Alessandro-Nivola Movie Reviews

I love Shakespeares works, he knows the human soul better than any writter I can think of, I have studied his plays for the last 5 years.

I also love musicals, I love West Side Story, and I thought it was a perfect trasnfer of Romeo and Juliet to modern times, infact I have a book that compares the two scripts, and they are almost exactly the same, page for page, just with differant wording and one script has songs.

So naturaly when I saw LLL in the video store I was thrilled! I took it home and turned it on.

Now I do not know any polite way to say this so I had best get started.

None of the singers in the film are any good at all, the ones you can understand are tone deaf, while you cannot understand what the on-tune characters are singing about. I wonder if they had auditions for this film, or if they just picked the first 12 people who walked in the door, I would guess the latter.

Nathan Lane is completely out of his natural environment.

The set? Oh Delilah!, I would rather have them film this movie from the inside of a cardboard box!!!

None of the songs fit together at all, they slaughter every song that they use in this film on the spott.

The choreography? I have studied the all famed Bob Fosse for the last 3 years, among other musical theater choreographers, most of which are amazing! I know that the actors in this show are not big dancers, but this is pathetic. The boldest dancing they have in this movie is where everyone comes out in masks, they all frisk each other, and then they lay down on top of each other and roll their heads around as if they were a drunken 0r-9y, they do this for 10 mins. How can anyone call this art?

They ruin any drama that this play contains, any true human emotion, they ruin the ending, Shakespeare would have hated this! So would Lennard Bernstien.

The one good thing about this film is some of the costuming is cute, although its cheaply done, and one of Branagh's monologues is wonderful. Other than that the film is a complete waste of intellagent life.

I would have given this negative 5 stars, but Amazon does not have that option.

If you still feel that you want see this, please, rent it first, this is not entertainment for people who have the compacity to think.

As to one of the other reviews, somebody said that Shakespeare did not write musicals, this is entirely not true, Shakepseare founded a great deal of musicals, if you are ever at the Shakespeare library in Washington DC, you can learn more about the music they found for most of his works. If you would like to see one of Shakespeares musicals I suggest you rent Twelvth Night "Or what you will" its a good example of a Shakespearian musical.

I watched this video on a whim, expecting another fabulous Kenneth Branagh Shakespeare adaptation (MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, for example). I found LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST mostly amusing, but some parts of the movie just didn't work for me. I enjoyed the sudden silly classic songs and dances, and also the fun attitude taken with the text. I did not enjoy the bizzare "grop-your-partner dance" in the middle of the film -- it left me feeling icky and (besides that) really didn't work in the context of the lighthearted film. I also didn't think the end of the film worked: it was too abrupt. (I wondered if something went wrong and they ran out of time to shoot a real ending.) But I don't want to be TOO harsh. It was fun to watch the colorful cast singing and dancing -- especially since some of these actors are really not singers or dancers. (That aspect reminded me a bit of Woody Allen's silly movie, EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU.) Overall, LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST was amusing at first, but it left me with unpleasant feelings, so I doubt I'll ever have the desire to watch it again.

Love's Labour's Lost is true to the spirit of Shakespeare's comedy if not the text itself. A delightfully entertaining blend of Gershwin, Porter, and a little bit of the Bard, LLL is highly recommended for musical theatre lovers and anyone willing to consider Renaissance theatre in ways not involving pantaloons and talking to skulls. Nathan Lane is brilliant as Costard, here interpreted as a struggling vaudevillian; Lane lends vocal support (the weakest area of the cast) to the eleven o'clock number "There's No Business Like Show Business." Though the ensemble struggles through some of the musical numbers, the bittersweet "They Can't Take That Away From Me" is all the more moving because of their difficulties. The only number which seems not to fit within the framework of the play/musical/film is also its chief selling point; LLL publicity has focused upon the Fosse-esque "Let's Face the Music and Dance," which stands out in an otherwise charmingly coquettish production as a sexually charged sore thumb. As always, theatricality dominates Branagh's directorial style; look for long, sweeping shots and entire scenes filmed with a single camera and no cut-aways. Though many critics lambasted Branagh for cutting well over half of Shakespeare's text, the musical interludes fulfill much of the function of the missing lines in a way that is a dead-on throwback to an earlier generation of entertainment.

I love Shakespeares works, he knows the human soul better than any writter I can think of, I have studied his plays for the last 5 years.

I also love musicals, I love West Side Story, and I thought it was a perfect trasnfer of Romeo and Juliet to modern times, infact I have a book that compares the two scripts, and they are almost exactly the same, page for page, just with differant wording and one script has songs.

So naturaly when I saw LLL in the video store I was thrilled! I took it home and turned it on.

Now I do not know any polite way to say this so I had best get started.

None of the singers in the film are any good at all, the ones you can understand are tone deaf, while you cannot understand what the on-tune characters are singing about. I wonder if they had auditions for this film, or if they just picked the first 12 people who walked in the door, I would guess the latter.

Nathan Lane is completely out of his natural environment.

The set? Oh Delilah!, I would rather have them film this movie from the inside of a cardboard box!!!

None of the songs fit together at all, they slaughter every song that they use in this film on the spott.

The choreography? I have studied the all famed Bob Fosse for the last 3 years, among other musical theater choreographers, most of which are amazing! I know that the actors in this show are not big dancers, but this is pathetic. The boldest dancing they have in this movie is where everyone comes out in masks, they all frisk each other, and then they lay down on top of each other and roll their heads around as if they were a drunken 0r-9y, they do this for 10 mins. How can anyone call this art?

They ruin any drama that this play contains, any true human emotion, they ruin the ending, Shakespeare would have hated this! So would Lennard Bernstien.

The one good thing about this film is some of the costuming is cute, although its cheaply done, and one of Branagh's monologues is wonderful. Other than that the film is a complete waste of intellagent life.

I would have given this negative 5 stars, but Amazon does not have that option.

If you still feel that you want see this, please, rent it first, this is not entertainment for people who have the compacity to think.

As to one of the other reviews, somebody said that Shakespeare did not write musicals, this is entirely not true, Shakepseare founded a great deal of musicals, if you are ever at the Shakespeare library in Washington DC, you can learn more about the music they found for most of his works. If you would like to see one of Shakespeares musicals I suggest you rent Twelvth Night "Or what you will" its a good example of a Shakespearian musical.

I watched this video on a whim, expecting another fabulous Kenneth Branagh Shakespeare adaptation (MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, for example). I found LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST mostly amusing, but some parts of the movie just didn't work for me. I enjoyed the sudden silly classic songs and dances, and also the fun attitude taken with the text. I did not enjoy the bizzare "grop-your-partner dance" in the middle of the film -- it left me feeling icky and (besides that) really didn't work in the context of the lighthearted film. I also didn't think the end of the film worked: it was too abrupt. (I wondered if something went wrong and they ran out of time to shoot a real ending.) But I don't want to be TOO harsh. It was fun to watch the colorful cast singing and dancing -- especially since some of these actors are really not singers or dancers. (That aspect reminded me a bit of Woody Allen's silly movie, EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU.) Overall, LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST was amusing at first, but it left me with unpleasant feelings, so I doubt I'll ever have the desire to watch it again.

Love's Labour's Lost is true to the spirit of Shakespeare's comedy if not the text itself. A delightfully entertaining blend of Gershwin, Porter, and a little bit of the Bard, LLL is highly recommended for musical theatre lovers and anyone willing to consider Renaissance theatre in ways not involving pantaloons and talking to skulls. Nathan Lane is brilliant as Costard, here interpreted as a struggling vaudevillian; Lane lends vocal support (the weakest area of the cast) to the eleven o'clock number "There's No Business Like Show Business." Though the ensemble struggles through some of the musical numbers, the bittersweet "They Can't Take That Away From Me" is all the more moving because of their difficulties. The only number which seems not to fit within the framework of the play/musical/film is also its chief selling point; LLL publicity has focused upon the Fosse-esque "Let's Face the Music and Dance," which stands out in an otherwise charmingly coquettish production as a sexually charged sore thumb. As always, theatricality dominates Branagh's directorial style; look for long, sweeping shots and entire scenes filmed with a single camera and no cut-aways. Though many critics lambasted Branagh for cutting well over half of Shakespeare's text, the musical interludes fulfill much of the function of the missing lines in a way that is a dead-on throwback to an earlier generation of entertainment.

I thought this movie would be a great thriller. I've seen Reese Witherspoon in enough movies to know she's a great actress, and it sounded interesting enough from reading the jacket. BUT, I have to say that, overall, although the film was visually stunning more often than not (very stylized sets, nice color combinations, costume colors, interesting shots, etc, etc), and the two main characters Nick (Alessandro Nivola) and Lissa (Reese Witherspoon) were likable, the film isn't much to write home about. My main complaint is that there wasn't enough plot to go around, and that when the chips finally fall, you're wondering why there weren't more of them! I also wonder why the writer (or director/editor), who ended up with a decent budget, nice sets, great actors, etc, didn't do more to flesh it out, or add a couple more twists/characters/background info. I think this quite easily could have been made into a great film. However, as it stands, its a stylish jaunt into film-making which, although not precisely shallow, per se, leaves a lot to be desired. Interestingly, after watching the deleted scenes and learning a bit more about the script and the changes that were made to the story/scenes, the film seemed richer and more complex, (better!) than I'd first thought. I think the DVD's deleted scenes really would have added enough to make this luke-warm film, not great, but maybe "good enough." The best thematic elements which explain the "why's" and "why-nots" of this film, inexplicably seemed to end up on the cutting room floor. Bottom Line: "Watch it before you buy it."

Well, I think that thrillers often get a little overdone. Anyone who watches many movies will probably agree. I felt like this movie was one movie that stayed believable, yet still kept the audience enthralled in the storyline.

This movie started off kind of slow, which may irk some of the viewers who want to get into it. However, this movie had one of the best and unpredictable endings in a thriller I've ever seen. This alone made the movie worth it.

I thought the young actors, notably Reese Witherspoon, were admirable in their roles. There was not really any bad acting in this movie. The script was well founded, and I thought that this was an original and creative idea.

Many of the twists of the movie are explained through characters actions rather than overt telling of plot sequences. This is a movie that starts a bit of a ways in, then retraces its steps, and then continues on through the movie.

If you are a moviegoer that enjoys twists and unpredictable endings, then I think this is the movie to watch.

This film illistrates the human desire for freedom. A man (Nivola) has fallen in a hole and he needs cash fast. His girfriend (Witherspoon) goes to the extremes to dig him out. This is Witherspoons finest role yet. She takes you deep inside her characters mind and shows how love and compassion direct the character through her toughest decisions. Lissa (witherspoon) and her boyfriend (Nivola) need to get out of this town- find out what they will do to do so.

I thought this movie would be a great thriller. I've seen Reese Witherspoon in enough movies to know she's a great actress, and it sounded interesting enough from reading the jacket. BUT, I have to say that, overall, although the film was visually stunning more often than not (very stylized sets, nice color combinations, costume colors, interesting shots, etc, etc), and the two main characters Nick (Alessandro Nivola) and Lissa (Reese Witherspoon) were likable, the film isn't much to write home about. My main complaint is that there wasn't enough plot to go around, and that when the chips finally fall, you're wondering why there weren't more of them! I also wonder why the writer (or director/editor), who ended up with a decent budget, nice sets, great actors, etc, didn't do more to flesh it out, or add a couple more twists/characters/background info. I think this quite easily could have been made into a great film. However, as it stands, its a stylish jaunt into film-making which, although not precisely shallow, per se, leaves a lot to be desired. Interestingly, after watching the deleted scenes and learning a bit more about the script and the changes that were made to the story/scenes, the film seemed richer and more complex, (better!) than I'd first thought. I think the DVD's deleted scenes really would have added enough to make this luke-warm film, not great, but maybe "good enough." The best thematic elements which explain the "why's" and "why-nots" of this film, inexplicably seemed to end up on the cutting room floor. Bottom Line: "Watch it before you buy it."

Well, I think that thrillers often get a little overdone. Anyone who watches many movies will probably agree. I felt like this movie was one movie that stayed believable, yet still kept the audience enthralled in the storyline.

This movie started off kind of slow, which may irk some of the viewers who want to get into it. However, this movie had one of the best and unpredictable endings in a thriller I've ever seen. This alone made the movie worth it.

I thought the young actors, notably Reese Witherspoon, were admirable in their roles. There was not really any bad acting in this movie. The script was well founded, and I thought that this was an original and creative idea.

Many of the twists of the movie are explained through characters actions rather than overt telling of plot sequences. This is a movie that starts a bit of a ways in, then retraces its steps, and then continues on through the movie.

If you are a moviegoer that enjoys twists and unpredictable endings, then I think this is the movie to watch.

This film illistrates the human desire for freedom. A man (Nivola) has fallen in a hole and he needs cash fast. His girfriend (Witherspoon) goes to the extremes to dig him out. This is Witherspoons finest role yet. She takes you deep inside her characters mind and shows how love and compassion direct the character through her toughest decisions. Lissa (witherspoon) and her boyfriend (Nivola) need to get out of this town- find out what they will do to do so.

Lisa Cholodenko's "Laurel Canyon" is an exploration of several subjects scandalous: sex, drugs, psychiatry, whiny rock music. Aspiring to a lot, accomplishing very little, it nevertheless reaffirms that Frances McDormand is chameleonic, feisty actress. In a year thin of dynamic female roles, she might even earn an Academy Award nomination.

McDormand is Jane, a 40ish hippie record producer holed up in of those fabulously overgrown villas tucked into the Los Angeles hills, toking bongs and whiskey sours while putting her latest LP to bed. Somewhere in the myriad of short flings she produced a straight-laced son Sam (Christian Bale), a Harvard Med grad with a perky little genius for a fiancée in Alex (Kate Beckinsdale).

Predictably, Sam and Alex's routines get rattled when they move in with Jane and her band, fronted by a cocky punk named Ian (Alessandro Nivola). Writer/director Cholodenko immediately places seductive distractions in front of the newly engaged couple; Alex, the (apparent) reigning super-achiever, drops her dissertation, and everything else, to hang in the recording studio and get stoned, while Sam warms to a sweetly aggressive Israeli colleague (Natascha McElhone).

Because "Laurel Canyon" never takes the time to cement Sam and Alex's romance beyond a Scrabble game and some uncomfortable sex, there is surprisingly little at risk; both seem better suited to their new friends and surroundings than a stodgy relationship where they talk past one another. Beckinsdale might be the soup du jour, but she's a blank beauty, and McElhone presents a far more fetching, stimulating catch.

As does McDormand, who's got some mileage in those eyes, but a lot more spark, too. Jane is bursting with contradictions, and seems to suffer affairs long past their sell-by date for nuture's sake. When we discover, for example, just why it is she gets up so early every morning, we get a glimpse of how co-opted a supposedly "free and clear" existence can become. Essentially a comic role, McDormand infuses the performance with a startling amount of maternal instinct. It's just not for her son.

Bale is McDormand's equal as the sullen prodigy trying hard to deny he has the same roaming tendencies as his mother. Nivola is spot on as the affable creep. The soundtrack is worth owning if you go for British rock pop.

Cholodenko, as writer/director, knows her way around a hotel, a car, and a pool. While the scenes themselves never add up to a cohesive film - the movie is simply too didactic and point-driven - several are sharp on their own. And McDormand simply is her character. After water toting performances in "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "City By The Sea," she returns to "Laurel Canyon" brassy and keyed up, and it's like watching a lioness stalk the plains.

Ignore all the melodramatic drivel of so many reviewers here! They seem to have nothing better to do than go into excruciating detail about why they didn't like the film. I found it very entertaining and worth seeing for Frances McDormand's performance, great as always.

This is a brilliant film (ignore any juvenile reviews to the contrary) if you are over 50 and understand how difficult relationships between parents and adult children might become. There are no cliches, there are only effective portrayals of ordinary people trying to come to grips with their actions

Laurel Canyon is an engaging, well-acted but ultimately formulaic film that explores some familiar situations and stereotypes (most notably, the by now tiresome contrast between the staid East Coast and hedonistic West Coast). The premise could be the set-up for a play, if not a sitcom -Sam and Alex, both conservative medical students (played by Christian Bale and Kate Beckinsale) are heading to Los Angeles and moving into the house of Sam's bohemian, record producer mother. From the very start, we are hit with clichés. Alex's parents are almost caricatures of uptight Easterners; the father chides Sam for not remaining at Harvard; the mother, only half jokingly, warns them not to become scientologists or vegetarians. Needless to say, the couple experiences culture shock when they arrive on the wild and woolly West Coast. Sam's mother Jane (Frances McDormand, in a typically great performance) has a much younger, musician boyfriend Ian (Alessandro Nivola). Jane and the musicians play music, smoke pot and party all night long while Sam and Alex, at first, try to maintain their serious way of life. Naturally, things do not continue in this mode for long. Alex is gradually seduced (both figuratively and literally) into the household's freer mores. She is fascinated and attracted to both Jane and Ian. Meanwhile Sam, in the inevitable parallel situation, is attracted to a beautiful fellow intern, Sarah. Will the couple remain together in the face of these temptations and challenges? Despite the stereotypes and a degree of predictability, the movie remains interesting most of the time. McDormand, Nivola and the other musicians are very natural and the scenes that show the making of a record and the interaction of Jane with the band members are quite believable. Bale and Beckinsale are, perhaps inevitably, not as interesting. There didn't seem to be much chemistry between them. Also, the emotional scenes between Sam and Jane more than anything else made me wonder how Jane could possibly be Sam's mother; they seem to be from different galaxies. Laurel Canyon is not a bad movie and it has some genuinely good qualities. I thought that it started off weakly (the stereotypes again), became quite good in the middle and then concluded on a too cute and simplistic note.

This is the story of a free-wheeling, pot smoking Los Angeles record producer (the exquisite Frances McDormand), with a rock star boyfriend (Alessandro Nivola), whose straight-laced son (the yummy Christian Bale) comes back home after graduation from Harvard Medical School with his rich fiancé (the beautiful Kate Beckinsale), who's trying to write her dissertation. Although mother and son are initially at odds, their relationship begins to change when he discovers that his bride-to-be likes his mother's rock-n-roll lifestyle too, much to his utter dislike.

"Laurel Canyon" is director Lisa Cholodenko's follow-up to her 1998 indie hit "High Art," which I have yet to see. It cleverly delves into the hectic world of hipster artists, with all the accompanying ego, self-involvement and drama. It offers an engaging and thouroughly entertaining glimpse into the lives of musicians nestled in the titular Hollywood Hills enclave, making a fascinating ensemble piece with brilliant performances from the entire 'to die for' cast.

... tension is everywhere, and Cholodenko uses it not for mere titillation, but to underscore the idea that art and artists fill deep voids in the world - they're just fun to be around. The writing is both smart and humorous. Not only is the Brit-flavored, alt-rock soundtrack winning and authentic, but "Laurel Canyon" itself feels musical: languid, rich in color and light, and deliciously sensual.

"Laurel Canyon" isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is enjoyable. See it for Frances McDormand's delicious performance, if for nothing else.

This is a brilliant film (ignore any juvenile reviews to the contrary) if you are over 50 and understand how difficult relationships between parents and adult children might become. There are no cliches, there are only effective portrayals of ordinary people trying to come to grips with their actions

This is a film that could have been great. The fact that it is merely fair is by no means a reflection on the cast or on the script -- both are top-notch. It's intelligent, literate, and each performance shines. Unfortunately, it falls apart in what I can only assume is the most uninspired film editing and cinematography I've ever seen. Which is a crying shame, because this film could have been absolutely remarkable. As it is, it's still worth watching for the actors and script.

I thought that this movie had a good plot idea and was acted pretty well by the actors. There were funny parts and serious parts. Good for ages 13 and up, it kept me guessing, laughing, and interested. Some parts were a little unbelievable ( a cop can't be THAT stupid, can he?) but I liked it very much. Worth checking out.

Yet another masterpiece from John Hughes. I have always had a lot of respect for John Hughes and there are a number of films that I enjoyed. This film I have seen many times and I like it more every time I see it. It is pretty twisted and hard to predict, however it has a powerful story behind it. A story about mistakes and getting a second chance at making a new beginning!! If you haven't seen it, please do!! Allessandro Nivola is a great actor and he was wonderful in this film!!!
I highly recommend it!!!

The movie itself is quite entertaining in modern standards, but it is hardly based on Jane Austen's book. Unlike Austen's main character, Fanny is a bold, loud, playful girl, flirting in the hallways of her uncle's home. Her uncle is a mean-spirited and harsh man, almost never like Austen's Sir Thomas. The other characters are no more like the book in character or looks. The dialogues are modified to sound modern. There is undue physical contact between Fanny and Mr. Crawford and, worse yet, between Fanny and Edmund. A key character is eliminated, Fanny's brother William, who is her only joy in life outside of her uncle's home. He is replaced by a sister, who is attached to Fanny too early in the film. The characters, if separated completely from the book, are in themselves charming. The movie would have been a nice American piece of drama had they called it another name. As it stands, it does great injustice to Jane Austen genius.

If the title of this movie hadn't been Mansfield Park, I'd have found this a cute movie and I would have enjoyed the spirited, rebellious, witty heroine who quoted some of the slyest Jane Austen from her minor works and letters.

But I expected the novel, and couldn't overcome the bait-and-switch betrayal in order to enjoy this for what it is, a sweet movie based on somebody's idea of Jane Austen's personality in a comedy of manners with some spicy interactions.

If you enjoy the kind of book that features Jane Austen as a detective, etc. this may be the movie for you. I hate that kind of liberty and always wish they'd changed the name. The sets are lush, the wardrobe lovely, and the caste is brilliant.

I confess I can't abide the original novel's Fanny Price--a shy, mingy, diffident little wuss who falls in love with stuffy Edmund out of gratitude for his gentle attention and who recoils in horror at anything vaguely naughty. The movie heroine is a writer--witty, fun, even gleeful, certainly not Fanny Price.

I believe a faithful version of MP would be very dull and inferior to this film, in fact, but still can't forgive the use of the title.

In "Mansfield Park,"--a film adaptation of the Jane Austen novel--young, poor Fanny Price is sent from her overcrowded and squalid Portsmouth home to live with her widowed Aunt Norris. The invitation from Aunt Norris was based on a fleeting, charitable whim, but the whim is already gone when Fanny arrives. Fanny is quickly passed to her wealthy relatives, Lord and Lady Bertram, who live at Mansfield Park with their 4 children--Tom, Edmund, Maria & Julia. Fanny's loneliness is compounded by Aunt Norris who is determined that Fanny should never forget her humble place in the Bertram household.

Fanny grows up at Mansfield Park and remains in touch with her impoverished family in Portsmouth. Dreadful Aunt Norris more or less rules Mansfield Park by default--this is partly due to Lord Bertram's interests in the West Indies and partly due to Lady Bertram's inertia and inebriation. Maria is engaged to the doltish Mr Rushworth, and while Maria acknowledges that her future husband is a fool, she is willing to overlook this fault as it is ameliorated by a large fortune. Fanny's sole friend is Edmund--the younger son, and he is slated to become a clergyman. But then an attractive and worldly brother and sister--Henry and Mary Crawford join local society, and their presence sparks everyone's dormant passions.

I was prepared to dislike this production--Jane Austen is close to my heart, so I intend to be a bit picky when it comes to screen adaptations of Austen's novels. I did not, for example, like "Emma" (the Gwyneth Paltrow version), and I couldn't abide "Sense and Sensibility" (Emma Thompson). I do like the BBC adaptations of Austen's novels, however. I must admit that I almost didn't even bother watching "Mansfield Park" as I dreaded yet another disappointment. However, encouraged by another Janeite I decided to give this DVD a go.

The strength of this production is in its acting and in its humour. All of the actors and actresses are top notch, and the script flowed forth with a light, ironic touch. Henry and Mary Crawford were simply perfect. Unfortunately, the script writer did seem to mingle Jane Austen (the real person) with Fanny Price when creating the Fanny Price for this film. This gave Fanny Price pertness and wit that was largely absent from the novel. Also, many excellent parts from the novel were cut, and the PC additions to the script were--quite frankly--out of place and slightly ludicrous. However, overall, I enjoyed this film version of the book--it's not perfect, but for perfection, I can always go and read "Mansfield Park" yet again--displacedhuman

The movie itself is quite entertaining in modern standards, but it is hardly based on Jane Austen's book. Unlike Austen's main character, Fanny is a bold, loud, playful girl, flirting in the hallways of her uncle's home. Her uncle is a mean-spirited and harsh man, almost never like Austen's Sir Thomas. The other characters are no more like the book in character or looks. The dialogues are modified to sound modern. There is undue physical contact between Fanny and Mr. Crawford and, worse yet, between Fanny and Edmund. A key character is eliminated, Fanny's brother William, who is her only joy in life outside of her uncle's home. He is replaced by a sister, who is attached to Fanny too early in the film. The characters, if separated completely from the book, are in themselves charming. The movie would have been a nice American piece of drama had they called it another name. As it stands, it does great injustice to Jane Austen genius.

If the title of this movie hadn't been Mansfield Park, I'd have found this a cute movie and I would have enjoyed the spirited, rebellious, witty heroine who quoted some of the slyest Jane Austen from her minor works and letters.

But I expected the novel, and couldn't overcome the bait-and-switch betrayal in order to enjoy this for what it is, a sweet movie based on somebody's idea of Jane Austen's personality in a comedy of manners with some spicy interactions.

If you enjoy the kind of book that features Jane Austen as a detective, etc. this may be the movie for you. I hate that kind of liberty and always wish they'd changed the name. The sets are lush, the wardrobe lovely, and the caste is brilliant.

I confess I can't abide the original novel's Fanny Price--a shy, mingy, diffident little wuss who falls in love with stuffy Edmund out of gratitude for his gentle attention and who recoils in horror at anything vaguely naughty. The movie heroine is a writer--witty, fun, even gleeful, certainly not Fanny Price.

I believe a faithful version of MP would be very dull and inferior to this film, in fact, but still can't forgive the use of the title.

In "Mansfield Park,"--a film adaptation of the Jane Austen novel--young, poor Fanny Price is sent from her overcrowded and squalid Portsmouth home to live with her widowed Aunt Norris. The invitation from Aunt Norris was based on a fleeting, charitable whim, but the whim is already gone when Fanny arrives. Fanny is quickly passed to her wealthy relatives, Lord and Lady Bertram, who live at Mansfield Park with their 4 children--Tom, Edmund, Maria & Julia. Fanny's loneliness is compounded by Aunt Norris who is determined that Fanny should never forget her humble place in the Bertram household.

Fanny grows up at Mansfield Park and remains in touch with her impoverished family in Portsmouth. Dreadful Aunt Norris more or less rules Mansfield Park by default--this is partly due to Lord Bertram's interests in the West Indies and partly due to Lady Bertram's inertia and inebriation. Maria is engaged to the doltish Mr Rushworth, and while Maria acknowledges that her future husband is a fool, she is willing to overlook this fault as it is ameliorated by a large fortune. Fanny's sole friend is Edmund--the younger son, and he is slated to become a clergyman. But then an attractive and worldly brother and sister--Henry and Mary Crawford join local society, and their presence sparks everyone's dormant passions.

I was prepared to dislike this production--Jane Austen is close to my heart, so I intend to be a bit picky when it comes to screen adaptations of Austen's novels. I did not, for example, like "Emma" (the Gwyneth Paltrow version), and I couldn't abide "Sense and Sensibility" (Emma Thompson). I do like the BBC adaptations of Austen's novels, however. I must admit that I almost didn't even bother watching "Mansfield Park" as I dreaded yet another disappointment. However, encouraged by another Janeite I decided to give this DVD a go.

The strength of this production is in its acting and in its humour. All of the actors and actresses are top notch, and the script flowed forth with a light, ironic touch. Henry and Mary Crawford were simply perfect. Unfortunately, the script writer did seem to mingle Jane Austen (the real person) with Fanny Price when creating the Fanny Price for this film. This gave Fanny Price pertness and wit that was largely absent from the novel. Also, many excellent parts from the novel were cut, and the PC additions to the script were--quite frankly--out of place and slightly ludicrous. However, overall, I enjoyed this film version of the book--it's not perfect, but for perfection, I can always go and read "Mansfield Park" yet again--displacedhuman

4 digital cameras. 4 quadrants. 4 continuous shots. All in real time. All improvised. Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) is definitely one of the most innovative directors out there. And that's what makes the film worth seeing. It wasn't as challenging as I thought it would be to follow all four quadrants at the same time. Figgis turns the volume up on the shot he wants you to pay attention to. The cast does a fine job, although I'm not exactly sure what Salma Hayak is doing in this company. Stellan Skarsgard is great as usual. Jeanne Tripplehorn is literally on screen in a continuous shot for the length of the film and she is fantastic. Look out for Holly Hunter, who has very little screen time, but who gives her character more depth than this film deserves. The reason I only gave this film 3 stars is that it didn't engage me. Watch it for its stylistic qualities and not for its story. I recommend the DVD format. After all, digital cameras deserve digital video.

Timecode is a behind-the-scenes look at Hollywood life - the business, the politics, the jealously, and even the drugs, sex, and rock 'n' roll. Salma Hayek plays Rose, an aspiring actress who will do anything to get an audition - even if it means cheating on her jealous lover (Jeanne Tripplehorn) with a male film exec (Stellan Skarsgard).

But I said that Timecode is unique, right? Well, it is. It had no script - just a story, four digital videocams, and a bunch of actors who could improvise their way through 90 minutes of filming. The four cameras shot non-stop - no cuts, just one take. The entire film was shot 15 times - and the final one was released. No editing was required because viewers see the footage from all four cameras - simultaneously. The screen is divided into four quarters, and it's up to the viewer to decide which one to watch. Believe me - it's not exactly an easy task. Though you're often given audio hints (the sound of one quarter will dominate for a while), you'll still keep jumping from quarter to quarter, trying to figure out what's going on - and what you've missed. It's definitely not a movie to watch if you're not completely alert. It is, however, very interesting. And while I wouldn't say that this is one of my favorite movies, it's still an interesting experience. If you're looking for something out of the ordinary, it's worth checking out.

If you happen to pick up a copy of the DVD, you'll find all kinds of goodies. The special features include the entire Version 1 of the film (and yes, it really is different) and an audio option that allows you to choose which dialogue you want to listen to. Perhaps, then, if you watch the entire movie four times, you'll be able to make sense of it all...

I had a great deal of fun with this video. I rented in on VHS, and am now buying it (DVD for the soundtrack control). I watched the film twice over, and caught so many more things the second time than the first. The first part of the viewing you spend trying to figure out how all these characters connect to each other, and then you relax into the flow of them popping in and out of various corners of the screen. Amazing timing ...just Amazing timing for one-take. Julian Sands' entire purpose in the film seems to be to distract the other actors and see if they get lost. This makes his background-character entertaining. I found myself backing the film up several times in certain places because as I was paying attension one thing, I suddenly realized the scene was slowly changing in another corner and I was like "wait a minute...what's happening over _there_..?". Over-all, the four simultanious corners of action are not that hard to follow. Mike Figgis uses sound to take you every place you need to go to figure out what is happening. I found the performances of Jeanne Tripplehorn and Saffron Burrows particulary well done. Both are on screen through most of the film and keep up character perfectly. Not a film for people who do not like to use their mind while watching. Mike Figgis does not spoon-feed his viewers (thank you). All in all very inventive and well done !