Michael-Gambon Movie Reviews

Sleepy Hollow was an awesome movie. If you ever heard the Tale of Sleepy Hollow growing up then you must see this movie. This story about the Headless Horseman terrorizing the people of a small time village is both attention-grabbing and frightening. The actors, directors, and scriptwriters did an amazing job of portraying the tale of sleepy hollow in a different fashion. Its the same basic tale but with a few new twists that make it as great as possible. A word to the wise however, the amount of blood shed in the film is vast. If you're queasy, make sure you're prepared to close those eyes tight! Nonetheless, the film is perfect for young and old, well, not too young!

A great movie. There is tons of suspense and the movie is awesome. It's best if you watch it at night. With tons of popcorn at hand!

This movie almost looks like memento ripped off of it. This guy has temporary amnesia, and the plot unfolds as the movie goes on. The plot is very well thought out and clever, revealing something new each minute, but there is one problem. This movie is supposed to be a comedy, and tries hard, but fails to deliver the laughs. There are many desperate attempts at humor in this movie, but only about 3 times does it work. But nonetheless it is an enjoyable 90 minutes, and although it wastes his talent, as one of the few movies Dana Carvey stars, and he is usually so funny, but in this movie he just doesnt deliver.

This is my all time favorite funny movie. I must have seen it about 50 times, and it hasn't gotten a bit old. I laugh so hard I cry. This isn't slapstick humor, it is suddle and that's what makes it so great!

This is the best comedy of all time. Dana Carvey pulls off the best character of a guy who's got temporary amnesia. He plays the perfect role waking up as a complete moron to the world every morning, whenever he goes to sleep ~ he loses his memory. If you liked Dumb & Dumber...etc. you will love this movie. And it's a good one to buy because you have definately got to watch it more than once. You can't catch everything the first time you watch it. Hope this review helped.

Here is a film that has some of the most wonderous sights I have seen in any film. TOYS creates a world of a toy factory that is so wonderful, so imaginative, that you wonder how this movie could possibly have gone wrong. Barry Levinson had this film in mind since before he did DINER, and he found his main star in Robin Williams after they worked on GOOD MORNING VIETNAM. It is obvious what he wants to accomplish. To show us a fantasy world that couldn't exist but that you would love it if it did, that only innocence should prevail in the world of toys. He accomplishes the first half with exuberance. He is aided by three absolutely wonderful performances: Robin Williams, Joan Cusack, and Robin Wright Penn. But he comes to a conclusion that is not only confusing but really bizarre.

Robin Williams is Leslie Zevo. His father is Kenneth Zevo, founder of Zevo Toys, a factory that doesn't so much exist in a town but in the middle of its own world. Zevo is old and dying and played by the legendary Donald O'Connor. (His funeral scene creates a nice little laugh until I remembered that O'Connor himself passed away a few months ago.) Kenneth Zevo must hand over control of his factory, but feels that his son Leslie isn't ready for this job. And his daughter Al-Sashia (Joan Cusack) isn't, well you find out at the end of the film. So he turns the factory over to his brother General Zevo (Michael Gambon) of the U.S. Army.

General Zevo clearly doesn't want the job, but the Army isn't the way he remembers it. He is the kind of soldier who would shoot a fly with his .45 sidearm instead of using a fly swatter. That creates a nice laugh, but in a really funny scene he goes to visit his father, who never tires of humiliating hiis son by showing how he outranks him. What to do? He tours the factory in a sequence that demonstrates again and again the visual wonder of this world. But this isn't his world. He begins to think that there may be a market in the world of war toys, but Willaims and everyone else at the company feels that it isn't the company's style.

General Zevo comes up with an idea. The only reason I can reveal this idea is to explain how the film goes off the rails. The company will manufacture miniature toys armed with real bullets, missiles, and bombs. They will be controlled by children who think they are playing videogames and scoring points. When his scheme is discovered by Williams and Cusack they find themselves running through the factory pursued by the miniature war toys. Bullets are soon flying, explosions are going off, and everything leads to a battle between the evil war toys and the old innocent wind-up toys. It is here when my heart started to really sink. Why couldn't Barry Levinson come up with a more imaginative solution to stop the General than having innocent toys attack (and be blown to pieces) by war toys? Surely a movie with such imaginative setting could give us a payoff just as imaginative, couldn't it?

Robin Williams was born to play this character. He is so convincing as a man who never seemed to grow up. Again and again he uses his gift for verbal improvisation that for once doesn't stop a film dead in its tracks. Joan Cusack displays a charming innocence that many times I don't always see. At the end the secret of who her character really is doesn't come across as a surprise. And there's a nice sweet romance between Williams and Robin Wright Penn as a new employee. And all during the opening, first act, and middle, is that wonderful look. The production designer Ferdinand Scafforeili was nominated for an Academy Award, and perhaps should have received a special achievement for it.

So, TOYS has a magnificent extravagant look, terrific performances, and even some really sweet and delightful music (especially the opening song). But it doesn't have an imaginative conclusion or a good third act. I guess I will recommend this film. Its good qualities really are the price of admission. But ask yourself, what was that ending all about?

Robin Williams adds charm to any movie hes in. TOYS is no exception. The sets are surreal, the music is hip and original, and the cast is well selected. Joan Cusack, LL Cool J doing what he should be instead of signing, and others. The movie is rather deep in theme as it tells the story of good against evil. However, knee-slapping humor is impecably weaved through every potentially boring scene. A lover of poetic justice and plain old fun movies will enjoy TOYS.

I was quite surprised to see 48 reviews for this obscure movie. I know it is a "love it or hate it" film, but I have to admit I am in the former group. I first saw this movie while spending the night in a hotel in Garmisch, Germany; and I was so drawn into it I put off dinner (hard for me to do with the excellent food in Germany) until it was over. I can understand why a lot of people are disappointed with this movie, it isn't the normal Robin Williams performance. If you are expecting 'Mork and Mindy' then go rent 'Mrs Doubtfire.' I am sure some are appalled over the fact that there is a message in this movie as well, we want to see robin act like the clown prince, not tell us that violent toys are bad! However, if you can get past those two points, you are in for one of the best abstract movies of the past decade. I am glad a majority of the reviews are in favor of this movie, it may not have made a lot of money at the box office but it is cinematic art.

... ten years ago was because I heard from a friend that Ione Skye had a pair of nude scenes in it. However, I found myself completely taken in by the movie...One scene in particular was priceless. Rachel has just climbed into a taxi and closed the door but left open the window. Just as Charles works up the nerve to try to kiss her through the window and leans foreward, the cab pulls away. The look on his face is pitiful. But when you see her smile back, it's just magical...Oh by the way, Ione Skye DOES take off her clothes repeatedly, so guys who normally shun this sort of movie have a valid reason to watch it, too!

A very good movie, not quite up to the standard of the book it is based on (and follows rather closely).

The book was written from the point of view of the main character, but it has two voices. One was Charles Highway's inner meanderings and pronouncements, the other (still by Charles) was the unadorned, unanalysed description of the things that happened to him. And generally there is a glaring difference between the two - they don't match up. In the view of the first voice, Charles is a wise and funny schemer. But the events related in the second voice show him to be inept, unlucky, and chronically unsure of himself. The ending was similarly riven. You can't tell if things ended-up the way they did by choice or design. Perhaps the author didn't know.

So anyway, the movie has to deal with that dichotomy, and it does it by pretty much ignoring the second voice. Charles comes across as boastful and shallow, for the most part, and a lot less likeable. The film also has to drop a lot of his hilarious caustic monolgues, so it's less funny than the book, too. That being said, there's enough left to allow fans of the book to fill in the blanks, and it doesn't attempt to force in a standard Hollywood ending. Plus the three main actors and the supporting cast were very good - Jonathon Pryce as Charles' deranged uncle is so good that it's hard to keep your eyes on Ione Skye in the few scenes they have together.

Perhaps not on par with the novel but more accessible. Although brilliant and highly original, I think Martin Amis' first book contains some obscure passages and insider English schoolboy jokes. Also, the 1970's setting of the book has been replaced by the 1980's in the movie.

Ione Skye and Dexter Fletcher portray the growing relationship between Rachel & Charles rather well. James Spader fills in nicely as DeForest, the rival boyfriend. The college scene with Michael Gambon as Doctor Knowd is particularly humorous.

A good study in adolescence.

... ten years ago was because I heard from a friend that Ione Skye had a pair of nude scenes in it. However, I found myself completely taken in by the movie...One scene in particular was priceless. Rachel has just climbed into a taxi and closed the door but left open the window. Just as Charles works up the nerve to try to kiss her through the window and leans foreward, the cab pulls away. The look on his face is pitiful. But when you see her smile back, it's just magical...Oh by the way, Ione Skye DOES take off her clothes repeatedly, so guys who normally shun this sort of movie have a valid reason to watch it, too!

A very good movie, not quite up to the standard of the book it is based on (and follows rather closely).

The book was written from the point of view of the main character, but it has two voices. One was Charles Highway's inner meanderings and pronouncements, the other (still by Charles) was the unadorned, unanalysed description of the things that happened to him. And generally there is a glaring difference between the two - they don't match up. In the view of the first voice, Charles is a wise and funny schemer. But the events related in the second voice show him to be inept, unlucky, and chronically unsure of himself. The ending was similarly riven. You can't tell if things ended-up the way they did by choice or design. Perhaps the author didn't know.

So anyway, the movie has to deal with that dichotomy, and it does it by pretty much ignoring the second voice. Charles comes across as boastful and shallow, for the most part, and a lot less likeable. The film also has to drop a lot of his hilarious caustic monolgues, so it's less funny than the book, too. That being said, there's enough left to allow fans of the book to fill in the blanks, and it doesn't attempt to force in a standard Hollywood ending. Plus the three main actors and the supporting cast were very good - Jonathon Pryce as Charles' deranged uncle is so good that it's hard to keep your eyes on Ione Skye in the few scenes they have together.

Perhaps not on par with the novel but more accessible. Although brilliant and highly original, I think Martin Amis' first book contains some obscure passages and insider English schoolboy jokes. Also, the 1970's setting of the book has been replaced by the 1980's in the movie.

Ione Skye and Dexter Fletcher portray the growing relationship between Rachel & Charles rather well. James Spader fills in nicely as DeForest, the rival boyfriend. The college scene with Michael Gambon as Doctor Knowd is particularly humorous.

A good study in adolescence.

This film was apparently in theaters for so short a time, I'd never heard of it until I saw it on video. Too bad. Then, when I read reviews of it, Julia Roberts seemed to get universally blasted for her portrayal of the title character. After watching it, I can't imagine why, except that they believe her fans only want to see her in a romantic comedy - this film was apparently promoted as a Roberts vehicle, which it isn't. It is, however, a perfect example of a Malkovich vehicle. He is perfectly cast as the good/evil Jekyll/Hyde in this rendition of the story with its inherently sexual overtones. No matter what you read elsewhere by professional critics, both performances were excellent, and Malkovich and Roberts were wonderful together. In fact, the sexual intensity is so hot, in spite of (or maybe because of) the film's slow pace, I nearly needed a cold shower by the end. As for the complaints about Roberts' accent, I found it amusing that she should be blamed for attempting one, while Malkovich seems to always be criticized for never doing so.

The film as a whole was less than perfect (hence only four stars), but this does not distract from the experience. Specific problems are addressed in a review below this one, however, what I believe caused so much negative publicity was the film's being mercilessly compared to Dangerous Liaisons (same writer, director, also Malkovich and Close). In my opinion, that is like comparing your second, but above average child unfavorably to his genius older sibling - It doesn't imply that Mary Reilly is not worth watching. See it - don't let critics make your decisions for you.

The movie rolls in and out with fog for a reason. You may argue that you didn't like Julia Roberts so-so Irish accent or that the movie was too slow but if you can't see the method behind the madness of this film let me enlighten you. The whole movie drifts as a nightmare of fog. The slow part is due to this floating horrible sense of dread that drifts you through these mysterious places that would tend to seem normal but aren't for some unexplainable reason. It's clear that the bounds of reality and dream seem to mingle throughout this movie, and in most part is very disturbing because of this almost expressionist like effect. But this effect works together with the music to achieve this feeling of lurking fear. In one scene that really scared me, a normal act by the workers of an eel being skinned later turns into a horrible dream by Mary of the dead thing rising and staring at her. The film goes even further than the normal Jekyll and Hyde duality theme, showing that there is duality in almost everything. The day and the night, consciousness and dream, human and beast, love and lust, and for the most part starts to blend the ideas into the normal course of a servant's everyday life. Although Jekyll and Hyde are a good and evil influence on the film they are not shown as much because it's dreamscape is through that of Mary. So it shows him not as the tortured victim of a supernatural will battle that he saw himself as but as a mysterious, psychotic, nightmare being that fleshes itself out throughout the film as a real person. In fact the whole movie becomes more real as it progresses. The movie is a very good example of psychological, dream-like terror that is often disturbing and one of the better versions of the Jekyll and Hyde story, only bested by the silent John Barrymore version.

this was a different part for Julia Roberts, but I have to admit, she pulled it off!! I think she did great, this was a awsome movie. Dark, gothic, romantic, and all-around good movie. It was very entertaining. I highly enjoyed it, its a different kind of Dr.Jekel and Mr. Hyde movie, but a good one!!!

This film was apparently in theaters for so short a time, I'd never heard of it until I saw it on video. Too bad. Then, when I read reviews of it, Julia Roberts seemed to get universally blasted for her portrayal of the title character. After watching it, I can't imagine why, except that they believe her fans only want to see her in a romantic comedy - this film was apparently promoted as a Roberts vehicle, which it isn't. It is, however, a perfect example of a Malkovich vehicle. He is perfectly cast as the good/evil Jekyll/Hyde in this rendition of the story with its inherently sexual overtones. No matter what you read elsewhere by professional critics, both performances were excellent, and Malkovich and Roberts were wonderful together. In fact, the sexual intensity is so hot, in spite of (or maybe because of) the film's slow pace, I nearly needed a cold shower by the end. As for the complaints about Roberts' accent, I found it amusing that she should be blamed for attempting one, while Malkovich seems to always be criticized for never doing so.

The film as a whole was less than perfect (hence only four stars), but this does not distract from the experience. Specific problems are addressed in a review below this one, however, what I believe caused so much negative publicity was the film's being mercilessly compared to Dangerous Liaisons (same writer, director, also Malkovich and Close). In my opinion, that is like comparing your second, but above average child unfavorably to his genius older sibling - It doesn't imply that Mary Reilly is not worth watching. See it - don't let critics make your decisions for you.

The movie rolls in and out with fog for a reason. You may argue that you didn't like Julia Roberts so-so Irish accent or that the movie was too slow but if you can't see the method behind the madness of this film let me enlighten you. The whole movie drifts as a nightmare of fog. The slow part is due to this floating horrible sense of dread that drifts you through these mysterious places that would tend to seem normal but aren't for some unexplainable reason. It's clear that the bounds of reality and dream seem to mingle throughout this movie, and in most part is very disturbing because of this almost expressionist like effect. But this effect works together with the music to achieve this feeling of lurking fear. In one scene that really scared me, a normal act by the workers of an eel being skinned later turns into a horrible dream by Mary of the dead thing rising and staring at her. The film goes even further than the normal Jekyll and Hyde duality theme, showing that there is duality in almost everything. The day and the night, consciousness and dream, human and beast, love and lust, and for the most part starts to blend the ideas into the normal course of a servant's everyday life. Although Jekyll and Hyde are a good and evil influence on the film they are not shown as much because it's dreamscape is through that of Mary. So it shows him not as the tortured victim of a supernatural will battle that he saw himself as but as a mysterious, psychotic, nightmare being that fleshes itself out throughout the film as a real person. In fact the whole movie becomes more real as it progresses. The movie is a very good example of psychological, dream-like terror that is often disturbing and one of the better versions of the Jekyll and Hyde story, only bested by the silent John Barrymore version.

this was a different part for Julia Roberts, but I have to admit, she pulled it off!! I think she did great, this was a awsome movie. Dark, gothic, romantic, and all-around good movie. It was very entertaining. I highly enjoyed it, its a different kind of Dr.Jekel and Mr. Hyde movie, but a good one!!!

Helen Mirren is an actress I really enjoy and her performance here as a woman trapped between the horrible and the norrendous is amazing. Part of what makes this movie so incredible is that the sets tend to revolve around her in a coloristic fashion, that she can change depending upon the room's decor. One day I'm sure clothing will possess this property and we'll all be constantly changing but here done as an entire set it is revolutionary.
An unhappy woman, trapped in a brutal marriage to a beastial man isn't new ground but what is new is how the story unfolds. That their personal war begisn to manifest as casualties through her affair and their lives and eventually everyone rises to choose sides. there is a point when a man's brutality can be so extreme that even the frightened decide its safer to die than to live under him and thats what happens here.
There's also teh concept of what is love and what is the extreme of love. We as creatures who have generally chosen to be carnivorous consume for life and yet we don't consume our lovers. Here that is put to the test of not something as simple as cannibalism but as a test to devotion beyond revulsion and a desire to truly maintain a conenction to a dead lover.

I don't get it. Leprechaun 2 is available on DVD, and this isn't.

I remember when this was released, it had just gotten a very positive review in the NY Times, and the theater was packed. Well, by the end of the film, there were plenty of empty seats. I've never seen so many people walk out on a movie, or in such a steady flow. It was as though the people who found it distasteful had very different levels of tolerance, or perhaps that the film offered an unusually broad selection of potentially offensive subjects. There were actually people who walked out during the last 10 minutes. Still, there were plenty of viewers who were transfixed by this exquisite film, including me. In fact, I had to go see it again the very next day. I can't remember being quite so affected by any movie.

Helen Mirren and Michael Gambon are both very good here, but what really sets this film apart are the stunning, painterly compositions and the lush cinematography (by Sacha Vierny). The brutal violence, the dialogue, the characters and plot all serve as a background to the film's dazzling visual spectacle. This inversion is somewhat typical of Peter Greenaway's films in general, but this is perhaps his masterpiece. In short, I can't imagine a more necessary addition to the DVD canon.

For some reason, the music (boy singing) or the colors or the horror or the humor, this movie has stuck in my mind for years until I finally had to buy my own copy. It is not for the gentle hearted, as the images are often repulsive while still being artistic. The customer who said "if you like good food you will like this movie" was cruel, and I hope nobody takes him seriously. I highly recommend it for anyone who likes to be disturbed and repulsed while watching beautiful art on a grand scale of opulence.

Helen Mirren is an actress I really enjoy and her performance here as a woman trapped between the horrible and the norrendous is amazing. Part of what makes this movie so incredible is that the sets tend to revolve around her in a coloristic fashion, that she can change depending upon the room's decor. One day I'm sure clothing will possess this property and we'll all be constantly changing but here done as an entire set it is revolutionary.
An unhappy woman, trapped in a brutal marriage to a beastial man isn't new ground but what is new is how the story unfolds. That their personal war begisn to manifest as casualties through her affair and their lives and eventually everyone rises to choose sides. there is a point when a man's brutality can be so extreme that even the frightened decide its safer to die than to live under him and thats what happens here.
There's also teh concept of what is love and what is the extreme of love. We as creatures who have generally chosen to be carnivorous consume for life and yet we don't consume our lovers. Here that is put to the test of not something as simple as cannibalism but as a test to devotion beyond revulsion and a desire to truly maintain a conenction to a dead lover.

I don't get it. Leprechaun 2 is available on DVD, and this isn't.

I remember when this was released, it had just gotten a very positive review in the NY Times, and the theater was packed. Well, by the end of the film, there were plenty of empty seats. I've never seen so many people walk out on a movie, or in such a steady flow. It was as though the people who found it distasteful had very different levels of tolerance, or perhaps that the film offered an unusually broad selection of potentially offensive subjects. There were actually people who walked out during the last 10 minutes. Still, there were plenty of viewers who were transfixed by this exquisite film, including me. In fact, I had to go see it again the very next day. I can't remember being quite so affected by any movie.

Helen Mirren and Michael Gambon are both very good here, but what really sets this film apart are the stunning, painterly compositions and the lush cinematography (by Sacha Vierny). The brutal violence, the dialogue, the characters and plot all serve as a background to the film's dazzling visual spectacle. This inversion is somewhat typical of Peter Greenaway's films in general, but this is perhaps his masterpiece. In short, I can't imagine a more necessary addition to the DVD canon.

For some reason, the music (boy singing) or the colors or the horror or the humor, this movie has stuck in my mind for years until I finally had to buy my own copy. It is not for the gentle hearted, as the images are often repulsive while still being artistic. The customer who said "if you like good food you will like this movie" was cruel, and I hope nobody takes him seriously. I highly recommend it for anyone who likes to be disturbed and repulsed while watching beautiful art on a grand scale of opulence.

I caught this film late at night on t.v. It is completely different than what the cover suggests. However, it is interesting to see how a "one character" film can be pulled off. It is an often sad film, but the lonely "Link" (as I refer to him) had some amusing moments. Watch for the scene in which he eats berries and they have a bombastic gastrointestinal result! Not a bad film, just different.

I just chanced to see this movie several years ago and was blown away by it. Some of the nature scenes were so strange that I really was not sure they were real at first. It presents some very interesting ideas about humanity and also about drugs. I almost never care to see a movie more than once but have probably watched this one a dozen times. The actor who plays the "link" really had an opportunity to be creative and does a fantastic job of being nearly human.

This is one of my favorite films. It grabs you and holds you down. It's very moving and makes you think. There is a little bit of the missing link in all of us. I tried forever to find a copy of it---finally I got it by talking a video store owner into selling me his--the only one I could find anywhere. This should be required viewing in high schools. Maybe we'd all think a little more before we did things. Excellent, fantastic, but, sadly, I think, most people wouldn't "get it".

Review by catswalk