Winona-Ryder Movie Reviews

A gentle chick flick with a token male, Mermaids nominally stars Cher, but is really a dramatic coming out party for Winona Ryder. I'd forgotten how winsome (no pun intended) Hollywood's most notorious shoplifter could be.

Mermaids is about a wandering "family" of mom "Rachel Flax" (Cher), and her daughters "Charlotte" (a teenaged Ryder) and "Kate" (a very young Christina Ricci). Following another of countless relationships gone bad, Rachel has moved the girls yet again, to a small town in New England, in the early 1960s. We are supposed to find the family endearingly eccentric, and though this shtick is forced, it works with Ryder's Charlotte, and early in the picture, with Cher's Rachel. Mermaids was made in 1990, when the "eccentric"/"fish out water" fad was heating up, beginning with Twin Peaks (and then Northern Exposure), etc., except that instead of a town full of eccentrics, here we get eccentrics in a staid town.

Mom is supposedly a slut, but the locals do not make the family suffer for her "loose" behavior; indeed, the town's character is not fleshed out.

As noted, Cher, who was then living off of her best actress Oscar for 1987's Moonstruck, gets top billing, but she basically bulls through her scenes on star power, and as the picture progresses, is on screen less and less. Her Rachel Flax neglects her daughters, who get into trouble in her absence. You might say that she neglects the viewer, too. How can a "star" be absent from the screen as much as she is? It's as if the director, Richard Benjamin, had a change of heart halfway through filming, and decided to shift the focus of the story. Or perhaps Benjamin, the third director - the others were Lasse Hallstrom and Frank Oz -- on a troubled production, was caught between two semi-rewritten, June Roberts scripts. (Some reports blamed Cher for the contretemps.)

Whatever dramatic interest the movie generates is through Ryder, who herself replaced Emily Lloyd, who reportedly walked off with director #1, Lasse Hallstrom. To the degree that Mermaids functions as a movie, it is as the coming-of-age story of this demure yet blossoming Jewish teenager who wants to become a nun, and who when she gets her first kiss, thinks she is pregnant, bound for a virgin birth. And yet, such cutesy naivete doesn't fit the daughter of a mother who's been around the block as many times as Rachel Flax has.

Bob Hoskins' character, "Lou Landsky," pops up early in the picture, has an affair with Cher's Rachel, and apparently employs Charlotte (for one brief scene, at least) in his odd, mixed-use store. While the affair continues for the rest of the picture, Hoskins' character is dribbled away. I guess the production team decided, "That's enough for the guy; this is a chick flick, not The Terminator." But Mermaids sank at the box office.

Mermaids has been identified as a coming-of-age story, but that is merely one of the many tossed-off themes in June Roberts' underdeveloped script.

While entertaining, Mermaids is a movie with only one fully fleshed-out character and some nice scenes, but something less than a story.

The Critical Critic, September 20, 2003

This is one of my favorite movies. It has drama, excitement, laughter and tears. The characters are unique, even bizarre individuals, and yet they ring true. There's some great acting by everyone, and it's a "must see" for Winona Ryder fans.

This is a great family movie, Cher's performance in this movie is so great. It tells the story of a Jewish family who is constantly moving because Mrs. Flax (Cher) is always causing some kind of gossip in the town and ends up moving all the time. Charlotte (Winonna Ryder) plays an odd teenager, who is in love with a caretaker, and can't keep her mind off of him. The synopsis is great, and filled with two hours of great comedy played out by two great actresses. This is a must see movie.

The soundtrack is great. Fun pop songs ("Johnny Angel", "Mambo Italiano") are worked into the movie, making certain scenes particularly memorable. In particular, I loved the scene with the song "If You Want to Be Happy". (Yes, the song is mean-spirited and offensive, but after seeing these women "reclaim" it, it always makes me smile!)
Check this out!

maybe it has been released, if it's, somebody awake me please, couse i am looking for it since december 2002... and the movie is amazing..

I never saw "Lucas" in the theaters, but it was rerun frequently in the late 80s and 90s on Fox on Saturday afternoons. I don't know that a more serious story has ever been offered to the teen audience--I can think of "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", but it doesn't have as wide a reality appeal for most.

"Lucas" is the story of a boy--promoted early to high school--who has an adult intellect with a child's understandings. His academic confidence has been his best friend, but he is willing to abandon it for the girl he has fallen in love with. It is the kind of film that should be taken more to heart; an exhibition in how the "other half" lives--both Lucas and the other suitors find they have allowed myths (of the high school kind) to keep them from understanding each other.

The music in this film is a treasure. Like "E. T.", the music conveys the emotions of the person--making a dramatic scene all that more tender (as in a fresh wound).

I don't approve of the language, and until it was relased on VHS/DVD I didn't realize it does have "that word", but it is a good conversation piece for adults (read: parents/caregivers/teachers) and children (13+).

I can relate very well to this film. I saw it my senior year of high school in 1991, but I didn't notice how true it rang for me until today. Like Lucas, I was unpopular but outgoing. Many students looked down on me because I was in special education and was considered 'stupid'. I also had a crush on a cheerleader and did everything to get her attention. And also like Lucas, my heart was crushed when she decided to date a football player. I was even told by one of the teachers to stick with my own kind (he didn't say those EXACT words, but it sounded that way) when he talked to her about me. The good news was the pain I felt healed in time.

That is why I like Lucas. It is a movie I can relate to, and is full of honesty. Unlike a few other 80s teen films, it doesn't stereotype it's characters. Lucas is not a stereotypical geek because he is interesting, Cappy is not your stereotypical jock because he has a good heart and looks out for Lucas, and Maggie is not your stereotypical high school cheerleader because she doesn't act snotty. Looking back on this film now would be a trip through innocence because many of the main stars have had their share of trouble in recent years. Still, if you want to watch a great film that takes an honest look at teen angst, 'Lucas' hits the right buttons.

The year I was born had many great movies including Top Gun, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Stand By Me, and of course Lucas. This was one of the more touching movies I've ever seen and it made you just want to be poor Lucas'(Corey Haim) friend. I really didn't see any flaws in it. Kerri Green and Charlie Sheen also had really good performances. I will not forget this movie soon because it's really touching. It's a film that says don't change who you are because you're wonderful and someday people will love you for that and it's okay to be different. I'd recommend it to anybody who has been the the oddball and just needed to be accepted somewhere. This film should have gotten more praise in the 80's because it really deserves it. See it-you won't regret it--I know I sure didn't.

Lucas is a good movie.It has comedy, drama and romance all in one film.You get to see all the famous actors like Corey haim,kerri green,charlie sheen and wynoda ryder when they were just teenagers.This is a must see movie,even though it came out in the mid-80's it's still a good one.Lucas is for the whole family to enjoy.

I never saw "Lucas" in the theaters, but it was rerun frequently in the late 80s and 90s on Fox on Saturday afternoons. I don't know that a more serious story has ever been offered to the teen audience--I can think of "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", but it doesn't have as wide a reality appeal for most.

"Lucas" is the story of a boy--promoted early to high school--who has an adult intellect with a child's understandings. His academic confidence has been his best friend, but he is willing to abandon it for the girl he has fallen in love with. It is the kind of film that should be taken more to heart; an exhibition in how the "other half" lives--both Lucas and the other suitors find they have allowed myths (of the high school kind) to keep them from understanding each other.

The music in this film is a treasure. Like "E. T.", the music conveys the emotions of the person--making a dramatic scene all that more tender (as in a fresh wound).

I don't approve of the language, and until it was relased on VHS/DVD I didn't realize it does have "that word", but it is a good conversation piece for adults (read: parents/caregivers/teachers) and children (13+).

The year I was born had many great movies including Top Gun, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Stand By Me, and of course Lucas. This was one of the more touching movies I've ever seen and it made you just want to be poor Lucas'(Corey Haim) friend. I really didn't see any flaws in it. Kerri Green and Charlie Sheen also had really good performances. I will not forget this movie soon because it's really touching. It's a film that says don't change who you are because you're wonderful and someday people will love you for that and it's okay to be different. I'd recommend it to anybody who has been the the oddball and just needed to be accepted somewhere. This film should have gotten more praise in the 80's because it really deserves it. See it-you won't regret it--I know I sure didn't.

LOOKING FOR RICHARD is a light but surprisingly potent documentary tracing the discovery of Shakespeare's RICHARD III. The film is unique, giving expert status to actors and their thought process behind their character study over scholarly experts and interviews. Scattered throughout are scenic performances. The result is rather fun, following Al around several towns where they are in constant discussion over the play, even while getting ejected from a sidewalk cafe for filming without a permit. This is a terrific alternative for learning the difficult story of Richard, one plagued by several relationships and quite a bit of historical back story. If you are a Shakespeare fan and like the back stage view, check out this and... DISCOVERING HAMLET.

The brilliance of this movie is its effort to show us exactly why Shakespeare is still relevant to us today. My personal favorite was the homeless, toothless man who believed that a violent society was the result of our failure to appreciate Shakespearean language and idiom.

However, as a PhD student in British history, I was dismayed by the lack of historical context presented by Pacino, his coterie of actors, and particularly the scholars interviewed. I nearly fell off the couch when one literature professor said that he didn't know why Richard had married Anne Neville in real life. Folks, SHAKESPEARE IS NOT REAL HISTORY. As with most playwrights, the Bard edits and telescopes events to suit his own purposes--in this case, the presentation of the Richmond branch of the Lancastrians as the rightful heirs to the throne. Richard was not hunchbacked or deformed; Queen Elizabeth Woodville was a conniving schemer with an army of grasping relatives, not the innocent we see in the play; Richard and Anne married for love nearly 15 years before Edward IV's death; Richard himself probably neither committed, approved, nor knew about his nephews' murder. A Shakespearean film or play can only be truly appreciated within its historical context, as only then do we see the deft touch of the writer as he manipulates events into his own narrative.

Although Richard III is one of Shakespeare's most violent and Gothic plays, Pacino's loving and intelligent exploration of the classic tragedy - and the legendary bard who penned it - emerges as one of Pacino's most compelling and inspiring films. A movie that makes me proud to be an Italian-American studying for his Ph.D. in British literature.

I actually saw this movie when it was released in 1993, and honestly it was pretty dull then. Of course I was 22, and the workings of that late-1800's New York society really didn't make much sense or have much relevance.

I think the film may have been ignored at its release because of the slew of other "period pieces" which were so popular (an eventually common) in the late 80's/early 90's... But watching it again 10 years later, this film is anything but common.

The true intensity is Scorcese's detached presentation of a hypocritical & hateful society which holds its members as prisoners.

Not to mention impeccable art direction & beautiful cinematography by the legendary Michael Ballhaus. The film looks as impressionistic as the paintings that line the walls of the characters' homes.

Scorsese is always acute in his casting decisions, and this is one of the films many virtues:

Lewis is perfect as a man who's struggle between his passion & his duty are constantly on the verge of devouring him (yet somehow he thrives on his torture).

Ryder is the seemingly innocent & naive girl who is completely manipulative & cunning underneath her exterior (gee, who would have thought?!) -- notice the arching scene.

In a sense, this was one of Pfeiffer's defining roles. Pfeiffer herself (in a sense) is an "outcast" who has never truly been accepted as a "serious" actress by her peers in the acting community. Watching this film again, it amazes me how this role somehow reflects her personal position in the current social structure of Hollywood, similar to her character existing in 1800's New York society.

Wow...

What an amazing pic. I completely "missed it" the first time around. Great observance of "high society." Many of those codes are strangely applicable today.

Not recommended for those who like fast paced movies, or those who are looking for the "usual Scorcese." I would couple this with "Last Temptation of Christ" as Scorsese's most brave, artistic, demanding & abstract films to date.

Martin Scorsese was an unlikely choice indeed to direct this piece, but what a wonderful job he did! It is a visual masterpiece and very, very true to its time (1870s upper New York).

I still have yet to see the entire movie all in one sitting, but I've seen it in pieces several times. The opera and formal dinner parties and drawing room tensions are all beautifully filmed, as well as scripted. I've yet to find the time to read Edith Wharton's novel but the film seems true enough.

A young man, Newland Archer (an exquisite Daniel-Day Lewis) is engaged to a seemingly naive and truly sweet-tempered woman (Winona Ryder). He is distracted by her lovely cousin, Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer). It seems Newland has been in love with Ellen all along, but held his tongue as she went off to Europe to marry a rich count of Poland. Now she's back in New York, quietly though assertively calling for a divorce.

She is the bane of society, though everyone is too polite to come out and say it. Newland pursues a dialogue with Ellen and wants more from her, but Ellen knows what's best for her admirer. She finally tells him once and for all that she won't have him. This is of course after he's married May.

May's manipulative qualities don't really surface til the end of the movie, but they are there. The last thirty or so minutes detail Newland's married life. We watch his children grow and marry the children of his collegues. The last character to be introduced is Ted (Robert Sean Leonard), whose role was too small for me (I'm a big fan of RSL).

However, besides the beautiful cinematography, the best thing to explore is polite New York society and how vicious it truly is. 'The Age of Innocence' is one of my favorite movies because of its truth, its dialogue, and its color.

Martin Scorsese's adaptation of Edith Wharton's exquisite tragedy of manners "The Age of Innocence" is a lush, meticulously staged, heartbreakingly gorgeous but hideously painful experience to watch: it is a tale of two young people, lured away from societal restraint and social decency by Passion, ensaring themselves in a Death Trap, one that will claim their lives, reputations, and souls.

Watching "The Age of Innocence" is like watching some glorious rare bird, entrapped in a gilded, gem-studded cage, fight its way to freedom---even though the bars of the cage bristle with diamond shards and daggers. We know the bird is doomed; we know the wages of Passion is Death. We watch anyway, transfixed.

Published in the 1920's, Edith Wharton's "Age of Innocence" was a scrupulous study of a society that had already been obliterated by a rapidly changing, far less 'innocent' continental Republic. In the novel and the movie, we are ensconced in unspoken yet binding social contrivances of New York of the 1870's, and quickly introduced to a bizarre menage a trois of striking characters: Newland Archer (played to the nuanced, agonized hilt by Daniel Day Lewis), a young and bold attorney, comfortably settled in New York society yet not a leading light; May Welland (played all sweetness and light---and cunning---by an effective Winona Ryder), born into a solid family, a blithe spirit projecting innocence, and Newland's fiancee; and the Countess Ellen Olenska (played by Michelle Pfeifer, in a role tailor-made for her), May's cousin, a New Yorker ensnared in a marriage of convenience to a disreputable European count of dissolute habits and degenerate nature.

Archer, initially suspicious and disapproving of the unconvential and slightly disreputable Countess Olenska, succumbs quickly to her charms and is smitten; passion unfolds; disaster, precictably, follows.

This intricately crafted, meticulously guilded Age of Innocence is made innocent, of course, by its merciless social strictures, its severe, sere social codes. Scorsese introduces us to this beautiful, fragile, wickedly punishing bell jar of social mores and etiquette, delves deep into its evanescent detail, its galleries of paintings and tapestries, its sitting rooms of studied gentlemen cutting and lighthing their cigars, its panoply of dinner plates and intricately crafted repasts.

"The Age of Innocence" follows the excruciatingly painful, totally surreptious battle waged between Olenska and her would-be lover Newland Archer versus Decent Society. Scorsese has a deft, steady hand here: the visions of 1870's New York high society are so clear, so rich, so lush, so vibrant that they bring tears to your eyes; kudos should go to Scorcese's faithful German cinematographer Michael Ballhaus ("Goodfellas", "Gangs of New York"), who also produced the riveting lushness of Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula"---small wonder "Age of Innocence" resembles 'Dracula' in atmosphere, richness, and ambience.

But whereas Coppola's bloodsuckers drank the blood of their unwitting prey, Scorsese's vampires feast on the reputation and integrity of their fallen victims. This is a meticulously balanced society in which social regard and worth is measured in thank-you notes and milliseconds; it is an artificial construct, perfectly presented by Scorsese, which is as unbearably, unworkably fragile as it is judgmental.

The acting here is uniformly solid: Daniel Day-Lewis is note-perfect as the conflicted Archer, Pfeifer woefully diplomatic as the frustrated Olenska, Ryder confident in her role as a latter-day Machiavelli on the Hudson, all smiles and naive charm. Backing up the leads is a veritable host of veteran actors, including Richard Grant as the sneering Larry Lefferts, Miriam Margolyes as a shrewd but effusive Mrs. Mingott, the impeccable Stuart Wilson as the mustachio-twirling "villain" Julius Beaufort (an engine of destruction for this 'age of innocence'), and a besieged Mary Beth Hurt as Beaufort's long-suffering wife.

As painful as first love, as acute as the death of a beloved friend, "The Age of Innocence" is a breathtaking, living, breathing work of art. But the casual viewer, unarmed for its force, should beware: here be Dragons.

I actually saw this movie when it was released in 1993, and honestly it was pretty dull then. Of course I was 22, and the workings of that late-1800's New York society really didn't make much sense or have much relevance.

I think the film may have been ignored at its release because of the slew of other "period pieces" which were so popular (an eventually common) in the late 80's/early 90's... But watching it again 10 years later, this film is anything but common.

The true intensity is Scorcese's detached presentation of a hypocritical & hateful society which holds its members as prisoners.

Not to mention impeccable art direction & beautiful cinematography by the legendary Michael Ballhaus. The film looks as impressionistic as the paintings that line the walls of the characters' homes.

Scorsese is always acute in his casting decisions, and this is one of the films many virtues:

Lewis is perfect as a man who's struggle between his passion & his duty are constantly on the verge of devouring him (yet somehow he thrives on his torture).

Ryder is the seemingly innocent & naive girl who is completely manipulative & cunning underneath her exterior (gee, who would have thought?!) -- notice the arching scene.

In a sense, this was one of Pfeiffer's defining roles. Pfeiffer herself (in a sense) is an "outcast" who has never truly been accepted as a "serious" actress by her peers in the acting community. Watching this film again, it amazes me how this role somehow reflects her personal position in the current social structure of Hollywood, similar to her character existing in 1800's New York society.

Wow...

What an amazing pic. I completely "missed it" the first time around. Great observance of "high society." Many of those codes are strangely applicable today.

Not recommended for those who like fast paced movies, or those who are looking for the "usual Scorcese." I would couple this with "Last Temptation of Christ" as Scorsese's most brave, artistic, demanding & abstract films to date.

Martin Scorsese was an unlikely choice indeed to direct this piece, but what a wonderful job he did! It is a visual masterpiece and very, very true to its time (1870s upper New York).

I still have yet to see the entire movie all in one sitting, but I've seen it in pieces several times. The opera and formal dinner parties and drawing room tensions are all beautifully filmed, as well as scripted. I've yet to find the time to read Edith Wharton's novel but the film seems true enough.

A young man, Newland Archer (an exquisite Daniel-Day Lewis) is engaged to a seemingly naive and truly sweet-tempered woman (Winona Ryder). He is distracted by her lovely cousin, Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer). It seems Newland has been in love with Ellen all along, but held his tongue as she went off to Europe to marry a rich count of Poland. Now she's back in New York, quietly though assertively calling for a divorce.

She is the bane of society, though everyone is too polite to come out and say it. Newland pursues a dialogue with Ellen and wants more from her, but Ellen knows what's best for her admirer. She finally tells him once and for all that she won't have him. This is of course after he's married May.

May's manipulative qualities don't really surface til the end of the movie, but they are there. The last thirty or so minutes detail Newland's married life. We watch his children grow and marry the children of his collegues. The last character to be introduced is Ted (Robert Sean Leonard), whose role was too small for me (I'm a big fan of RSL).

However, besides the beautiful cinematography, the best thing to explore is polite New York society and how vicious it truly is. 'The Age of Innocence' is one of my favorite movies because of its truth, its dialogue, and its color.

Martin Scorsese's adaptation of Edith Wharton's exquisite tragedy of manners "The Age of Innocence" is a lush, meticulously staged, heartbreakingly gorgeous but hideously painful experience to watch: it is a tale of two young people, lured away from societal restraint and social decency by Passion, ensaring themselves in a Death Trap, one that will claim their lives, reputations, and souls.

Watching "The Age of Innocence" is like watching some glorious rare bird, entrapped in a gilded, gem-studded cage, fight its way to freedom---even though the bars of the cage bristle with diamond shards and daggers. We know the bird is doomed; we know the wages of Passion is Death. We watch anyway, transfixed.

Published in the 1920's, Edith Wharton's "Age of Innocence" was a scrupulous study of a society that had already been obliterated by a rapidly changing, far less 'innocent' continental Republic. In the novel and the movie, we are ensconced in unspoken yet binding social contrivances of New York of the 1870's, and quickly introduced to a bizarre menage a trois of striking characters: Newland Archer (played to the nuanced, agonized hilt by Daniel Day Lewis), a young and bold attorney, comfortably settled in New York society yet not a leading light; May Welland (played all sweetness and light---and cunning---by an effective Winona Ryder), born into a solid family, a blithe spirit projecting innocence, and Newland's fiancee; and the Countess Ellen Olenska (played by Michelle Pfeifer, in a role tailor-made for her), May's cousin, a New Yorker ensnared in a marriage of convenience to a disreputable European count of dissolute habits and degenerate nature.

Archer, initially suspicious and disapproving of the unconvential and slightly disreputable Countess Olenska, succumbs quickly to her charms and is smitten; passion unfolds; disaster, precictably, follows.

This intricately crafted, meticulously guilded Age of Innocence is made innocent, of course, by its merciless social strictures, its severe, sere social codes. Scorsese introduces us to this beautiful, fragile, wickedly punishing bell jar of social mores and etiquette, delves deep into its evanescent detail, its galleries of paintings and tapestries, its sitting rooms of studied gentlemen cutting and lighthing their cigars, its panoply of dinner plates and intricately crafted repasts.

"The Age of Innocence" follows the excruciatingly painful, totally surreptious battle waged between Olenska and her would-be lover Newland Archer versus Decent Society. Scorsese has a deft, steady hand here: the visions of 1870's New York high society are so clear, so rich, so lush, so vibrant that they bring tears to your eyes; kudos should go to Scorcese's faithful German cinematographer Michael Ballhaus ("Goodfellas", "Gangs of New York"), who also produced the riveting lushness of Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula"---small wonder "Age of Innocence" resembles 'Dracula' in atmosphere, richness, and ambience.

But whereas Coppola's bloodsuckers drank the blood of their unwitting prey, Scorsese's vampires feast on the reputation and integrity of their fallen victims. This is a meticulously balanced society in which social regard and worth is measured in thank-you notes and milliseconds; it is an artificial construct, perfectly presented by Scorsese, which is as unbearably, unworkably fragile as it is judgmental.

The acting here is uniformly solid: Daniel Day-Lewis is note-perfect as the conflicted Archer, Pfeifer woefully diplomatic as the frustrated Olenska, Ryder confident in her role as a latter-day Machiavelli on the Hudson, all smiles and naive charm. Backing up the leads is a veritable host of veteran actors, including Richard Grant as the sneering Larry Lefferts, Miriam Margolyes as a shrewd but effusive Mrs. Mingott, the impeccable Stuart Wilson as the mustachio-twirling "villain" Julius Beaufort (an engine of destruction for this 'age of innocence'), and a besieged Mary Beth Hurt as Beaufort's long-suffering wife.

As painful as first love, as acute as the death of a beloved friend, "The Age of Innocence" is a breathtaking, living, breathing work of art. But the casual viewer, unarmed for its force, should beware: here be Dragons.

Disturbing look at mental illness, what passes as mental illness, a lack of hope for long term recovery and how human these people really are. Sad, touching, honest, comic moments, and thought-provoking.

I don't usually watch the Oscar's because for many years, people and movies I expect to win, never do. So, when I see a DVD that has "Oscar nominee" or "Academy Award Winner" and even "One of the best films of the year!" on the covers, I tend to say.."yeah, right! Whatever..."

I purchased the DVD of "GIRL, INTERRUPTED" and one of the driving forces for me to buy this is for the acting of Winona Ryder (watch her eyes because those emotions are within the eyes) and Angelina Jolie that is currently the eye candy for many entertainment magazines at this time.

After watching this movie, I must say that I was actually very pleased with the storyline. It's actually a very good story and the interaction among the girls was really interesting. James Mangold said in the director's commentary that it was about adding conflict and the conflicts between Susanna and Lisa or Susanna and her nurse and of course Susanna with Susanna is very well done.

Winona Ryder is a talented actress and again her eyes play a big part in this movie. In fact, the HBO First Look: "The Making of GIRL, INTERRUPTED" goes into that. As for Angelina Jolie, she did a perfect job in playing Lisa. With all the rumors and news going around, sometimes I wonder if Angelina and Lisa share anything in common. She deserves the Academy Award for playing a convincing sociopath.

The video quality of the movie is pretty good but there are noticeable artifacts during the dark scenes. The audio is good and you don't get so much because it's a dialogue driven movie. I think the only time I heard sounds from the speakers is when they rode on the VW van and you hear the engine.

What about the extras? Well, first, let's be thankful they made it anamorphic and they included the director's commentary, deleted scenes and an isolated music score. The HBO making of is very interesting to watch and the theatrical trailers for Winona and Angelina's movies were a nice touch.

So, overall you get a pretty good DVD with a pretty good story. Some might deem this as more of a movie more for women but I think both genders can enjoy this movie. It has a nice blend of drama, comedy and a few dark moments. Check it out!

"Girl, Interrupted", one of the best dramatic films in 2000, brings a darker side of life to the screen, not only referring to the time period, but also to the subject matter. Set in the turbulent late 1960s, a time of drugs, politics, and war, it follows the life of Susanna Kaysen, more specifically her two year stay at the famed McLean Psychiatric Hospital. Diagnosed with a "borderline personality disorder", she chooses not to conform to the wishes of the head nurse (Whoopi Goldberg) and psychiatrist (Vanessa Redgrave), but to instead befriend the resident women around her. Among them, a girl who will only eat her father's chicken, a woman who loves "Alice In Wonderland", and a charmingly charismatic sociopath Lisa (Angelina Jolie), the self proclaimed ringleader of the group. But confronted with the reality of it all and the looming need to be "fixed" Susanna soon realizes that to truly escape and taste her freedom, she will need to confront her biggest fear: herself. Winona Ryder, with an air of innocense and a tremendously realistic range of emotions and talents, has one of the best performances in her career as Susanna, and Angelina Jolie delivers a jaw-dropping (and well-earned Oscar- winning) performance as the troubled Lisa. Although this film is not for the weak at heart (it has disturbing self-mutilation/suicide scenes), it is wonderful in the sense it paints a realistic picture free of inhabitions and boundaries to create a truly remarkable film achievement.

Disturbing look at mental illness, what passes as mental illness, a lack of hope for long term recovery and how human these people really are. Sad, touching, honest, comic moments, and thought-provoking.

I don't usually watch the Oscar's because for many years, people and movies I expect to win, never do. So, when I see a DVD that has "Oscar nominee" or "Academy Award Winner" and even "One of the best films of the year!" on the covers, I tend to say.."yeah, right! Whatever..."

I purchased the DVD of "GIRL, INTERRUPTED" and one of the driving forces for me to buy this is for the acting of Winona Ryder (watch her eyes because those emotions are within the eyes) and Angelina Jolie that is currently the eye candy for many entertainment magazines at this time.

After watching this movie, I must say that I was actually very pleased with the storyline. It's actually a very good story and the interaction among the girls was really interesting. James Mangold said in the director's commentary that it was about adding conflict and the conflicts between Susanna and Lisa or Susanna and her nurse and of course Susanna with Susanna is very well done.

Winona Ryder is a talented actress and again her eyes play a big part in this movie. In fact, the HBO First Look: "The Making of GIRL, INTERRUPTED" goes into that. As for Angelina Jolie, she did a perfect job in playing Lisa. With all the rumors and news going around, sometimes I wonder if Angelina and Lisa share anything in common. She deserves the Academy Award for playing a convincing sociopath.

The video quality of the movie is pretty good but there are noticeable artifacts during the dark scenes. The audio is good and you don't get so much because it's a dialogue driven movie. I think the only time I heard sounds from the speakers is when they rode on the VW van and you hear the engine.

What about the extras? Well, first, let's be thankful they made it anamorphic and they included the director's commentary, deleted scenes and an isolated music score. The HBO making of is very interesting to watch and the theatrical trailers for Winona and Angelina's movies were a nice touch.

So, overall you get a pretty good DVD with a pretty good story. Some might deem this as more of a movie more for women but I think both genders can enjoy this movie. It has a nice blend of drama, comedy and a few dark moments. Check it out!

"Girl, Interrupted", one of the best dramatic films in 2000, brings a darker side of life to the screen, not only referring to the time period, but also to the subject matter. Set in the turbulent late 1960s, a time of drugs, politics, and war, it follows the life of Susanna Kaysen, more specifically her two year stay at the famed McLean Psychiatric Hospital. Diagnosed with a "borderline personality disorder", she chooses not to conform to the wishes of the head nurse (Whoopi Goldberg) and psychiatrist (Vanessa Redgrave), but to instead befriend the resident women around her. Among them, a girl who will only eat her father's chicken, a woman who loves "Alice In Wonderland", and a charmingly charismatic sociopath Lisa (Angelina Jolie), the self proclaimed ringleader of the group. But confronted with the reality of it all and the looming need to be "fixed" Susanna soon realizes that to truly escape and taste her freedom, she will need to confront her biggest fear: herself. Winona Ryder, with an air of innocense and a tremendously realistic range of emotions and talents, has one of the best performances in her career as Susanna, and Angelina Jolie delivers a jaw-dropping (and well-earned Oscar- winning) performance as the troubled Lisa. Although this film is not for the weak at heart (it has disturbing self-mutilation/suicide scenes), it is wonderful in the sense it paints a realistic picture free of inhabitions and boundaries to create a truly remarkable film achievement.

Francis Ford Coppola does an excellent job retelling the Dracula tale using actual history blended with legend. Gary Oldman is excellent as the Count. Oldman's portrayal of the Count as a tortured man longing for the lost love of his life acutally had me feel sorry for the man. When he observes the portrait of Mina(Winona Ryder) and remembers his lost bride it is truly an awesome scene. Oldman's Count can also be bloodthirsty as well! Sir Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing is very fun to watch. To say that Van Helsing is a little nuts is an understatement! The music is also classic and it really sets the mood during the entire film. Winona Ryder as Mina playing a woman torn between the Count and her intended husband(Kneau Reeves) is well done. The most awesome scene is when the Count receives Mina's letter saying that she'll never see him again. You can feel the heartache and pain in the Count and also feel his anger. Awesome! A must see for the true Dracula fan!

This review is about "SUPERBIT COLLECTION" an outstanding Home Theatre version of Bram Stokers Dracula, a Francis Ford Coppola film.

Columbia Pictures has raised the bar on DVD video and sound quality with the new "SUPERBIT" series movies. This feature improves the picture by doubling the bit rate digital transfer. Simply, twice the picture quality of existing DVD transfers. Also the sound has been enhanced equally in performance.

NOTE: GOODS NEWS - All this can be enjoyed on existing DVD players with noticeable improvements. BAD NEWS - Its not really bad news its really the "BOTTOM LINE NEWS" - the "SUPERBIT COLLECTION IS FOR YOU IF" you have; a Home Theatre, HDTV WideScreen (Enhanced 16:9)w/Component Video, Progressive Scan DVD (480p) w/Component Video & DTS or 5.1 Sound environment. IF you have this then the "SUPERBIT COLLECTION" Dracula explodes of the screen!!!!!!

Summary: SUPERBIT Dracula directed by Francis Ford Copplola is a very beautiful photographed eerie love story. With a story line more to the tragedy of Dracula (brillantly played by Gary Oldman)than the viciousness of vampires. The detailed scenes & colors explode off the screen with this "SUPERBIT" version film. The 5.1 sound is crystal clear and adds immensely to the eeriness of this dark gothic horror film. This SUPERBIT detailed film makes for an unbelievable visual experience. Coppola does a grand job providing us with an unsusual twist in the story of Dracula.

This is the best "SUPERBIT" transfer so far in the Columbia Pictures Collection. Just remember, "SUPERBIT" was developed to give the Home Theatre owner a new improved DVD experience and they have done this with "Bram Stokers, Dracula". Enjoy.

Coppola is a friggin' genius. This is a great adaptation. The cinematography is beautiful. Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins all should've got Oscars for this. The only bad thing about the movie is Keanu Reeves. His character is so boring and his English accent is terrible.

Francis Ford Coppola does an excellent job retelling the Dracula tale using actual history blended with legend. Gary Oldman is excellent as the Count. Oldman's portrayal of the Count as a tortured man longing for the lost love of his life acutally had me feel sorry for the man. When he observes the portrait of Mina(Winona Ryder) and remembers his lost bride it is truly an awesome scene. Oldman's Count can also be bloodthirsty as well! Sir Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing is very fun to watch. To say that Van Helsing is a little nuts is an understatement! The music is also classic and it really sets the mood during the entire film. Winona Ryder as Mina playing a woman torn between the Count and her intended husband(Kneau Reeves) is well done. The most awesome scene is when the Count receives Mina's letter saying that she'll never see him again. You can feel the heartache and pain in the Count and also feel his anger. Awesome! A must see for the true Dracula fan!

This review is about "SUPERBIT COLLECTION" an outstanding Home Theatre version of Bram Stokers Dracula, a Francis Ford Coppola film.

Columbia Pictures has raised the bar on DVD video and sound quality with the new "SUPERBIT" series movies. This feature improves the picture by doubling the bit rate digital transfer. Simply, twice the picture quality of existing DVD transfers. Also the sound has been enhanced equally in performance.

NOTE: GOODS NEWS - All this can be enjoyed on existing DVD players with noticeable improvements. BAD NEWS - Its not really bad news its really the "BOTTOM LINE NEWS" - the "SUPERBIT COLLECTION IS FOR YOU IF" you have; a Home Theatre, HDTV WideScreen (Enhanced 16:9)w/Component Video, Progressive Scan DVD (480p) w/Component Video & DTS or 5.1 Sound environment. IF you have this then the "SUPERBIT COLLECTION" Dracula explodes of the screen!!!!!!

Summary: SUPERBIT Dracula directed by Francis Ford Copplola is a very beautiful photographed eerie love story. With a story line more to the tragedy of Dracula (brillantly played by Gary Oldman)than the viciousness of vampires. The detailed scenes & colors explode off the screen with this "SUPERBIT" version film. The 5.1 sound is crystal clear and adds immensely to the eeriness of this dark gothic horror film. This SUPERBIT detailed film makes for an unbelievable visual experience. Coppola does a grand job providing us with an unsusual twist in the story of Dracula.

This is the best "SUPERBIT" transfer so far in the Columbia Pictures Collection. Just remember, "SUPERBIT" was developed to give the Home Theatre owner a new improved DVD experience and they have done this with "Bram Stokers, Dracula". Enjoy.

Coppola is a friggin' genius. This is a great adaptation. The cinematography is beautiful. Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins all should've got Oscars for this. The only bad thing about the movie is Keanu Reeves. His character is so boring and his English accent is terrible.