and her musical numbers in most respects are far more difficult ones than in her earlier musicals. Neglected and scorned at the time of its release objective when the press seemed to turn against her, “Star!”, certainly deserves a better press. Combined with Julie Andrews next pains the monumental “Darling Lili”, which suffered the same fate at the Box Office in 1970, both are blamed for ending Andrews’ career in movies. Both in fact are due for a reassessment and no film has displayed the original abilities of Julie Andrews to better advantage than “Star!”. Do yourself a favour and recall a contemplate at this unfairly maligned film some time, you wont regret it.
garmin nuvi 765 prices
logitech freepulse wireless headphones