Question: When is the shot recreated?

Arguably the best crime film of 1968, and certainly one of the most influential films of the genre...."Bullitt" established new directions in the mood and style of crime thrillers, and firmly established McQueen as one of the key anti-hero stars of the 60's. Based on the gritty novel "Mute Witness" by Robert L. Pike, this was the first, and only, time McQueen portrayed a police officer (albeit a maverick one) in his movie career. In 1968 Steve was then riding high on the success of his previous heist film, "The Thomas Crown Affair", and "Bullitt" just propelled his star even higher into the cinematic heavens !The plot is tight, economical and well crafted....taciturn, moody Detective Frank Bullitt (McQueen) is charged with the protection of a key witness vital to an upcoming trial involving Mafia connections. Whilst hidden away in a supposed secure location, the witness and his police guard are brutally gunned down by unknown assailants. The heat is turned up on Bullitt by his tough Captain (Simon Oakland) and the manipulative, opportunistic politician Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn) to come up with the right answers fast ! Between the draining investigation, Bullitt struggles to maintain his relationship with his cultured, sensitive girlfriend, Cathy (Jacqueline Bisset)Primarily coming from a TV series background, Englishman Peter Yates (directing his fourth movie) did a commendable job as director on "Bullitt"...producing a complex, intense crime thriller with a unique style that would ultimately influence many other films. Yates would later to go onto direct tough guy Robert Mitchum in the excellent 1973 "sleeper" crime film "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" !And of course "Bullitt" is reknowned for it's now legendary car chase between Frank Bullitt's 390 GT Mustang and the two hitmen in their black, Dodge Charger 440 Magnum barrelling through the city streets and highways of San Francisco....just don't pay too much attention to how many times they pass that slow-moving, green VW Beetle !!The DVD transfer is excellent in both sound and picture quality, and the Limited Edition Collectors Set with the additional goodies (Single sheet poster, shooting draft, lobby cards etc.) is a real bonus for keen film fans !!One of my favourite cop thrillers....McQueen sizzles on screen !!

Answer: the most influential films

<hl> Arguably the best crime film of 1968, and certainly one of the most influential films of the genre...."Bullitt" established new directions in the mood and style of crime thrillers, and firmly established McQueen as one of the key anti-hero stars of the 60's. <hl> Based on the gritty novel "Mute Witness" by Robert L. Pike, this was the first, and only, time McQueen portrayed a police officer (albeit a maverick one) in his movie career. In 1968 Steve was then riding high on the success of his previous heist film, "The Thomas Crown Affair", and "Bullitt" just propelled his star even higher into the cinematic heavens ! The plot is tight, economical and well crafted....taciturn, moody Detective Frank Bullitt (McQueen) is charged with the protection of a key witness vital to an upcoming trial involving Mafia connections. Whilst hidden away in a supposed secure location, the witness and his police guard are brutally gunned down by unknown assailants. The heat is turned up on Bullitt by his tough Captain (Simon Oakland) and the manipulative, opportunistic politician Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn) to come up with the right answers fast ! Between the draining investigation, Bullitt struggles to maintain his relationship with his cultured, sensitive girlfriend, Cathy (Jacqueline Bisset)Primarily coming from a TV series background, Englishman Peter Yates (directing his fourth movie) did a commendable job as director on "Bullitt"...producing a complex, intense crime thriller with a unique style that would ultimately influence many other films. Yates would later to go onto direct tough guy Robert Mitchum in the excellent 1973 "sleeper" crime film "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" ! And of course "Bullitt" is reknowned for it's now legendary car chase between Frank Bullitt's 390 GT Mustang and the two hitmen in their black, Dodge Charger 440 Magnum barrelling through the city streets and highways of San Francisco....just don't pay too much attention to how many times they pass that slow-moving, green VW Beetle !! The DVD transfer is excellent in both sound and picture quality, and the Limited Edition Collectors Set with the additional goodies (Single sheet poster, shooting draft, lobby cards etc.) is a real bonus for keen film fans !! One of my favourite cop thrillers.... McQueen sizzles on screen !!

Arguably the best crime film of 1968, and certainly one of <hl> the most influential films <hl> of the genre...."Bullitt" established new directions in the mood and style of crime thrillers, and firmly established McQueen as one of the key anti-hero stars of the 60's. Based on the gritty novel "Mute Witness" by Robert L. Pike, this was the first, and only, time McQueen portrayed a police officer (albeit a maverick one) in his movie career. In 1968 Steve was then riding high on the success of his previous heist film, "The Thomas Crown Affair", and "Bullitt" just propelled his star even higher into the cinematic heavens !The plot is tight, economical and well crafted....taciturn, moody Detective Frank Bullitt (McQueen) is charged with the protection of a key witness vital to an upcoming trial involving Mafia connections. Whilst hidden away in a supposed secure location, the witness and his police guard are brutally gunned down by unknown assailants. The heat is turned up on Bullitt by his tough Captain (Simon Oakland) and the manipulative, opportunistic politician Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn) to come up with the right answers fast ! Between the draining investigation, Bullitt struggles to maintain his relationship with his cultured, sensitive girlfriend, Cathy (Jacqueline Bisset)Primarily coming from a TV series background, Englishman Peter Yates (directing his fourth movie) did a commendable job as director on "Bullitt"...producing a complex, intense crime thriller with a unique style that would ultimately influence many other films. Yates would later to go onto direct tough guy Robert Mitchum in the excellent 1973 "sleeper" crime film "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" !And of course "Bullitt" is reknowned for it's now legendary car chase between Frank Bullitt's 390 GT Mustang and the two hitmen in their black, Dodge Charger 440 Magnum barrelling through the city streets and highways of San Francisco....just don't pay too much attention to how many times they pass that slow-moving, green VW Beetle !!The DVD transfer is excellent in both sound and picture quality, and the Limited Edition Collectors Set with the additional goodies (Single sheet poster, shooting draft, lobby cards etc.) is a real bonus for keen film fans !!One of my favourite cop thrillers....McQueen sizzles on screen !!


Question: Why is the cast phenomenal?

The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire.  He is an excellent actor.  The movie was a real treat for me as I'm going back to India this year, and I am about the age of most of the main characters.

Answer: The cast was outstanding

<hl> The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire. <hl> He is an excellent actor. The movie was a real treat for me as I'm going back to India this year, and I am about the age of most of the main characters.

<hl> The cast was outstanding <hl> and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire. He is an excellent actor. The movie was a real treat for me as I'm going back to India this year, and I am about the age of most of the main characters.


Question: How is the part?

Just watched this again on TV the other day.  The acting is simply astounding.  I can feel for the actors, as the dialogue is so atrocious that it's almost beyond belief, but still.  Were they physically prevented from doing the thing that we normally think of when the word "acting" is mentioned?  I mean, blurting out some dialogue, or reciting it as if you're making an emotionless statement, that's not acting.  Seriously, this is what I expect from fifth graders appearing in their very first school play.  It's just astonishes me every time one of the characters says something.  It's like a big, dumb, obvious summary of what's going on at the moment.  "Mom, I'm not a slave any more!"  Mom:  "All your dreams have come true."  Said with all the emotion of "Oh, you remembered to pick up the potato chips from the store."  Probably 80% of the dialogue in this movie is like this.  Most first-time script readthroughs on a soap opera must be far superior to this.  Seriously, Scooby Doo has  better acting - much, much better.  I honestly can't remember ever seeing anything like this, except maybe in the worst of the worst of Sci-Fi Originals.  And even then, it's not every member of the entire cast like it is here.Then of course there's Jar Jar, the baby talking donkey.  I guess Lucas was really reaching out for the 2 and under audience.  And the big battle at the end, with a villain we hardly know, so there's really no drama there (except what can be created with CGI), and he looks downright silly in that Halloween face paint.  Oh, let's not forget the story, as Annakin's fighter gets hit, causing him to go out of control.  He ACCIDENTALLY flies into the space station, then while shooting at some droids, ACCIDENTALLY hits the main reactor, which nicely waits for him to get to a safe distance before exploding.  Good grief, it's too stupid and pathetic to even bother criticizing.Overall, this is an astonishingly bad movie, with dialogue that keeps one in a constant state of "What the **** did I just see?".  I mean, constantly,. throughout the whole film.  The action is much the same, dumb, silly, dopey.  the tone of the movie goes from "epic drama" to dopey silliness, back and forth, pretty much every thirty seconds.  Dopey droids are vwooshed in half by the increasingly boring sounds of light sabers, which now look more like a fluorescent tube than any sort of weapon.  And then they chop another two dozen in half, then another three dozen, then another dozen.  Then another two dozen.

Answer: The action is much the same

Just watched this again on TV the other day. The acting is simply astounding. I can feel for the actors, as the dialogue is so atrocious that it's almost beyond belief, but still. Were they physically prevented from doing the thing that we normally think of when the word "acting" is mentioned? I mean, blurting out some dialogue, or reciting it as if you're making an emotionless statement, that's not acting. Seriously, this is what I expect from fifth graders appearing in their very first school play. It's just astonishes me every time one of the characters says something. It's like a big, dumb, obvious summary of what's going on at the moment. "Mom, I'm not a slave any more!" Mom: "All your dreams have come true." Said with all the emotion of "Oh, you remembered to pick up the potato chips from the store." Probably 80% of the dialogue in this movie is like this. Most first-time script readthroughs on a soap opera must be far superior to this. Seriously, Scooby Doo has better acting - much, much better. I honestly can't remember ever seeing anything like this, except maybe in the worst of the worst of Sci-Fi Originals. And even then, it's not every member of the entire cast like it is here. Then of course there's Jar Jar, the baby talking donkey. I guess Lucas was really reaching out for the 2 and under audience. And the big battle at the end, with a villain we hardly know, so there's really no drama there (except what can be created with CGI), and he looks downright silly in that Halloween face paint. Oh, let's not forget the story, as Annakin's fighter gets hit, causing him to go out of control. He ACCIDENTALLY flies into the space station, then while shooting at some droids, ACCIDENTALLY hits the main reactor, which nicely waits for him to get to a safe distance before exploding. Good grief, it's too stupid and pathetic to even bother criticizing. Overall, this is an astonishingly bad movie, with dialogue that keeps one in a constant state of "What the **** did I just see?". I mean, constantly,. throughout the whole film. <hl> The action is much the same , dumb, silly, dopey. <hl> the tone of the movie goes from "epic drama" to dopey silliness, back and forth, pretty much every thirty seconds. Dopey droids are vwooshed in half by the increasingly boring sounds of light sabers, which now look more like a fluorescent tube than any sort of weapon. And then they chop another two dozen in half, then another three dozen, then another dozen. Then another two dozen.

Just watched this again on TV the other day. The acting is simply astounding. I can feel for the actors, as the dialogue is so atrocious that it's almost beyond belief, but still. Were they physically prevented from doing the thing that we normally think of when the word "acting" is mentioned? I mean, blurting out some dialogue, or reciting it as if you're making an emotionless statement, that's not acting. Seriously, this is what I expect from fifth graders appearing in their very first school play. It's just astonishes me every time one of the characters says something. It's like a big, dumb, obvious summary of what's going on at the moment. "Mom, I'm not a slave any more!" Mom: "All your dreams have come true." Said with all the emotion of "Oh, you remembered to pick up the potato chips from the store." Probably 80% of the dialogue in this movie is like this. Most first-time script readthroughs on a soap opera must be far superior to this. Seriously, Scooby Doo has better acting - much, much better. I honestly can't remember ever seeing anything like this, except maybe in the worst of the worst of Sci-Fi Originals. And even then, it's not every member of the entire cast like it is here.Then of course there's Jar Jar, the baby talking donkey. I guess Lucas was really reaching out for the 2 and under audience. And the big battle at the end, with a villain we hardly know, so there's really no drama there (except what can be created with CGI), and he looks downright silly in that Halloween face paint. Oh, let's not forget the story, as Annakin's fighter gets hit, causing him to go out of control. He ACCIDENTALLY flies into the space station, then while shooting at some droids, ACCIDENTALLY hits the main reactor, which nicely waits for him to get to a safe distance before exploding. Good grief, it's too stupid and pathetic to even bother criticizing.Overall, this is an astonishingly bad movie, with dialogue that keeps one in a constant state of "What the **** did I just see?". I mean, constantly,. throughout the whole film. <hl> The action is much the same <hl>, dumb, silly, dopey. the tone of the movie goes from "epic drama" to dopey silliness, back and forth, pretty much every thirty seconds. Dopey droids are vwooshed in half by the increasingly boring sounds of light sabers, which now look more like a fluorescent tube than any sort of weapon. And then they chop another two dozen in half, then another three dozen, then another dozen. Then another two dozen.

<hl> The action is much the same <hl> , dumb, silly, dopey.


Question: How is the animation?

Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great, and the story was very good. I was afraid I had wasted my money on another bad dvd. I was surprised to find that it was really a good story even though the joker was didn't have very many shining moments. The animation was typical for a batman animated film but was not something to get excited about. The thing about this dvd that got me truly interested was the story. the opposing veiws in the philosophy of Batman and Red Hood were what created the conflict in this story. overall it was a really good dvd.

Answer: the animation was good but not great

<hl> Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great , and the story was very good. <hl> I was afraid I had wasted my money on another bad dvd. I was surprised to find that it was really a good story even though the joker was didn't have very many shining moments. The animation was typical for a batman animated film but was not something to get excited about. The thing about this dvd that got me truly interested was the story. the opposing veiws in the philosophy of Batman and Red Hood were what created the conflict in this story. overall it was a really good dvd.

Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, <hl> the animation was good but not great <hl>, and the story was very good. I was afraid I had wasted my money on another bad dvd. I was surprised to find that it was really a good story even though the joker was didn't have very many shining moments. The animation was typical for a batman animated film but was not something to get excited about. The thing about this dvd that got me truly interested was the story. the opposing veiws in the philosophy of Batman and Red Hood were what created the conflict in this story. overall it was a really good dvd.

Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, <hl> the animation was good but not great <hl> , and the story was very good.


Question: How is one of the books?

I am an average SW fan. Not a fanatic. But I did love the originals. I think people remember the original trilogy when they were like 12 and so nobody minded all the unrealistic and childish elements then. As kids, Star  Wars was flawless. The scene in "Empire Strikes Back" still irks  me, where they land inside a giant worm's stomach and of course, there is  air pressure and gravity just like on Earth, even though they are in an  asteroid! Nobody even checks to see if its safe to leave the ship.Episode I was superior in many aspects. NOTHING in the old trilogy is  anywhere near as visually stunning as Naboo and Corusant. Those two things  alone make the movie worth watching. The costumes, and the ships are much  sleeker and more believable than the originals ever were. The light saber  duel was ten times more exciting than anything in the first trio. Even John  Williams' score "Duel of the Fates" is unforgettable and far  beyond any of the original music. As for Jar Jar being annoying, yes, he  was annoying, but that didn't bother me a bit! Because he was PLAYING an  annoying character! He was SUPPOSED to be annoying. He annoyed Obi and  Qui-Gon too. That was part of the necessary comic relief to play as a foil  to the stoic Jedi.As for the Jedi acting stiff, well of course they  were, THEY ARE JEDI! Jedi aren't supposed to be emotional. And still I  really felt for Qui-Gon in the end. Anakin I must admit didn't act all too  well. But what really irks me about TPM are the small things. The robot  going; "Roger Roger" made me want to scream; "IS THIS  SATURDAY MORNING CARTOONS?" And what I hated most, the way most people  felt about Jar Jar, is how I felt about that dumb two headed announcer. I  mean he looked so cartoonish, and he sounded just like Howard Cosell! That  was simply too much of a stretch of the imagination. But the plot, in my  mind, was superb. Those who didn't like it didn't understand it maybe. It  was rather deeper than the others. Basically it involved a corrupt Galactic  Senator trying to get himself elected to a higher position by creating a  Trade Dispute with a foreign planet, putting himself as the person who  would "save the day" when in actuality he is the cause of the  dispute. You could even argue that after Episode 1 the bad guys actually  won.As for buying this VHS, I really think we should all unite as Star  Wars fans and send a clear message to Lucas that; "We are not going to  fall for these stupid business tactics! We know the only reason you won't  release TPM on DVD is because you KNOW we will buy the VHS and the  DVD." Let's not allow him to manipulate us this way, his faithful  consumers.Nick

Answer: Star  Wars

As kids, Star  Wars was flawless.

I am an average SW fan. Not a fanatic. But I did love the originals. I think people remember the original trilogy when they were like 12 and so nobody minded all the unrealistic and childish elements then. <hl> As kids, Star Wars was flawless. <hl> The scene in "Empire Strikes Back" still irks me, where they land inside a giant worm's stomach and of course, there is air pressure and gravity just like on Earth, even though they are in an asteroid! Nobody even checks to see if its safe to leave the ship. Episode I was superior in many aspects. NOTHING in the old trilogy is anywhere near as visually stunning as Naboo and Corusant. Those two things alone make the movie worth watching. The costumes, and the ships are much sleeker and more believable than the originals ever were. The light saber duel was ten times more exciting than anything in the first trio. Even John Williams' score "Duel of the Fates" is unforgettable and far beyond any of the original music. As for Jar Jar being annoying, yes, he was annoying, but that didn't bother me a bit! Because he was PLAYING an annoying character! He was SUPPOSED to be annoying. He annoyed Obi and Qui-Gon too. That was part of the necessary comic relief to play as a foil to the stoic Jedi. As for the Jedi acting stiff, well of course they were, THEY ARE JEDI! Jedi aren't supposed to be emotional. And still I really felt for Qui-Gon in the end. Anakin I must admit didn't act all too well. But what really irks me about TPM are the small things. The robot going; "Roger Roger" made me want to scream; "IS THIS SATURDAY MORNING CARTOONS?" And what I hated most, the way most people felt about Jar Jar, is how I felt about that dumb two headed announcer. I mean he looked so cartoonish, and he sounded just like Howard Cosell! That was simply too much of a stretch of the imagination. But the plot, in my mind, was superb. Those who didn't like it didn't understand it maybe. It was rather deeper than the others. Basically it involved a corrupt Galactic Senator trying to get himself elected to a higher position by creating a Trade Dispute with a foreign planet, putting himself as the person who would "save the day" when in actuality he is the cause of the dispute. You could even argue that after Episode 1 the bad guys actually won. As for buying this VHS, I really think we should all unite as Star Wars fans and send a clear message to Lucas that; "We are not going to fall for these stupid business tactics! We know the only reason you won't release TPM on DVD is because you KNOW we will buy the VHS and the DVD." Let's not allow him to manipulate us this way, his faithful consumers. Nick

I am an average SW fan. Not a fanatic. But I did love the originals. I think people remember the original trilogy when they were like 12 and so nobody minded all the unrealistic and childish elements then. As kids, <hl> Star Wars <hl> was flawless. The scene in "Empire Strikes Back" still irks me, where they land inside a giant worm's stomach and of course, there is air pressure and gravity just like on Earth, even though they are in an asteroid! Nobody even checks to see if its safe to leave the ship.Episode I was superior in many aspects. NOTHING in the old trilogy is anywhere near as visually stunning as Naboo and Corusant. Those two things alone make the movie worth watching. The costumes, and the ships are much sleeker and more believable than the originals ever were. The light saber duel was ten times more exciting than anything in the first trio. Even John Williams' score "Duel of the Fates" is unforgettable and far beyond any of the original music. As for Jar Jar being annoying, yes, he was annoying, but that didn't bother me a bit! Because he was PLAYING an annoying character! He was SUPPOSED to be annoying. He annoyed Obi and Qui-Gon too. That was part of the necessary comic relief to play as a foil to the stoic Jedi.As for the Jedi acting stiff, well of course they were, THEY ARE JEDI! Jedi aren't supposed to be emotional. And still I really felt for Qui-Gon in the end. Anakin I must admit didn't act all too well. But what really irks me about TPM are the small things. The robot going; "Roger Roger" made me want to scream; "IS THIS SATURDAY MORNING CARTOONS?" And what I hated most, the way most people felt about Jar Jar, is how I felt about that dumb two headed announcer. I mean he looked so cartoonish, and he sounded just like Howard Cosell! That was simply too much of a stretch of the imagination. But the plot, in my mind, was superb. Those who didn't like it didn't understand it maybe. It was rather deeper than the others. Basically it involved a corrupt Galactic Senator trying to get himself elected to a higher position by creating a Trade Dispute with a foreign planet, putting himself as the person who would "save the day" when in actuality he is the cause of the dispute. You could even argue that after Episode 1 the bad guys actually won.As for buying this VHS, I really think we should all unite as Star Wars fans and send a clear message to Lucas that; "We are not going to fall for these stupid business tactics! We know the only reason you won't release TPM on DVD is because you KNOW we will buy the VHS and the DVD." Let's not allow him to manipulate us this way, his faithful consumers.Nick


Question: How was the cast?

This movie was my first taste of Jane Austen.  I have to admit, when it first came out I was a kid, so I wrote it off as boring and didn't bother to watch.  In my teens I realized that I actually liked period drama's, and this movie quickly became a favorite of mine!The movie itself, as a period drama is first class!  Although it isn't completely faithful to the book, it is my favorite of the adaptations I've seen ('07, and '81).  The casting is superb (although 2 of the actors were a bit older than their book counterparts); and their acting leaps & bounds better than the '81!  The scenery, and stately homes are stunning!!  Also, the soundtrack fits the period, and compliments the storyline very well.Most likely, if the viewer hasn't read the book, the alterations, and missing characters shouldn't affect their opinion much._______**SPOILER ALERT**As for the (most notable) missing scenes/parts:- Willoughby's visit, and conversation with Elinor at Cleveland (during Marianne's sickness).  The movie tried to rectify it by way of Col. Brandon.  After his revealing Willoughby's seduction of his ward to Elinor, he proceeds to tell her he inquired, and has reason to believe that Willoughby's intentions were not entirely as dishonorable toward Marianne...It's not quite as satisfying as hearing it come from Willoughby himself though.- Edward's week stay, not long after they arrived (on his way back from visiting Lucy in Plymouth).  The book scene conveyed the troubled mind of Edward, and his internal conflicting feelings as regards Elinor, and Lucy.And provided a hint of what was to come, with the lock of hair seen by all in his ring (which he passed off as Fanny's, and the Dashwood sisters supposed he somehow obtained a lock of Elinor's without her knowing).- The dinner party with Mrs. Ferrars & Jennings, the Dashwood's, Steels', and Middleton's.  Not a major loss there, being that Fanny made it clear at the beginning that their mother expected Edward to marry a woman of means and fortune, otherwise suffer being disinherited.And before revealing her engagement, Lucy told Elinor she finally met Mrs. Ferrars (after being invited to stay with the J. Dashwood's in London).______The missing characters:I personally don't mind the fact that Lady Middleton (& children) were left out (the movie stated Sir John was a widower).In the book, Miss Austen describes her as "(though perfectly well bred,) she was reserved, cold, and had nothing to say for herself beyond the most common-place enquiry or remark".With that said, it wasn't that much of a loss to leave her out being that she and Mrs. (John) Dashwood were so much alike ("there was a kind of cold hearted selfishness on both sides, which mutually attracted them; and they sympathized with each other in an insipid propriety of demeanour, and a general want of understanding").In the book, all she really did was dote on her children, and play hostess.They also left out the other Miss Steel, which wasn't a big deal either.  They just had Lucy out herself to Fanny instead.

Answer: The casting is superb

This movie was my first taste of Jane Austen. I have to admit, when it first came out I was a kid, so I wrote it off as boring and didn't bother to watch. In my teens I realized that I actually liked period drama's, and this movie quickly became a favorite of mine!The movie itself, as a period drama is first class! Although it isn't completely faithful to the book, it is my favorite of the adaptations I've seen ('07, and '81). <hl> The casting is superb (although 2 of the actors were a bit older than their book counterparts); and their acting leaps & bounds better than the '81! <hl> The scenery, and stately homes are stunning!! Also, the soundtrack fits the period, and compliments the storyline very well. Most likely, if the viewer hasn't read the book, the alterations, and missing characters shouldn't affect their opinion much._______**SPOILER ALERT**As for the (most notable) missing scenes/parts:- Willoughby's visit, and conversation with Elinor at Cleveland (during Marianne's sickness). The movie tried to rectify it by way of Col. Brandon. After his revealing Willoughby's seduction of his ward to Elinor, he proceeds to tell her he inquired, and has reason to believe that Willoughby's intentions were not entirely as dishonorable toward Marianne... It's not quite as satisfying as hearing it come from Willoughby himself though.- Edward's week stay, not long after they arrived (on his way back from visiting Lucy in Plymouth). The book scene conveyed the troubled mind of Edward, and his internal conflicting feelings as regards Elinor, and Lucy. And provided a hint of what was to come, with the lock of hair seen by all in his ring (which he passed off as Fanny's, and the Dashwood sisters supposed he somehow obtained a lock of Elinor's without her knowing).- The dinner party with Mrs. Ferrars & Jennings, the Dashwood's, Steels', and Middleton's. Not a major loss there, being that Fanny made it clear at the beginning that their mother expected Edward to marry a woman of means and fortune, otherwise suffer being disinherited. And before revealing her engagement, Lucy told Elinor she finally met Mrs. Ferrars (after being invited to stay with the J. Dashwood's in London).______The missing characters:I personally don't mind the fact that Lady Middleton (& children) were left out (the movie stated Sir John was a widower).In the book, Miss Austen describes her as "(though perfectly well bred,) she was reserved, cold, and had nothing to say for herself beyond the most common-place enquiry or remark". With that said, it wasn't that much of a loss to leave her out being that she and Mrs. (John) Dashwood were so much alike ("there was a kind of cold hearted selfishness on both sides, which mutually attracted them; and they sympathized with each other in an insipid propriety of demeanour, and a general want of understanding").In the book, all she really did was dote on her children, and play hostess. They also left out the other Miss Steel, which wasn't a big deal either. They just had Lucy out herself to Fanny instead.

This movie was my first taste of Jane Austen. I have to admit, when it first came out I was a kid, so I wrote it off as boring and didn't bother to watch. In my teens I realized that I actually liked period drama's, and this movie quickly became a favorite of mine!The movie itself, as a period drama is first class! Although it isn't completely faithful to the book, it is my favorite of the adaptations I've seen ('07, and '81). <hl> The casting is superb <hl> (although 2 of the actors were a bit older than their book counterparts); and their acting leaps & bounds better than the '81! The scenery, and stately homes are stunning!! Also, the soundtrack fits the period, and compliments the storyline very well.Most likely, if the viewer hasn't read the book, the alterations, and missing characters shouldn't affect their opinion much._______**SPOILER ALERT**As for the (most notable) missing scenes/parts:- Willoughby's visit, and conversation with Elinor at Cleveland (during Marianne's sickness). The movie tried to rectify it by way of Col. Brandon. After his revealing Willoughby's seduction of his ward to Elinor, he proceeds to tell her he inquired, and has reason to believe that Willoughby's intentions were not entirely as dishonorable toward Marianne...It's not quite as satisfying as hearing it come from Willoughby himself though.- Edward's week stay, not long after they arrived (on his way back from visiting Lucy in Plymouth). The book scene conveyed the troubled mind of Edward, and his internal conflicting feelings as regards Elinor, and Lucy.And provided a hint of what was to come, with the lock of hair seen by all in his ring (which he passed off as Fanny's, and the Dashwood sisters supposed he somehow obtained a lock of Elinor's without her knowing).- The dinner party with Mrs. Ferrars & Jennings, the Dashwood's, Steels', and Middleton's. Not a major loss there, being that Fanny made it clear at the beginning that their mother expected Edward to marry a woman of means and fortune, otherwise suffer being disinherited.And before revealing her engagement, Lucy told Elinor she finally met Mrs. Ferrars (after being invited to stay with the J. Dashwood's in London).______The missing characters:I personally don't mind the fact that Lady Middleton (& children) were left out (the movie stated Sir John was a widower).In the book, Miss Austen describes her as "(though perfectly well bred,) she was reserved, cold, and had nothing to say for herself beyond the most common-place enquiry or remark".With that said, it wasn't that much of a loss to leave her out being that she and Mrs. (John) Dashwood were so much alike ("there was a kind of cold hearted selfishness on both sides, which mutually attracted them; and they sympathized with each other in an insipid propriety of demeanour, and a general want of understanding").In the book, all she really did was dote on her children, and play hostess.They also left out the other Miss Steel, which wasn't a big deal either. They just had Lucy out herself to Fanny instead.


Question: What do you think about dvd?

I'm speechless, this BLU-RAY/DVD set is, without question, one of the best transfers ever. I love everything about JAWS, and the extras are great. Get it!

Answer: one of the best transfers ever

<hl> I'm speechless, this BLU-RAY/DVD set is, without question, one of the best transfers ever . <hl> I love everything about JAWS, and the extras are great. Get it!

I'm speechless, this BLU-RAY/DVD set is, without question, <hl> one of the best transfers ever <hl>. I love everything about JAWS, and the extras are great. Get it!

I'm speechless, this BLU-RAY/DVD set is, without question, <hl> one of the best transfers ever <hl> .