I stumbled on this little gem a few months ago on IFC, and just watched it again today. If there was an Academy Award category for "Best Modernistic Recreation of Classic Hollywood Styles" this film would have won hands down. Gibson Frazier is amazing, channeling the spirit of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd with a script that reads like a Robert Heinlein short story. (Or perhaps Harlan Ellison...) Hang your belief at the door and flow with the fantasy. You are not going to learn any deep truths here. Except perhaps how to make a really snappy film on small change. The plot (what there is of it, and be fair, not many reporter/gangster film from the 20's and 30's did either) moves Frazier from the clean black and white world of New York to its darker underbelly without once getting dirty or losing the starch on his Herbert Hoover collar. Worth you 80 minutes. More so if you love old 'B' movies.


This version of Pride and Prejudice is simply outstanding and excels in essentially every aspect. It is faithful to the book, particularly capturing the spirit of the book and the energy and constant tension of the story. It excellently portrays the world of the book as it relates to the story, with keen attention to the details of costume, the furniture, etc. Moreover, the actors were on the whole outstanding. I fail to see how anyone could have portray Darcy better than did Colin Firth, who perfectly captured the character's aristocratic refinedness, his shyness and sense of decorum that come across as apparent stuffiness and disdain, and his underlying passion, all at the same time. He perfectly blends all these different traits and is utterly convincing in portraying the outward stiffness as a simple facade for the strong emotions and character underneath, rather than simply being stiff and wooden. His looks, and especially his eyes, say so much of the complexity of his character and his feelings with subtle expressions. Similarly Jennifer Ehle excellently portrays Lizzie, showing her to be tender, witty, thoughtful, occasionally prone to strong judgments without all the information, yet trying to grapple with different feelings as her involvement with Darcy, et al., progresses. David Bamber is great as Mr. Collins and perfectly conveys his mix of traits. Alison Steadman's histrionics and fickle opinions are wonderful as the mom, and remind me very much of an actual relative of mine, while Benjamin Whitrow is a great counterpart as the father who is outwardly usually calm and peaceful, yet always able to rile up his wife. The others are great, too, but there is no point in listing them all. The bottom line is that I find it hard to beat this production, which is utterly gripping and keeps anyone interested in these stories completely entranced the whole way through.


A female journalist once wrote that no actress could ever portray Elizabeth Bennet to the satisfaction of a woman viewer for one very simple reason: every woman really visualizes herself in that role. Jennifer Ehle has done the impossible - she is, and in my mind, forever will be, Elizabeth. The beauty, wit, and sparkling liveliness of the character are perfectly captured in her performance. And Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy is an exact match for her. His smoldering good looks are wonderful, and he can portray reserve without descending into woodenness and blankness. The scene where he and Elizabeth dance a long and stately dance together in the midst of a crowd is both controlled and exciting - with very little change of tone, and while preserving the most correct decorum, their conversation reveals dangerous undercurrents of emotion, and meanwhile the steps of the dance keep pulling them together and apart again. The rest of the characters are equally fine - David Bamber's obsequious Mr. Collins is especially unforgettable.


This is a drama to rave about. I've not seen its like on television before; nor do I expect to see its like again. It was superb. It was almost perfect - though not quite.

It is rare to find a Jane Austen dramatisation that comes so near to being perfect on every level and that stays so true to the original novel. The greater part of the dialogue in the series is Jane Austen's own and every scene is included and follows the same chronological order. The drama departs from the novel in only two instances. In order to extend our knowledge of the characters of Darcy(Colin Firth), and Mr Collins(David Bamber), two scenes are added; to demonstrate that Darcy is not just an effete aristocrat but a real man worthy of Elizabeth's love we are shown him indulging in manly pursuits; fencing, and swimming in his private lake (it puzzles me why so many women seem to drool over his wet-shirt scene); and to demonstrate that Mr Collins is an idiotic, narrow- minded prude we are shown him trembling with embarrassment and horror when he happens to come across Lydia (Julia Sawalha) in a state of dishabille. David Bamber makes Mr Collins deliciously toadying and obsequious. A remarkable piece of acting.

It is its faithfulness to the original that makes this drama so good. No one has ever written a more tightly plotted novel. Its series of climaxes make the novel difficult to put down; just as one plot-line reaches its climactic conclusion, another is building. And the duel of wits and sharp dialogue between Darcy and Elizabeth (Jennifer Ehle) as they get to know each other is entrancing. And then comes that moment. She is at the piano befriending Darcy's sister, Georgiana (Emilia Fox), when he holds her gaze with a silent declaration of his love and admiration. This involved a fine piece of editor-timing; a split second either way, either too long or too short, and the poignancy of that moment would have been lost. It is interesting to compare Colin Firth's Darcy with that of Lawrence Olivier's Darcy in the Hollywood film. Olivier falsely portraits him as appealingly shy and self-conscious. But Darcy was in no way shy, he was just proud, with every reason to have a good opinion of himself. He found it impossible to imagine that anyone in a lower strata of society, living in a small provincial town, could be his equal - until he met Elizabeth!

However, I felt there was one weak link in the chain of superb acting; Alison steadman. Many will disagree but I think she over-acted, turning her Mrs Bennet into a nerve- grating, neurasthenic caricature. But apart from that, I heartily recommend this video. Don't miss it. You'll not see its like again. I must just mention the charming piano music by Carl Davis, so beautifully evocative of a beautiful period in history (for the rich).


Watching this is a celebration of how Jane Austen should be interpreted.

This version is true to the novel and true to the characters and the wonderful tension between Elizabeth and Darcy is beautifully depicted.

Not for a moment do you think that these two are not meant to be together.

The Austen wit of both the main characters and the minor roles are strongly projected and the costumes and sets are faithful to the era of Austen's writing.

There is an incredible scene where Elizabeth is playing the piano and her eyes meet and hold on Darcy's who is at the other end of the room. Now, for me, that is one of the most sexy and sensual scenes I have ever seen. Everything is flawless about this production.

Superlative, satisfying and stunning.

Do not miss it. 10 out of 10.


There are a great many movies out there that I love and that have inspired me. However, I have never found another film that I love to watch as many times as I can watch Pride and Prejudice, and it still moves me the same each time. This adaption of Jane Austen's novel was done to such perfection I would not change a thing about. The characters are all so lively and so convincing. Each character makes you feel so strongly about them, whether for ill or well. The characters of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett are nailed by Colin Firth and Jennifer Euhle. This would have to be my favorite movie ever!


This timeless tale of hate that blossoms into love is as good as it gets. At least once a year my sisters and I watch it all the way through in one sitting. And that's no easy feat since it's so long!Ohhh but it's worth it:o) The casting is perfect with Colin Firth playing the impossible Mr. Darcy and Jennifer Ehll (sp. right?) as the heroine of the story, Ms. Elizabeth Bennet. The movie captures very well the society of the time,the difference in stations and the very laid-back easy-going life-style of an English gentleman and his family of five daughters. Though Mrs. Bennet gets to be a little much (she must have been a blast to play she's so obnoxious:o), it's worth watching. The movie covers about a year, I think, and it follows the life of the five Ms. Bennets: Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty and Lydia, and their ups and downs in life, love, and day to day life. Their are a few unexpected twists along the way, and many unforgettable characters: those who are great, and those who are great to make fun of! So... If you enjoy immersing yourself into the time of Jane Austen for an afternoon, and enjoy the simplicity of way back when, then you would really enjoy this movie.


I'm a typical guy I guess. I like football, sci-fi, action movies, but definitely not period romances! I ended up watching it because my wife had it on. I was quickly hooked, much to my surprise. When it came on again (thankyou, thankyou A&E) I was glued to it all from the start to the wonderful climax. But that wasn't enough! Now we have the tapes and watch them over and over again and I have read the book four times! I don't understand why I don't get bored, but I don't. I just totally love it. I'm not really sure why. Maybe its because it is so much more than just a romance.

It is so interesting to have a window into the thinking, social mores and lifestyles of early 19th century, rural, genteel England, and to see how very, very different society's attitudes are today. The specific examples of Mr Wickham's disgraceful conduct would not be considered unusual today, but what makes him such a blackguard is how far he stepped beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour at that time.

The central message of the story which I found personally educational is the moment when Elizabeth, having thought herself an excellent judge of human character, while reading Darcy's letter realizes that she has entirely deceived herself with regards to the character of both Wickham and Darcy and that this self deception has resulted from vanity, because Wickham flattered her whereas Darcy insulted her with his "She is tolerable I suppose, though not handsome enough to tempt me."

All this is all very well and good but this is not why I love P&P. All the characters come across as real people and they are successful at transmitting all the emotional tension that gradually builds up throughout the six hours. One can really identify with the characters. I would love it if Darcy was my best mate. I mean what a great guy. What a hero. (And an Arsenal supporter too! (in another movie called Fever Pitch)) I love the following scenes:

"You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you";

"and when sanctioned by your excellent parents..." dab dab collapsing sweatily against the doorpost while Lizzie rapidly retreats, finishing his speech to himself "I am sure that my proposals will not fail in being... acceptable";

"the Look" as my wife calls it between Darcy and Elizabeth at Pemberley;

the party at Netherfield where most of the Bennets disgrace themselves;

Lady Catherine 'refuses her consent';

Mr Collins' visit to 'condole' with the Bennets;

"for it has been many months since that I have considered her the most handsome woman of my aquaintance" so there!;

and absolutely the best, "my feelings are so different, in fact... they are the opposite". Joy, joy, joy.

There are so many others too...

I hope this doesn't give too much away to those who haven't seen it. If you haven't seen it, get it. It will be the best money you spend on entertainment all year!

To all those who were involved in making this production: Bravo. This was the best ever. It produces the same feelings in me as when Arsenal win the League!


Much had I heard of Jane Austen's legendary classic, "Pride and Prejudice", and so to kick off my summer I set about reading it. It was possibly the greatest book I'd ever read. I looked up the different screen adaptations of it, and found that Colin Firth had starred in one (I previously enjoyed him in "Bridget Jones's Diary" - which is, in fact, a semi-remake of Austen's tale - and "Love Actually"). So I traveled to my handy-dandy Borders store and picked up a DVD copy. As I walked out of the store, I hoped that I hadn't wasted $40 for this thing. And you know what?

It was worth every last penny.

"Pride and Prejudice" is quite simply the most flawless thing I've ever seen. The story involves Elizabeth Bennet (Jennifer Ehle), who's opinion changes greatly of a seemingly very proud, rude man that moves into town. To sum up the whole story would be impossible, as there isn't really a simple lot.

First of all, let's examine the overall look of the thing. Simon Langton's direction is excellent, and he succeeds in getting the most breathtaking views of everything and anything. The production design and costuming is perfect, capturing the time without error, and the locations are simply gorgeous. Carl Davis' score is terrific and fitting (also to the times). Andrew Davies' script brings every last scene from the book and then pops in some new, being as absolutely faithful to the book as anyone could hope to be.

But now on to the casting. The cast is outstanding, although the film's one problem (albeit a very slight one) is the role of Mrs. Bennet, who - although wacky in the book - is completely over-the-top here and quite frequently even annoying. But the stars of the film couldn't be better. Jennifer Ehle is absolutely wonderful as Lizzy Bennet, and her eyes are so dazzling that they mesmerized me throughout the whole 300 minutes!

The show is completely stolen, however, by Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. Colin Firth is not just playing Mr. Darcy; Colin Firth IS Mr. Darcy. He was born to play this role, and plays it so flawlessly, that it deserves to be considered one of the best performances any actor has ever given. Words cannot describe Firth's perfection as Darcy.

All in all, "Pride and Prejudice" is the greatest thing ever to air on television, and were it a film, it would be the greatest film of all-time. Those of you who have read the book shouldn't worry a bit about the long running time of the mini-series; as impossible as it seems, you shan't even notice. When I finished the series, I had such a feeling of satisfaction as no entertainment has ever before granted me.

This is perfection.


First let me state that I am a 30 something male who generally does not like chick flicks. I have not seen any other version nor read the book.

The mini-series is just perfect. It is a fantastic love story that is witty, charming, and very funny. I am not sure how many times I have watched it now, at least 5, and it improves with each viewing. The story and characters are so rich and interesting and the acting is just superb. I have a Top Ten list of movies/shows based on the premise that you are stuck on an island and can only bring 10 movies with you to watch for the rest of your life. This version of Pride and Prejudice has a permanent spot on that list. I rarely give 9s when voting here and I give this a 10!

If you like period pieces, good acting, or a great love story then this is a must see!


this will be very biased - I love this series and practically know it by heart. When my video tape was wrecked from rewinding, I finally got myself the DVD... and still love to watch it.

This is the most complete adaption of the novel, and there are so many lovable details in it that just make it a very unique movie experience. There are however minor changes, due to the fact that each episode of the series had to be leaving the audience wanting more... but nothing that really differs from the original.

The actors are awesome - Colin Firth is and will be the one and only Darcy, and Jennifer Ehle was a wonderful Elizabeth - spirited, lively, yet still always within decorum ( only that her skirts were " 6 inches deep in mud, I assure you"). Jane is, although maybe not for our standards pretty, a very classic beauty, and very much in character.The Bingley sisters are wonderfully arrogant, and Bingley is such a nice guy - not the insipid undecided, but rather too much trusting those he holds dear. Mrs Bennet, though annoying, is wonderful, and Mr. Bennet, witty and sarcastic, a perfect choice....in short, the complete cast has so decidedly imprinted upon my image of the characters that I find it hard to imagine anyone else playing that particular role.

The movie works very efficiently and elegantly with flashbacks to tell the various sub-plots, yet remains focused on the main actions. The scenery is well made, and the costumes are beautiful. I liked the fact that each actor had a wardrobe just as they would have had had they lived in the time, and not a new dress for each new scene.

For us, it may be hard to acquaint oneself with the language of Jane Austen, the rules of decorum of her time, and the social standards and sets of rules. In watching the movie, a lot of these things come clear - visualization as a means of understanding the regency period.

On a last note - the music is awesome. I have the opening melody as my cellphone ring ever since my Cellphone was able too...;)

There are so many little details, over which discussions can be lead for hours and hours, or pages and pages, and this s one of the best parts about the movie - although it gives an interpretation, it is not finite. A perfect movie to visualize the novel,and a must-see.


I don't know how many are like me, intrigued by the new P&P movie but falling in love with this miniseries instead. I tried to read P&P before but couldn't finish the first a couple of pages, under a false impression coming from reading the first quarter of sense and sensibility that the heroine in P&P was also full of vanity and conceit. I was prejudiced too, hehe. So when the new movie came out I went to have a look, wondering why the novel's this popular. The Elizabeth in the movie is lovely, so is Mr. Darcy, but still not good enough to outperform Ehle and Colin whom I discovered in a searching for more P&P information. Colin Firth's eyes are so expressive, his body language is so subtle, and I doubt anyone can ever replace him as Mr Darcy. I began to re-read the novel after finishing the miniseries due to difficulty of understanding some dialogues. The heroine in the first half is very self-conscious but acceptable with witty lines here and there. She turns better in the other half where the chemistry starts to make itself apparent and draws all my attention. The hero is absolutely charming, probably because I imaged him as Colin, who is soooooo handsome and cute by the way :), from the very beginning. Unlike the movie, the plot of this miniseries keeps faithful to the novel but still refreshes us with a few new scenes those are absolutely natural and are definitely an enhancement. To those who think the wet shirt makes Darcy sexual and so degrade the taste, please watch it again without any prejudice. I don't see the wet shirt sexually seducing, actually I don't see anything related to sex. I only see a Darcy not surrounded by his pride and vulnerable to love. Oh, I can't tell how ardently I admire and love him! This miniseries is superb and I can watch it again and again and again!


At 300 minutes, it might seem a bit steep to sit through -- after all, the novel is barely under 400 pages and its plot is concise enough to garner a shorter transition from book form to images. But, when you sit and read PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, widely considered to be Jane Austen's magnum opus, and savor its miniaturist style, its sharp language, the treatment of even its minor characters as a huge tapestry, there is no other way to create a complete vision of the novel but to do a televised re-working of her novel. (The advent of Emma Thompson and the 2005 movie now proves otherwise.)

The interesting aspect of the miniseries is that it never feels like it's moving at a crawl. The story of Austen's micro-society develops at its own pace, much like the novel: it's as if the novel had literally come alive and were being acted by the people from FAHRENHEIT 451, complete with costumes and settings. We meet the Bennets right at the beginning when they discuss how Netherfield is to be let at last, and that its owner is none other than an eligible bachelor. Elizabeth, the second eldest Bennet herself is the one who utters the opening line of Austen's book -- and it's appropriate that she be the one who does so: listen to how she says it, not to when she does or who she does to.

The arrival of such a man causes an uproar it the small community. Charles Bingley is a congenial man, personable, but has some odious sisters, Caroline and Louisa Hurst. His friend, Mr. Darcy, is also eligible and ten times richer than Bingley, but is soon to be revealed to be someone disagreeable. At the ball, Jane Bennet becomes close with Charles (much to her mother's delight) and Elizabeth seen to be a little taken with the imposing nature of Darcy, but his aloof nature and continuous rebuffs, plus a harsh commentary he makes of her within earshot hurts her deeply: her pride has been hurt; hence, from now on, she will have nothing to do with him.

But fate has her meet him again when Jane falls ill after she gets called to spend an evening with Bingley and his sisters. While Darcy seems to be taking a repressed liking to Elizabeth, she is unaware of it, and grows increasingly hostile towards him, particularly after learning from George Wickham that he behaved quite badly towards him. In the middle of this, and because the Bennets have no son, the girls stand no chance of inheriting. Their property has been entailed to a male heir. Reverend Collins comes looking for a wife, proposes to Elizabeth, gets rebuffed, and winds up marrying Charlotte Lucas -- Elizabeth's best friend. On top of this, the Bingleys leave Netherfield, and Jane's future is left up in the air.

Eventually the plot reaches a head, and like the novel, it occurs midway. Jane Austen must have been aware at an empiric form that editing can balance out a work and enhance its effect, because in putting the crisis of the action halfway she establishes that Elizabeth and Darcy will have to shift towards each other in a realistic way, the same way other events will allow Jane and Bingley to consummate their union. This is what makes this story so enduring -- everything in it is realistic as possible, adhering to what society's attitude towards woman and men of their time was, where marriage was taken as serious as a retirement plan or having medical benefits.

The miniseries captures the slow breakdown of Austen's plot in a way that could have been stagy but is not. Not one thread is left untold, unlike the 1940 version (despite the presences of Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson) where the story looked a little more like farce and characters in the book behaved much differently in that film version. Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth are perfect in their renditions of Elizabeth and Darcy. She resembles an earthier version of Meryl Streep down to her voice and mannerisms; he is as aloof as alluring. Who wouldn't believe they didn't have what it took to merge together? Both have to do much acting without expressing much if at all, yet Ehle brings a nice iconoclastic attitude towards her character, the same way Firth embodies masculine arrogance.

Now, with the 2005 film version having got the praise it did, there will be people who prefer this version to the movie version and vice versa. There may be Olivier purists who will balk at such a long version. Having read the novel several times, I can relate to this one best because it retains pages of dialog intact without making it too talky and that's a tricky thing to do. Minus Alison Steadman's character, everyone is at a uniform level, but Steadman is a shade too shrill. While Mrs. Bennet wasn't the most agreeable person in the world, I believe that she has been represented better in the movie version because while still being a hyperactive, over-emotional woman, she was aware her daughters would be left destitute if they did not marry well. Even so, she does have a delicate tightrope to walk and I found myself liking Mrs. Bennet in the end and understood she was also a part of this enormous tapestry that Austen herself had woven so lovingly.


Jane Austin's novel "Pride and Prejudice" is without a doubt one of my favorite books. And now, finally, it has come to the screen!! I absolutely adored this mini series, and I would recommend it to anyone. All of the characters are played brilliantly, especially Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, and Jennifer Ehle as Lizzie Bennent. The film also has an outstanding supporting cast as well. And do not worry about it being boring, there is something exciting happening every second!!! All of the costumes, furniture, and especially scenery are beautiful, so, I encourage you, that if you have nothing to do on a rainy day, you watch this extraordinary piece of television. You will not be disappointed!!!! Enjoy!!!!!


I've seen all the adaptations of Jane Austen's most famous novel Pride and Prejudice and I have to say that this 1995 mini series by the BBC is by far the best. It has succeeded in so many levels. It excel in essentially every aspect. It is faithful to the book and the sincerity to the time and place is brilliantly thought out. The costume, sets and scenery are exquisite. The music and choreography are superb.

The whole cast has a class I had never seen before. They deliver their lines with such passion and intelligence. Every single character is unforgettable. Colin Firth as Mr Darcy is perfect. He has the right strength of character. He is believable as a proud and yet good hearted Englishman. He showed just the right amount of emotion and yet he made the viewers understand his feelings.

The whole film showed the wit and humour of Jane. It is truly a sparkling comedy of manners. I've seen the new movie and it has a depressing feel about it.

The mini series is a must see.


Can't believe that they are making a new film version! This is the creme De la creme and anyone who knows and loves the novel would see that it as near perfect as one could get!! All the characters are fully realised and perfectly cast, down to the smallest part, for example Maria Lucas who (as far as I know) has been left out of every other adaptation! There are one or two slight script errors (which only people who have watched it one thousand times like me would spot!!) but the acting is almost flawless- special nod should go to David Bamber as Mr Collins who has jumped from Miss Austen's 'little square of ivory' direct to the screen!- and all praise to the excellent Alison Steadman and Benjamin Whitrow and there will never be a prettier Lizzy Bennet (sorry Keira!!). A two hour film could never capture what a six hour mini series can and I can only think that loads will have been missed out!In my parallel universe this would have been a film on general release and would have won the 'big five' at the Oscars for Best Picture, Director, Actress (Ehle) Actor (Firth) and adapted screenplay (Davies) as well as nods for Supporting Actor for Bamber (Whitrow would also have been nominated!) and Supporting Actress for Alison Steadman (Susannah Harker would also have been nominated!) as well as costume design make -up etc!!!


At last, a work of Jane Austen's that is presented on film as faithfully as it was imagined in the theatre of my mind.

One would be hard-pressed to find any fault, big or small, regarding this superlative production.

The casting is flawless; could there be any other Darcy or Elizabeth aside from Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle? Austen herself would have approved of their inspired performances. Every actor - from the histrionic Mrs Bennet (Alison Steadman) to the devilishly caustic Miss Caroline Bingley (Anna Chancellor) was brilliantly selected. Salutations indeed to the casting team responsible for this project.

The cinematography and locations are breathtaking enough to make me want to jump on the next plane and fly over the Bermuda Triangle in an attempt to transport myself to Austen's 19th century rural England.

The script is extremely faithful to the book, with no chapter or element of importance left untold. The humour is carried throughout the film with great subtlety, yet one cannot help but burst out loud in laughter - triggered by no more than a well-timed piece of dialogue... or lack of it! My greatest praise indeed to all responsible for this vintage production of one of Austen's best known and most loved works.

A must-see for all readers of Jane Austen and indeed all who wish enjoy one of the most brilliant pieces of film-making ever.


If you are a fan of the book (who has read it and isn't?), you will not be disappointed in this version. This BBC miniseries stays true to the book where others have shockingly not bothered to follow the narrative of one of the best novels in western literature. The acting and screenplay are spot on and the cinematography is great. Colin Firth as Darcy sets the mark for others to follow and Jennifer Ehle is excellent. Furthermore, the supporting cast is excellent! Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins, Mr. Bennet, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, the list goes on; all do an extraordinary job. This is the definitive version-- Even those with the shortest of 21st century attention spans will be rapt. When Firth and Ehle are on screen together it's almost impossible to look away. A truer masterpiece of literature transcribed to the screen will not be found.


Pride and prejudice, by Jane Austen as a book is quite challenging. First time i read it was about 3 years back during my IB years. Some complicated words and many small things, which are hidden within the context. Luckily for us BBC made the "mini" series which aired in 1995. With actors Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, the series is very close and very amiable with the guidance of the book. The moment you start watching the first episode, which is an hour long, you immediately get addicted to watching the whole series. With the clever narrative and handwriting from Jane Austen and BBC it made the series well worth 10 stars. A strongly recommended series to watch on your free time. I also realized after watching the series over and over again the little things in between the characters stand out more and more clearly. Possibly the best English book around.


This movie is about as perfect as a movie can be. Perfectly cast, perfectly acted, beautiful scenery, costumes, settings... Every woman who has seen this movie immediately falls in love with Colin Firth's Darcy. The adaptation is very true to the book, with some small changes that do not diminish the story whatsoever, so rare for a movie based on a classic. I loved the comic characters as well. Alison Steadman deserves an award (did she get one?) for her portrayal of Mrs. Bennet, and David Bamber was so marvelously smarmy and repulsive. I have seen this movie countless times and each time I enjoy it as much as the time before. Congratulations to all the people who worked so hard to put this marvelous production together. I even had to buy the book "The Making of Pride and Prejudice," on a recent trip to England, and the book is a wonderful companion to the movie and a great gift for any fan. I recommend this movie for women and men alike. I have yet to meet anyone of either sex who hasn't become a fan of the movie after watching it, and even my cousin Guy, who's a bit of a modern-day Neanderthal, throws out a Lady Catherine quote now and again.

This movie is still by far the best adaptation of this book. (The Keira Knightley version has its own charms here and there, but overall was a big disappointment to purists and was not historically accurate at all, though Donald Sutherland did add a surprising sweetness to Mr. Bennet - a nice if not faithful interpretation.)

There is one little editing goof in this version that does make me smile. How many times do they tell us that Lambton is but five miles from Pemberley?


This wonderful story is bought to life by the BBC in this fabulous dramatisation. Collin Firth makes a wonderful brooding Darcy and Jennifer Ehle makes a great leading lady of Elizabeth Bennett. The humour of the book is also carried through with the banter of Mr and Mrs Bennett which makes compelling viewing. The setting and buildings that are used are very much in keeping with the story and helps to illustrate this fabulous story. The dances are great as they are the traditional dances of the time and are a key event which it would be! The watcher feels as if they are almost there and could imagine walking into the story - well, I certainly can! The casting is fabulous as are the dresses and I could watch it over and over and still watch it again. The BBC have done a fabulous job and I would wholeheartedly recommend it.


This is the BEST version of this story, by far. Others have tried but failed. In my opinion, Colin Firth is the ONLY and BEST Mr. Darcy to have ever played the role. The rest of the supporting cast are fantastic and amazingly realistic. The pace of the story is brilliant without cutting out too much of the detail to the plot. (I think this might be a reason why this mini-series blows away all of the other tries at doing this story in movie format).

A true classic! Grab some wine and cheese and spend a night or two watching this wonderful mini-series. You will want to own it in order to have more Pride and Prejudice evenings with the girls (or guys) in the future.

A MUST have for anyone's DVD collection!


I have been a fan of Jane Austen's writings for some time. This adaptation of her novel is by far the best and thorough screening. I love the way Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth play their leads. I knew that after I had seen this, I had to own it!!!!! By far, one of the most romantic movies of our time. For anyone who has never seen any of the works of Jane Austen, this is a good movie to start out with. But I also feel that this is the best of all of her works. Colin Firth gained me as a loyal fan after seeing him in this movie as well as Jennifer Ehle. I look forward to seeing them again in more work. I hope they will work together again.


I picked up Jane Austen's book Pride & Prejudice while in high school and I couldn't make myself get past the first chapter... that and the fact that I don't typically like period dramas (they usually aren't done too well), I was hesitant when a friend casually mentioned that it was good, though long.

I checked it out from the library and over the next week I probably watched it half a dozen times! I could not get enough of it! It is definitely the best movie I've ever seen and I pop it into the DVD player at least once a week now that I own it!!

The complete cast was wonderful but I'd like to say that Mr. Collins was extra terrific- I don't think he's been given enough credit for the wonderful job he did! Though I've seen the movie dozens of times, he makes me laugh every time I see it!

I've seen the new one and it isn't near as good..... and you can get it cheaper than $40, as I've seen mentioned a few times.... you can get it from Target for $30 or at Amazon.com for $20 on sale.... AND WORTH EVERY PENNY!!


Loved this movie version of Pride and Prejudice!! The characters had more life. The movie version verses the play version is more exciting and more interesting. The constant change of scenery suited me better than the play version where the scenery is pretty much the same. Elizabeth and Darcy's attraction for one another was more strongly felt than in other versions. It was also very interesting to watch Darcy struggle with his feelings for Elizabeth. I watched that part over and over again. Colin Firth made an excellent Darcy. He was arrogant and passionate at the same time, plus very handsome. I could not get enough of him. The characters that played Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also excellent. I enjoyed the outside scenes with landscapes, horses and carriages. The home interiors were also more elaborate and fantastic and more in keeping with my imagination of what I thought they looked like after reading Jane Austens book. Have seen this movie version of the book many times over. I will never tire of this version of Pride and Prejudice.


Mr. Darcy is that he is incredibly kind, handsome and caring person. He also had more guts than most men. He knew what Elizabeth thought of him(or if he didn't, he had a pretty good idea) and yet he still pursued her. I think that's why I like him so much. But this entire film was done so well, I can't think of why they're trying to remake it again with Keira Knightly(although I'll probably see that one too, just because I love the story so much). If you are having trouble reading the book, I would suggest seeing this version of the movie, as it is very close to the actual novel, and it might help to add more of a picture to your mind while reading it. I absolutely love this movie!!! You must see it.


It is difficult when making a film to stay true to the book, and that is why i believe that this version of Pride and Prejudice is one of the greatest films ever made.

Everything in the film reflects the novel, including story lines, all of the characters and even dialogue. Once i read the novel, i expected the film to be nothing of it, however, this has proved me wrong. Every detail is correct and it is beautifully presented by this film.

As well as this, all of the actors are fitted perfectly to their roles, with each of them managing to bring out the personalities of each character and giving them the life the Jane Austin created. The stern Mr. Darcy. The wise Elizabeth Bennet. The comical and dramatic mother of Mrs. Bennet. It is all here in this film.

I have tried to find my faults with this film, and i have come up with none! It is very difficult to fault perfection.


I never get bored of this film. I think the actors are all wonderful and i only wish it could have been longer!!! Both Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth portrayed their characters really well and as corny as it sounds I think that if Jane Austen was alive today she would be very pleased with the film(as well as being a living miracle as the worlds oldest lady!). I also think that all the actors did very good performances, especially the Bennet family. For once the film is very very true to the book- of course the lake scene was added but that was not at all damaging to the film in my opinion and i think is one of the most famous moments in the film.Very good!


I absolutely adore this movie. You might be afraid that an attempt at a film would wreck the masterpiece that was the book, but it interprets it beautifully. Almost all of the actors work extremely well for how the characters were portrayed in the book. The acting is quite good. The costumes, scenery/setting, and music are all amazing. The story itself, of course, is beautiful-- and addresses the topics of romance and social customs of its time. I lovvvvve Mr Darcy :sigh: and Mr and Mrs Bennett are highly amusing. Lydia is an idiot and you have to pity poor pathetic Mary. The movie is rather long, but it is worth watching it all-- take it bit by bit! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I'll watch it again and again.


...with the film and the actors at first sight! I have seen it three times so far and will again. I had read the book many times before and was really amused at the faithfulness of the performances, especially those of Mr Collins, Mr Darcy, Miss Bennet and Mrs Bennet. I laughed and was sad and angry...together with the heroes. I really enjoyed the part where Mr Collins came to choose his future wife and the scene where Mr Darcy meets Lizzie coming on foot through all the mud to inquire about her ill sister Jane. In fact, there is no scene that I would not like! I only missed two scenes from the end of the book. One was the walks and talks of Lizzie and Mr Darcy after their engagement and second, the reaction of Mrs Bennet after Elizabeth told her about it.

The settings are beautiful. After seeing the English countryside in this film, I found myself with a strong desire to visit Britain again. One thing I really admired was Colin Firth´s art to use his eyes to express Mr Darcy´s feelings, and facial expressions of Jennifer Ehle. I must say they did an excellent job in this film! Thanks.


This project, along with Emma Thompson's reimagining of "Sense and Sensibility", both filmed in 1995, contributed to the renewal of the popularity on both sides of the Atlantic of Jane Austen's work and the costume drama that the British Television and Film Industry does so well, and for good reason. The talent involved - Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle, Crispin Bonham Carter, Benjamin Whitlow and the wonderful Barbara Leigh-Hunt on the acting side, Jane Austen on the writing side, and the BBC on the production side - almost guarantees a quality production, but as this is, in my opinion, the best Austen dramatization yet to appear on film or television. Of course, having the luxury of being able to basically shoot the novel without abridgement (327 minute mini series) is an advantage that this production has over the filmed versions, the most notable of which was the 1930's production with Sir Laurence Olivier as Darcy.

Surprisingly, the most effective casting was perhaps Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet, an American playing the famous English Rose. For pure enjoyment, Benjamin Whitlow and Alison Steadman's comedic performances playing off each other as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet was a real highlight. Also, it is no mystery why Colin Firth got type cast as Darcy  he appeared earlier in the costume drama Valmont, but he seems to be most remembered for this `Darcy'; he seems to be made for this role (wasn't it amusing that his character's name in `Bridget Jones Diary' was `Darcy'?)

Anyway, this is a wonderful production and I can't think of any significant critism so for me, this mini series is a close to perfection as Drama can get on Television.


Nope - they sure don't make'em like this any more. But modern-day animators working on pixillated mega-productions owe Tex Avery and his "Termite Terrace" co-workers a large debt. Rather than retell The Avery story (there are several books around that will do that), just look out for his classic MGM cartoons of the '40s and '50s, and marvel at the genius on show. "Red Hot Riding Hood" is one of his best and was the first in the "Red" series. It's an out-and-out classic, with a plot loosely based on the children's fairy tale playing second fiddle to beautifully drawn and animated scenes and some fantastic big-band music. The visual pacing in this toon is so fast that if you blink you'll miss another screwball gag. Look for it on TV (yes it does still get shown, in the UK at least) or even better, go see it at the movies. Great stuff and I never tire of it.


Tex Avery's first excursion into animated sexual frenzy is his best, ranking as one of his three greatest cartoons (the other two, in case you're wondering, are "Who Killed Who?," also 1943, and "King-Size Canary," 1947). Although Avery would explore this theme in five more cartoons (or six or seven, depending on whether you want to count "Big Heel-Watha," 1944, and/or "Little 'Tinker," 1948; your call), none of them quite reach the heights of the original. (At least not in overall effect: Tex's single most outrageous gag of this sort is in the long legally undistributed "Uncle Tom's Cabana," 1947, and involves a cash register hidden under the aroused male's coat. Nuff said!) Some have suggested that having the Wolf's pursuit by Grandma follow the raging libido scene was a mistake in pacing, but it all works for me. It's too bad Avery didn't complete the opening misdirection by having the FIRST title card read "Little Red Riding Hood," but it goes by so quickly, and is drawn so conservatively that it doesn't really hurt. Besides, is there a context in which this film could be realistically expected to be shown where the audience would be truly surprised when it doesn't turn out to be a straight version of the fairy-tale?


Actually, my comment for this should truly be a simple verbal genuflection, but that wouldn't be of acceptable minimum length here, so I'll actually say something.

This is Tex Avery's masterpiece in terms of the relation of his work to animation in general and the short form in specific. There are better cartoons (some even by Avery himself) and there are cartoons that I personally like better, but in terms of what Avery was attempting to do with the form, in terms of what animation was at the time and had been in the past and what its potential was for the future and the impact that Avery had and would have on his artform, this is the first truly successful Avery cartoon on all terms, both Avery's and animation. Avery blew out the valves, cranked up the engine and blew the doors off on this one for the first (but not last) time here. He turned everything up a few notches here, gang, and it works! It worked then, it works now and will work tomorrow, precisely because Avery had that most overworked and little understood word-genius. Remarkable cartoon and if you like animation and haven't seen this one, what are you reading me for? Go watch this. This is a great piece of work. Need I add, most highly recommended?


This is another fine animated short from Tex Avery. This time he uses the fairy tale of 'Little Red Riding Hood'. After the characters have complained they always have to play the same story over and over again the story is changed completely. The wolf is a rich character who falls in love with Red. She doesn't want him because she has to go to her grandma. The wolf makes sure he gets there before Red does. Instead of a sick old woman he finds a mature lady who is attracted to the wolf. Of course hilarious moments is what we get.

This short has a nice story and the usual Tex Avery humor, including written messages. The short is not really suitable for children, it has some sexual references, but adults will like this very much. A very nice animated short.


Got to be the funniest and fastest Avery cartoon there is, the best "modern" slant on the red riding hood story, with the wolf lusting after Red Hot at every opportunity. Note the reference to the wartime car tyre shortage with the line...."I can even get you a set of white wall tyres!" I,ve seen the 'toon loads of times and it always never fails to make me laugh long and loud. Working as a projectionist in the cinema I have also shown the toon, and on examining the print it is really noticeable that many frames have been cut out when "Red" makes an appearance. Enjoy the toon!


I second the comments about this influential cartoon and its effect on the course of animation. But there's one question unanswered, and that's: Did this formula begun with this cartoon and continuing (with Avery, at least) to the end of the 1940's play a role, however indirectly, in the future development of Benny Hill's show after, say, 1980? If one sees the early Hill's Angels numbers, especially the juxtaposition of dancers gyrating and men's various reactions, one can see many similarities; alas, there was none of the relative subtlety and wit for which Avery was most famous. And interesting that both Avery and Hill have been targeted in later years for supposedly being "politically incorrect." Think about it . . .


I feel Tex has not been given the full credit he deserves for his innovative cartoon work. While 'Bugs' and 'Mickey' continue running, Tex's creations rarely appear on commercial television. I wonder if Tex's work may be viewed as either risque of politically incorrect!


I think cartoons have a better chance of saying things uncensored than cinema. This toon was made during the war at a time when noir movies were rising fast. What this does is take the children story we all know and update it so it would fit the logic of modern society. And this is where its genius rests, Tex Avery manages to pose a number of questions only in seven minutes: why does the wolf behave so erratically, why does he fall so stupidly for the dame, who wins at the end: the exploited nightclub dancer, the suicidal wolf or the libidinous grandma? All these questions would have felt moronic when I was eight and simply enjoyed it as a cartoon. But it's amazing to see something so simple achieve such a level of complexity. And the animation per se is pretty good to, one of the best of the period


Here is the short (besides her last cartoon Little Rural Riding Hood), that got me to love to the first overtly erotic cartoon character ever created - Red. Now this short Red Hot Riding Hood is one of Avery's most popular cartoons, and some consider the cartoon to be Avery's magnum opus.

The story begins with the standard version of the Little Red Riding Hood story; until the characters suddenly rebel at this done-to-death staging and stated "every cartoon studio in Hollywood has done it this way;" which is kind of the turth, and demand a fresh approach. So, the annoyed narrator accedes to their demands and starts the story again in a dramatically different arrangement. And now, the story is set in a contemporary urban setting where Red is a sexy adult nightclub entertainer. The Wolf is a debonair skirt chaser who is in love with Red but she wants nothing to do with him. Red escapes Wolf saying she's going to her Grandma's house, but when Wolf arrives Red is nowhere to be found. Grandma is an oversexed man-chaser who falls head over heels over Wolf, and locks him in her apartment, puts on a bright red shade of lipstick and tries to kiss him several times during his stay. He tries to escape but the lovelorn granny chases after him, and every door Wolf opens Grandma is there waiting with puckered lips.

In contrast to my favorite cartoon character Betty Boop, who was a character who exuded a sweetly innocent style, Red was pure sex, existing almost exclusively to whip the Wolf (a metaphor for males in general) into a carnal frenzy. With this short as her introduction, Red was the sexy distraction for the oversexed, lusting "Wolf" character that was introduced earlier in the 1942 short "Blitz Wolf." She drove the sex-crazed wolf do all the things that were to become trademarks of Avery's cartoons: the eye-popping, the jaw dropping, and the gravity defiying pratfalls. She was so popular that she was brought back for 3 more cartoons - "Swing Shift Cinderella," "Uncle Tom's Cabana" and "Little Rural Riding Hood." Her cartoons were originally made for the benefit of U.S. GI's, and were banned from television for years for being considerd to racy.


This is a wonderfully kooky and sexy film from MGM and director Tex Avery. Like his followup film, SWINGSHIFT Cinderella, this film features a very sexy red-headed female lead that looks like a combination of Betty Grable and Jessica Rabbit! Because of the overt sexuality of the cartoon, it isn't surprising that in 1943, this cartoon was banned or edited in several locales! Never before had such a hot cartoon leading lady been released by a major film studio and audiences of the day were both incensed and excited at the prospect! The cartoon begins with the traditional Red Riding Hood story. However, in rather typical Avery style, the characters step out of the tale and demand that this dull story be updated. So, moments later, Red Riding Hood is a living pin-up girl and the wolf is a sex-crazed "wolf" on the prowl for such a tasty dish! Like SWINGSHIFT Cinderella, however, the old lady (grandma in this case) is dead set on catching the wolf herself and does everything she can do to thwart the wolf from capturing Red. Most of the action is very high-paced and goofy--just like you'd hope in a Tex Avery cartoon.

Overall, this is a great cartoon. While it isn't quite as funny as SWINGSHIFT, it is the first of its kind and because of that it still is one of the best of the era. My advice? See them both--though similar, you just can't get enough of these crazy cartoons and they abound with great humor and animation throughout. A true classic.


Ever since I found out about "Red Hot Riding Hood", I had been wanting to see it, but I never did.

That is, until I found it on YouTube.....

Tex Avery made me very, very happy that day, hence my comment title.

It starts off like a normal sugar coated fairy tail (the narrator even uses a sappy voice!) until the Wolf, Red and Grandma all start complaining that every studio in Hollywood has done this over and over again. And that's when "Little Red Riding Hood" turns into "RED HOT RIDING HOOD"!!! This is the low down on what happens: The Wolf is a wealthy playboy, Grandma is also filthy rich (and horny as hell) and Red is a flaming hot and sexy nightclub singer/dancer. The wolf goes to the nightclub, sees Red performing and goes ballistic over her. He then chases her to "Grandma's house" (which is really a giant apartment), Grandma sees the Wolf and starts chasing him! It ends with the Wolf at the nightclub muttering that he'll shoot himself if he sees another babe ever again. Red appears on the stage again and, true to the Wolf's words, he shoots himself and his ghost goes nuts over Red.

This is most definitely one of the greatest cartoons of all time. Anyone who hasn't seen it, must see it.


If you thought that 'Little Red Riding Rabbit (1944)' was an offbeat adaptation of the fairy-tale, then you haven't seen nothing yet. Tex Avery's 'Red Hot Riding Hood (1943)' opens in the usual fashion, but, after that, any resemblance to any known fairy-tale character, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. The Wolf baulks at having to play the one-dimensional bad guy for the hundredth time, and threatens to quit if the animators can't come up with anything original; Red Riding Hood and her grandma agree with him. So Avery throws together 'Red Hot Riding Hood,' an adult cartoon set in the big city  the Wolf is a sex-crazed womaniser, Red a knockout nightclub dancer, and Grandma a libidinous old lady with her own high-rise penthouse. Yes, I warned you this one was different! Somebody must have forgotten to inform Avery that he was producing cartoons for children, since there's actually little to laugh at for anybody who isn't yet acquainted with the birds and the bees.

However, for those of us who have surpassed that particular checkpoint, 'Red Hot Riding Hood' is very funny. The sheer audacity of a children's cartoon about sex  particularly given the typically innocent and wholesome image of Little Red Riding Hood  is something to be applauded. When Red first appears on stage, tossing aside her outfit to reveal a decidedly immodest red costume, I was genuinely taken aback, and then felt somewhat ashamed of myself. No doubt the animators in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)' used Red as a template for the similarly alluring Jessica Rabbit. Also worth noting is that 'The Mask (1994)' directly referenced 'Red Hot Riding Hood' in the scene where Jim Carrey wolf-whistles (in the full sense of the word) Cameron Diaz during her nightclub performance  I'd never realised this. The interaction between Wolf and Grandma is more conventional than the rest of the film, but still enjoyable. For fans of Tex Avery and MGM cartoons, this one is essential viewing.


What a great acoustic performance! I thought the audio quality was excellent and the setlist was well chosen. The personal nature of all of these songs force you to hang on every lyric. Almost every song on this is from CSNY's Looking Forward or Silver and Gold. If you want to see classic Neil tunes , watch Unplugged or Live in Berlin. If you want to see a rock and roll veteran wonderfully perform new stuff, this is a must see.


Just watched this last night. Finished by wanting to buy every other NY video. Superb performance. Highlight was Philadelphia. Atmosphere, mood & interaction with the audience was just right. I think Neil is at his best on this sort of set (check out unplugged), as he produces clear undiluted music filled with emotion & feeling.


As soon as I saw Neil sit on the chair and pick up a guitar I thought "This is going to be great" and It did not let me down.

Through the coarse of the night he plays Guitar and Piano and Harmonica.

The best song was "Looking Forward".

NEIL IS GREAT


I thought that overall the movie was pretty good. A lot of action was in it and not much plot, for what it was I think that the movie turned out really good. Plus I'm a fan of Catherine Bell so I have to say she did a really good job as Lt. Cmdr. Lisa Stark! >


This was a really bad movie. It uses every cliché ever known to man, the 'romance' was even less unbelievable than most bad movies, and it was completely militarily inaccurate. Case in point: Catherine Bell's character Lt. Cmdr Lisa Starks was referred to as "Lieutenant" by all other characters. And she answered the phone with "Lieutenant Stark". Uh hello. A Lt. Cmdr is always addressed as "Commander." You'd think that even without any sort of original story line that they would have at least tried to get the technical details right Don't bother seeing this one. U-571 is much better. And Stealth is much more entertaining even if its kinda cliché too.


As a former submarine sailor, this was the most pathetic submarine movie I've ever watched. A friend bought it for me as a birthday gift and I felt obligated to watch it. Apparently, it was too difficult to round up ANYBODY who had ever served aboard a submarine to correct a few of the several hundred mistakes. Had they asked someone like me, this may have turned out to be a fair movie.

Dudikoff's character was suppose to be a Navy SEAL... He sure didn't fight like a SEAL, especially when that woman was kicking his a**!

Furthermore, the ocean is pretty deep once you move away from the continental shelf. Submarines are not able to cruise around along the bottom of the ocean. They try to stay away from rocks and stuff that might damage the hull if you were to accidentally run into it.

Also, with the intense firefight near the end of the movie, I thought it was amazing that not even a single bullet ricocheted.

Finally, SSN submarines do not have vertical launch tubes, SSBN submarines are the ones with vertical launch tubes.

I appreciate my friend giving my this gift, but I'll never get these 90 minutes back!


This movie was by far the worst Techno-thriller type movie I have ever seen, I suffered through the entire movie to see who was the brave soul that allowed his/her name to be attached to the technical adviser's slot and who the continuity director was. Now I know that everyone is not an accuracy nut like I am, but having been in the navy, it would be nice to have the film stay in the ball park. The hardest thing about this film to believe is the fact that of the 90 minutes that it ran, 45 of it was re-hashed from other movies, and the majority of those 45 minutes were from "Crimson Tide." I guess sampling is alive and well in the movie industry as well.


Michael Dudikoff is one of those "actors" in Hollywood that makes his living on B grade action movies that don't have any story or fun what so ever.The same goes for "Crash Dive", a totally inert flick that borrows heavily from "Under Siege","Die Hard" and so forth.The acting is horrible as is the story.Come on,a middle east terrorist group (that contains Russian speaking Germans WAAHAA) that invades a sub marine and then wants to destroy New York or Washington to rule the world.The same old story told without any humor.I'm starting to feel a little sea sick now...

At one point I was cheering for the terrorists,I mean who would put nukes on a sub.Then you're begging for total destruction.Dudikoff is no action hero and he wouldn't be a good terrorist either,he's below that. And then that ugly "Russian" woman,she looks awful,why couldn't she die earlier? No surprises,bad acting,a dull story.lame one liners and ridiculous special effects (the explosion in the Empire State Building is stuff from the forties,I mean really) make for a totally forgettable VHS B grade movie. Dudikoff should be fired once and for all or killed by those movie terrorists...

2/10 (just because it's not that awful for a 1.)


For all the fight scenes in this movie, you'd think they would have devoted some creativity to them...Ooops Sorry, There was no creativity in the entire movie. The director should be shooting video of the South Dakota RV Association annual meeting instead.

It really comes across as soft-headed and amateurish to the point of being offensive. They entire thing stumbles in a gooey fog through second rate (why not use first rate?) cliché's.

The best they can get out of the few serious actors in it is a sort of half-hearted professionalism, where they recreate (from better memories) some more prestigious and more watchable previous roles.

Painful. Turn it off and go clean the garage. You'll have more fun.


The fighting scene is very cool! What's more, wife(or, fiancee) and kid are always best choices of adding humanity to the story. Yes, I always like this part. Though made before the WTC crashed, this is still a good reflection on highjacking and "sub-jacking". I wonder if these movies provided guides for terrorists.


Alex Kingston IS Moll Flanders. Please, forget the cotton-candy version that has Morgan Freeman in the cast (though, I _adore_ Stockard Channing). This is the real thing! We get to see the real, harsh struggles of Moll in this adaptation, and how out of the muck and grime Moll finds herself. There is no happy ending here, you can bet that, but at least you get a real story that is more appropriate to the times. That is worth much more to me than a smiling happy face, in the end. This is a real, gritty film - not cheap. Highly recommended.


This movie has the blessing of the flawless direction of Richard Eyre, who knows a lot about kings and queens. The screen play is adapted by the author of the play, Jeffrey Hatcher. Surprisingly, these two men have been able to create a film that is not only visually satisfying, but it also is an adult entertainment.

This movie gives us a glimpse of how theatre functioned in England up to the times of Charles II. The female roles of all plays were portrayed by male actors. The school of acting in that era was an artificial one where actors relied in gestures and affectations that would be laughable today in a serious drama, but that was the way it was the accepted Method then, nothing to do with Stanivslaski, or Strassberg.

The leading figure of that theatrical world was Ned Keynaston, who was the most famous Desdemona of his time. There must have been a lot of gay men that were attracted to that world, as was the case with Mr. Keynaston, who might have been bisexual, although that comes as a secondary subplot. This actor is greatly admired by all, including the dressing assistant, Maria. This girl loved to be in the theatre, but could not, because only men were allowed. So instead, she goes to a second rate company that puts on plays in a pub and emerges as Margaret Hughes, an actress in her own right who will challenge Keynaston's Desdemona and makes that role, her signature role as well.

Claire Danes, as Maria, or Margaret Hughes, has never been better! She shines as the girl whose ambition is to be on stage. She is wonderful in the part. Ned, played with gusto by Billy Crudup, shows an unexpected range, although he has done theatre extensively. Both of these actors takes us back to London and make us believe that what we are watching.

A glorious English cast behind the two American principals are gathered to play effortlessly the theatrical figures of the time, and also the King and his court. Ruper Everett, as King Charles II, is hilarious. The scene in which he plays in drag with his mistress, Nell Gwynn, is one of the best things of the movie. Also, Richard Griffith, as lecherous Sir Charles Sedley, gives a stellar performance. Ben Chaplin, as the Duke of Buckingham, reveals the ambiguity of the men that were attracted to those early thespians.

Thoroughly enjoyable because of Richard Eyre's direction and eye for detail.


Before the Great Fire and the Great Plague of the mid-seventeenth century, London slowly, joyously awoke to the end of the Interregnum, that dark period of the evil regicide, Cromwell and his dull and dim son and successor. Theaters shut down during the Protectorate now reopened and the die-hard, dour Puritans either doffed their somber garb and decamped for more favorable vice-free venues or joined the fun.

Director Richard Eyre and script author Jeffrey Hatcher (who wrote the play on which "Stage Beauty" is derived) set the screen with a feast of authentic costumes and an almost palpable ambiance of a great city resurrecting a rich cultural life, at least for those of means.

But, as has been said, the play is the thing and the acting here is uniformly engrossing, indeed superb.

Based more or less on history, the film chronicles an awkward and for many painful evolution of law and theater, the two intertwined. For when Charles II was restored to the throne lost by his father (who also lost something else of even more estimable value), theaters reopened but under an old law that forbade the presence of actresses on the stage. The great female roles of Shakespeare were performed by men, some of whom were the subjects of audience and patron adulation for their skills of gender mimicry.

Ned Keynaston (Billy Crudop) is the leader of the pack, a star of the stage whose Desdemona is the height of his career. Serving as his dresser is Maria (Clair Danes), a frustrated actress who mouths the lines of Desdemona from the side of the stage as Ned wows the punters.

Maria actually gets to act behind Ned's back but in a less than first-line theater, her costume borrowed, to be generous, from the unsuspecting Ned.

What follows is a comedy and a drama as the king (Rupert Everett), at the urging of one of his mistresses, Nell Gynn (newcomer Zoe Tapper) proclaims that women may take on the roles of their sex and the cadre of female impersonators must seek new and gender authentic roles. At first amused, then devastated by a loss of roles, income and prestige, Ned slides to singing bawdy songs in drag to a somewhat low(er) class clientele in a sink run by a foulmouthed harridan. But under the protection of a genuinely odious, rotund and foul Sir Charles (Richard Griffith), Maria becomes the toast of the town for her fine acting.

Sexual attraction equally matched by a moving ambiguity permeates both the roles played by Maria and Ned and their off-stage lives. Maria is in love with Ned who is, at least, potentially bisexual while actually intimate with one of the king's favorites, the second Duke of Buckingham (Ben Chaplin). Buckingham was, in actuality, one of the most complex characters during Charles's two decade exile and then restoration to the throne. A conniver and master manipulator, here his skills are shown as being wholly adapted to surviving in a court attended by intrigue at every turn.

Eyre projects role reversal both with Ned and Maria's theater life and their increasing personal but never simple involvement. Can he make love to a woman? Does he know himself what his orientation is? There is a certain contemporaneity to the artfully acted issues raised in this mid-1600s scenario.

Eyre could not have selected a better cast. Crudop is penetrating as a man whose whole, strange persona is transformed in an instant by a monarch's command. Everett is disarmingly foppish as the Stuart monarch but in a critical scene he reveals his deep, lasting resentment over his father's and his dynasty's fate as he orders women to be allowed to perform. Edward Fox is splendid in short takes as Charles's key minister, Sir Edward Hyde (the Earl of Clarendon but he's never identified with his proper peerage title).

Zoe Tapper may well have studied the life of her character, "the Protestant Whore" (so known and loved by the London underclass to distinguish her from the despised "Catholic Whore" who alternated with Nell for the king's company and body (forget about the queen-she doesn't even make an appearance here). She's crude, raw, vulgar, sentimental, loyal and cunning - she IS Nell Gynn.

Hugh Bonneville is the randy, compulsive diarist Sir Samuel Pepys, father of the Royal Navy, here a stage door Johnny, a voyeur. Ben Chaplin as the Duke of Buckingham is just the right admixture of randiness and a healthy regard for the penalty that can be incurred by going too far over the edge of conventionality. And Tom Wilkinson as Ned's and then Maria's stage impresario combines business acumen with a soft human touch.

But special kudos go to Clair Danes - this is her best performance to date. She runs the gamut of emotions from helpless subservience to repressive laws to sprightly awakening of her worth to deep confusion about her priorities and needs. She inhabits the role of Maria with skill and grace. An Oscar-worthy display.

The score is fine, briskly and authentically complementing the story. And for the first time ever in a movie a king of England is shown cavorting in the royal rack with his mistress while six adorable King Charles Spaniels look on.

10/10


Those who have something invested in keeping the boundaries of gender and sexuality rigid will be offended by this film, whether they be religious fundamentalist types or gay-rights advocates who argue from the constrictive either/or framing of their opponents. Fundamentalists (and I used to be one!) would, at the same time, find material to support their nurture-not-nature conclusions in Ned Kynaston's background (implicit victimization at the hands of an implicit pedophile), the bigoted comments of the king about effeminate boys, and most of all the actor's eventual orientation "reversal" at the hands of the "right woman." This, of course, would anger those who have chosen to engage them in the loaded "is it a choice?" battle which completely dismisses the B in LGBT. If you are coming from an angle in which no Kinsey scale exists, then the offense makes sense.

I think it's a mistaken angle, however. My only complaints about this movie were minor, and involved poor editing, unnecessary dialogue, and a couple of unlikely scenarios (e.g. the carriage ladies' hyperbolic reaction to Ned's petticoat surprise). Otherwise, I loved it - enough to watch it four times on DVD. For me, this story was about identity, authenticity, the malleability of gender and sexuality, and the difference between love and projection.

At the bustling outset of the film, Ned (pitch-perfect Billy Crudup, ravishing in any incarnation) is arrogant and narcissistic; his self-regard is balanced perilously upon a constructed self that relies on the applause of others. Alone with Maria, we get a glimmer of something else in him when he pauses contemplatively to quote his mentor - "Never forget that you are a man in woman's form...or was it the other way 'round?" This hint at an awareness (on his or the film's part) of the essential duality of human nature is echoed by Maria - "You would make as fine a man as any woman."

When Ned loses his role and his audience to Maria, he loses his very identity; in this way, she "kills" him. The theme of killing and dying is cleverly woven throughout the narrative, both onstage and off. (But more on that presently.)

Lost and literally beaten, Ned turns to his former lover, who spurns him with droll indifference. Ned is no longer the shallow Duke's glittering projection but a raw, needy, and very messy human being. Ned's disastrous last-ditch attempt to play Othello for the king in order to save his livelihood is the final humiliation. Maria watches his disintegration onstage, and grasps his utter vulnerability for the first time. It's a credit to Claire Danes' talent that she can speak volumes without uttering a word; in this scene and the inn scene her unexpressed love bleeds from every pore.

The almost-sex scene between the two at the inn is one of my favorite love scenes in any film. The gentle role-switching from "man" to "woman" (in alternate parlance, "top" to "bottom" or "dominant" to "submissive") leads to a passionate confusion in which, if you'll notice, Ned tells Maria (astride him) first that she is the "woman" - "And now?" she says, kissing and caressing him - "The woman," he says - "And now?" she says, her passion intensifying - "The man," he murmurs. Do the roles really matter? If only he had shut up about Desdemona! But there is still some "dying" left to do, and not in the Shakespearian sense. Call it evening the score.

For alas, Maria is a terrible actress: as affected as Ned was, and twice as false. In rehearsal with someone who evokes her own passion, however, her performance begins to come alive.

The harrowing climax of the film has the viewer wondering, along with the theatre audience, if the newfound Othello's murderous passion is real. And it is, which is why Ned is so good at it. In "killing" Maria onstage, he manages at once to work out his Othello-like ambivalence and rage toward a woman he also loves; to "kill" her affected stage persona; and to give birth to himself as an authentic actor in his own male body. It's damn near perfect.

"Finally got the death scene right." Ned may not yet know who or even what he is, but he finds expression of his innermost being with a person who loves and accepts him for whomever he may turn out to be. We should all be so lucky.


He is exquisite, Billy Crudup I mean, but not as a woman. Strangely enough he is more feminine as a man than he is as a woman. Look at him in "Almost Famous" perfect. Shaped like a flamenco dancer, rhythmic, sexual, casually overpowering. In "Jesus's Son" just by waking up at the beginning of the film, he, his character, gets you. Here he seems at odds with the feminine aspect of his character. His Desdemona is a performance. What perhaps I'm saying is that I admired the performance but I didn't feel it. I was aware of its quality but I couldn't taste it, as I have done with previous Billy Crudup creations. Another strange thing, Clare Danes. I think she's one of the most interesting actresses of her generation and here you enjoy her enormously when she's on but her character is now a blurry dot in my memory. What remains most vividly in my mind is Rupert Everett's sensational turn as King Charles. All said and done, try not to miss it.


Billy Crudup is an actor I follow with feverish anticipation. I saw him for the first time on Broadway, about 10 years ago, in a Stoppard play. It was love at first sight. A sensual, magnetic, beautiful man. "Jesus Son" "Waking the Dead" and "Almost Famous" confirmed my initial impression. Here we have an actor for the ages. A unique, monumental talent. "Stage Beauty" however, gives me pause. Billy is entrusted with a bigger than life role and he comes out of it with a half cooked, self conscious, affected performance. He underlines every other line with a semi smile, a slight pressure of the mouth as if he didn't trust the power of his own delivery. It could be treated as a character trait if you've never seen Billy Crudup before but that tic belongs to the actor not to the character. I'm, of course, being a bit anal retentive. At his weakest, Billy is stronger than most but my expectations are so high that something like that would throw me out of my involvement with his character. The film as a whole is lovely and fun. The one most effective element is Rupert Everett's performance as Charles II, his best - an that is saying a lot - in many, many moons. Comparasions with "Shakespeare in Love" are unavoidable but totally misguiding. See it for what it is and you'll enjoy it thoroughly.


"Stage Beauty" was visually stunning, lush AND fun for an adult. As a viewer I loved this film. I evidently do not have the theater knowledge of some of the other reviewers but as a film goer with not a few years of experience going to the movies, this was one of the most enjoyable experiences I have ever had. Billy Crudup has turned in another textured, finely drawn performance, Rupert Everett (as usual) was marvelous and Claire Danes can finally leave behind the moniker of "from 'My So Called Life' ". Some of the supporting characters (with the notable exceptions of the terrific Tom Wilkinson and Ben Chaplin) were kind of thin but that is a minor complaint. I also have some friends who quibble with the depiction of Crudup's sexuality towards the end of the film (why can't a gay man BE gay). However, I adored this film.


Stage Beauty is an unbelievably ambitious production, and with so many provocative themes running simultaneously it's definitely not boring. What I liked the most was the way the sexual ambiguity was portrayed - most of those scenes had a playful touch, so as not to get drearily heavy-handed, but I also felt a lot of the veering between seriousness and comedy was awkward where it should have been smooth. Rupert Everett's droll turn as the King was perfect, and Claire Danes has never been more passionate and radiant. Billy Crudup's role was the most difficult, of course, and he handled it commendably. My favorite scene is the one where the two of them are in bed, and she's asking, "who are you now?" (the man or the woman, based on the position) - a brilliant scene which depicts the ridiculousness of gender-stereotyping with wit and charm to spare.


Although I came in part way through, the sumptuous sets and photography were immediately captivating. I recognized several cast members as superb actors but was reeled in for the movie's entirety with the appearance of Claire Danes. If I were a high school drama teacher, this would be required viewing for my students because of its historical and theatrical qualities. The psychological intricacies presented in several intense scenes regarding "gender" were vividly heart-wrenching. Since I had no clue as to what I was viewing, I felt compelled to check it out on the Internet for further details. I intend to view it from the beginning ASAP. Highly recommended.


I was at the gala screening of "Stage Beauty" last night at the Toronto International Film Festival, and I am still in awe of what a brilliant movie this is. "Shakespeare in Love" has been one of my favourites since its release, but I have to say that "Stage Beauty" totally takes the subject matter up one level, and blows it out of the water! The story had me captivated from beginning to end, with stellar performances by all cast members, particularly Claire Danes and Billy Crudup (who I truly believe is Oscar worthy for his portrayal of Edward Kynaston). Cast members Tom Wilkinson, Claire Danes and Billy Crudup were at the screening, which made it even more exciting. Although it takes place in Restoration England, the themes throughout are universal, particularly male/female roles and gender identity. Melodic, edgy, witty, and visually stunning, "Stage Beauty" is a must see for all film and theatre lovers, and I highly recommend it as a "must see" for any students studying Shakespeare, his contemporaries, or any Renaissance/Restoration/Elizabethan drama.


A few earlier comments express the concern that the film does not "let the GAY man be gay". Some viewers feel that "Stage Beauty" sends a message that only hethero sex is normal and if there was sexual ambiguity at the beginning, all ends "well". Some of the negative critics' reviews on rotten tomatoes also have a problem with the representation of androgyny and sexuality in the movie. My perception is that the movie did not try to send a message or convey a judgment. Throughout the movie Ned Kynaston did not self-identify as either gay or straight, or as a man or a woman. This constant confusion was made clear in several scenes including the end of the movie. Today we understand that sexuality is better described on a continuum (Kinsey) and therefore it is almost absurd to classify anyone as gay or straight. In the case of Ned Kynaston the lack of self-identification was both in terms of sexual orientation as well as gender. Although the two identity crises were clearly related. A critic on rotten tomatoes begins his review with: "Stage Beauty" is "the ultimate fantasy for women who tend to fall in love with gay men". This statement is based on at least two wrong assumptions: 1. Ned Kynaston is gay 2. Ned Kynaston stops being gay. I think one of the many strengths of this movie is exactly this non judgmental, factual representation of the complexity of sexual identity. We seem to be making some progress in understanding these issues better as they are being addressed by more and more movies, like "Alexander", "Beautiful Boxer", "Brokeback Mountain".


"Stage Beauty" succeeds beautifully in what any good period piece does, whether set 300 years ago or 300 years from now. It takes us into that setting, finds evocative characters, and has them bring up plot matters that resonate. With us, that is ... not necessarily with those actually living in the time depicted.

I say this because the central element of the story has been described as unbelievable or unconvincing by some critics. Ned Kynaston (Billy Crudup), at the end of his run in playing female parts, is pulled from personal and professional despair through the insight and love of Maria (Claire Danes), his dresser and successor -- and they create a triumph out of this by bringing some real emotion to the Restoration stage.

This has been decried as bringing Method acting to the 17th Century. It's nothing of the kind. Innovation is made during a fertile, provocative period of history. It did take 250 years to get away from excess artifice and gesture on stage. Yet "Stage Beauty" makes you believe that these characters could have accomplished it in the 1660s.

If you can live with that, showing a success on stage that we can believe, even if it couldn't "actually have happened" ... then you'll enjoy this story. I was riveted by the way Ned and Maria turn their mutual fortunes around. So was Rupert Everett's wryly spoken Charles II, and so, perhaps, will you.

The story centers on Ned's withering and growth in the face of adversity, and Crudup shows a huge range of emotions in carrying out this character's experiences. Complacency, haughtiness, sardonic amusement, appalled shock, tenderness -- but most of all, a crushing verdict on his own abilities, delivered before Charles and his mistress in a setting that only adds to his humiliation. I was taken entirely out of that moment in how I felt for him, almost an out-of-body experience.

Maria is the mainspring to Ned's watch face, and Danes shows her own range and depth of feeling. She takes the winds of celebrity, itself something new for that time, and runs with them. Though she's not past being bewildered by them, especially when her portrait is being painted.

Her suffering in the wings of several theaters -- down to Ned being abased before drunks -- shows many depths of love, for acting as such, for brilliance of technique, for Ned himself.

She almost never talks directly of love. (Hugh Bonneville's perceptive Samuel Pepys helps bring it out at one crucial turning point.) She shows her love to Ned, to all levels of him, without once actually saying so.

The two are left seemingly adrift at the end, with her final question and his response. Yet their regard for each other transcends everything that is thrown at them -- from his raging self-doubt, to the royal court's machinations and violence, to her being obsessed with acting technique at the expense of creating passion and fire.

This is a story of words transcending gestures and artifice. The words win out, whether in backstage maneuvering, unexpected honesty (even from the King's mistress!), or gauging what can be done with a character. It's a brave new world of being direct, getting past evasions and imitations of emotions.

Danes and Crudup inhabit their characters. They're simply English, no question -- the accents are perfect. The Restoration physical settings are superb -- dark enough for post-exile, pre-Fire London, entirely believable for courts, stages, and back-stages. The score is evocative, with twangs of Scots influence.

Every element immerses us in this world, even with the acting paradigm shift noted above. One can believe in these characters and their difficulties, and it ultimately comes to matter little that this is the 1660s. It's a human triumph which is timeless.

Not every question of life is answered, for Ned and Maria, but you know that they're embarking toward a New World of finding out about themselves -- more metaphorical than the journey undertaken at the end of "Shakespeare in Love," but far more believable.

Danes and Crudup deserve Oscar nominations, and I doubt they'll be denied. See for yourself, and be sure you do so in widescreen.


"The Restoration" theatre vividly brought to life by a first-rate "Company of Players". In an age when women were forbidden to perform on the stage Ned Kynaston was arguably the "prettiest man in London" & the toast of the London's theatrical world. But when Charles II declares women may indeed trod the theatre's (& London's) stage(s), he finds himself haunted by the persona he has become. And, in so doing, he provides a triumphant view of a turning point in his career ~~ and in the history of the theatre. A visually stunning movie with a superb cast headed by Claire Danes (Maria), Billy Crudup (Ned Kynaston) & Rupert Everett (King Charles II) that enchants as well as creates the Restoration Age in England.


I loved this movie! Mistress Hughes is charming and true, Ned is perfect, I could well understand _Mariah_'s affection, and I did love his hands; Charlie is great (but then, Everett is always great), pretty witty Nell is a bundle of energy... The movie was so good, at the end my stomach was tight, my pulse was beating fast, and all I could do was... watch it again! :)

As an actress's daughter, I had been curious about when and how did the transition between men-playing-women and women-playing-women. The how is perhaps romanticized, but... I am sure it was very hard on some men who were successful at it, and a personal angst did help drive that point through. The movie was honest, and the two Othelo death scenes which framed it quite took my breath away. The stylistic beauty of the first, where the traces of Comedia del'Arte could be observed, was stage beauty of one kind, and the long and winding path to the realistic stage beauty of the second one... made sense.

The film is a strong acting one, where people who have serious connections with theater will get much more than the rest, which does distribute the real pith among a selected few. But there are also points which are more general - like s*x in pre-Victorian London (high) society, which was more relaxed than during and long after, and I thought that was represented very faithfully in the movie.

Anyway, again, I loved the movie and I will definitely see it yet again!


I had heard of the film through tadbloid and celebrity headlines of how Billy Crudup left his seven month pregnant girlfriend, Mary-Louise Parker, for Claire Danes. I wasn't interested in the film, but then my sister got the DVD for her birthday. I saw it for the first time over the week and I have been watching it over and over again. What a beautifully written story about acting, gender, theater, illusion, romance, and discovery of one's own identity. During the Restoration of England under the reign of King Charles II, women were finally given the freedom and right to perform on the stage whereas before the decree it was illegal and obscene for a woman to perform on stage.

Ned Kynaston (Billy Crudup) is the greatest actor and the most beautiful "woman" of the English stage. He played several women's part and his most famous is the role of Desdemona in William Shakespeare's Othello. He is studied, admired, loved, and envied by his dress keeper, Maria (Claire Danes). She watches from the wings and longs to act and she does so behind Kynaston's back and in low pubs before a royal official, the Duke of Buckingham (Ben Chaplin). Then the chain of events unfold as Maria is introduced to Charles II (Rupert Everett) and his mistress Nell Gwyn (Zoe Tapper) who then declares that women will be given the freedom to perform in theater.

As Maria's fame rises and women are playing more and more of the female roles, Ned Kynaston (the last of his kind of actors) is casted aside. As an actor and as man, Kynaston had learned to suppress all masculinity in order to gain the grace and beauty of a woman. He knows only how to portray women and he is lost in learning to play male roles. But then again Maria is unable to play the role of Desdemona as a real woman. Both Kynaston and Maria fall in love and into passion as they learn from each other their own sexual identities and to channel their femininity and masculinity.

I fell in love with the film's story and with the performances of Billy Crudup and Claire Danes. As Kynaston, Crudup reveals vulnerability and strength as a man who discovers himself as a man (and a very hot one at that) through the role and eyes of being a woman. As Maria, Danes is beautiful and real: those tears are real! She can cry on cue and with the heartbreak of a real woman in love and envious of the man she loves. Maria is a strong, forthcoming, and in way a modern actress ahead of her time. She is not an "Eve" from All About Eve, she is a Viola Delesop from Shakespeare In Love, but real. The love scene between Danes and Crudup is sexy, tender, and passionate showing that explicit sex and nudity is not always necessary. They look into each other's sides and truly learn from each other as man and woman.

This is a highly recommended film for those who love acting, period pieces, or just if you want to see a really good film, "Stage Beauty" is very much the film to watch.


I've seen Billy Crudup on stage, and he can be very good. I'd say that here he's brilliant.

I seem to have missed this when it played in New York, and I don't know how. One might quibble over some of the....uh....eccentricities, but over all this is quite amazing.

There was a recent Chinese film about a boy who plays women on stage, and his lover. It covered a lot of the growing up part of how a boy gets to play a woman on stage. This neatly skips that part and deals in a truly fascinating way with the aftermath.

Claire Danes is a revelation. She makes you completely believe in what you're seeing. Her reaction to her environment and the fact that she is also hiding who she really is give her a realistic ability to understand the man that Crudup plays.

Billy Crudup delivers a truly indelible performance as a man with the 'wrong' kind of up bringing. A pretty boy who's identified as a potential player of women's roles, his entire education is built around learning the art of being a woman. He learns the part well enough to perform the role both on and off the stage, and becomes very close to a member of the King's staff.

I'm surprised this didn't get some academy buzz, but with the gay subplot, that might be understood. Richard Griffiths is a particularly smarmy but amazingly understanding Lord of the Manor. The cast gives a great rendition of life in the 1600's. They even step in what's found in the street from time to time for some good verisimilitude.

The historical event that provides the focus for this story is England's King Charles ruling that women would replace men in all women's roles on the stages of England. Nell Gwynn clearly had some influence on this event. Given the times in which the events occurred and the nature of the participants, Hogarths depictions of the world may well have given some impetus to the depiction of events as they are portrayed here.

While parts of this are a rollicking good time, there are some dramatic moments that are quite overpowering, scary even. Portrayed as the reality of events, the personal behaviors are entirely believable. I couldn't find a sour note in the entire story.


Despite how much I've enjoyed some movies this summer, such as The 40 Year Old Virgin and Batman Begins, the lackluster movie season has made me turn to DVDs.

A few nights ago I rented Stage Beauty starring Billy Crudup and Claire Daines and got a pleasant surprise. The film was a wonderful blend of comedy and drama. The story, set in London circa 1660, centered around Ned Kynaston (Crudup), a famous bisexual actor who plays women on the Elizabethan stage. His dresser, Maria (Daines), wishes to be an actress, despite a royal decree that only men can act. Still, Maria finds a loophole and under the stage-name Margaret Hughes she performs, impresses the mistress of the King, and inspires a law that forbids men from playing women. Kynaston is therefore out of a job and blames his downfall on his former friend, but of course he eventually falls in love with her. In short, it's a tale of sexual politics told to perfection.

I was initially skeptical about this film as I've never been a big fan of Claire Daines, and though I've always found Billy Crudup attractive, I've never thought of him as a great actor, especially one that could convincingly portray a man who in many ways identifies himself as a woman. However both shine in this film, and the chemistry between them is electrical. Their sex scene together--in which they substitute nudity with simply kissing and running their fingers over each other--was one of the most beautiful and sensual sex scenes I've ever seen. It probably helped that they fell for each other in real life over the course of this film, prompting Crudup to leave his wife, Mary Louise-Parker, while she was pregnant.

The supporting cast of this film is stellar, too. Rupert Everett is a riot as the King, and unknown Zoe Tapper makes an astonishing debut as his mistress. The excellent cast, paired with exquisite writing, made for an entirely enjoyable film.

I'm sure it must be hard to make a dramatic comedy that's as funny as it is dramatic, especially when it's a period piece as well, but Stage Beauty pulls it off with flair. Though on many occasions I felt totally emotionally invested in the characters, especially in the stirring conclusion to the film, at other times I was laughing out loud. This film is full of quotable lines and exchanges, such as when the King says, "Why shouldn't we have women on stage? After all, the French have been doing it for years," and his adviser replies, "Whenever we're about to do something truly horrible, we always say that the French have been doing it for years." Whether you are a fan of period pieces or love Billy Crudup and Claire Daines, rent this film. I sincerely hope it goes down in the books as one of the most under-rated films of 2004. This one was way more Oscar-worthy than the pile of dung otherwise known as The Aviator. If I keep telling myself "I have to buy this" as I'm watching it, you know it's gotta be good...well, that or I have a major DVD buying problem...or both.


A terrific film! How could this be overlooked but things like "The wedding crashers" become a hit!? If you enjoy humorous,thoughtful and intelligent entertainment this will quite possibly make your year. Recommend it to friends!

The acting, scene design, and dialog are all just stunning. Billy Crudup's performance is awe inspiring. The scene from Othello near the end is absolutely huge.

My wife does not like nor have any familiarity with Shakespeare and she was on the edge of her seat during that scene. A Winner all the way around.


When the British make a costume drama it is simply a feast for the senses: Luminous colours in the most beautiful shades of red, gold and brown, costumes full of little details and precious jewelry and a great music score that takes you straight to Shakespearian and Bronte England. Now, a new precious jewel of the British cinema comes to film theatres and from my first impression it could be the best film of this year (well, at least until the new Harry Potter comes out).

The topic is more or less familiar from "Shakespeare in love": It is the drama of this time when women wanted to act on stage but only men were allowed to do so. While "Shakespeare in love" showed this drama from a female point of view, "Stage Beauty" deals with a man whose life falls to bits and peaces when a woman plays a woman and achieves a change of law which now allows women to act on stage.

Ned Kinaston (Billy Crudup) is a stage beauty, means: A male actor who is skilled in and specialized on strictly performing female roles. He had done so for years, can do it like no other and play nothing else. He is a star and the best stage beauty in London. Like every star, Ned has someone who cares for him, knows all his wishes on and behind the stage and holds his feet on earth: It is Maria (Claire Danes), the girl who cares for his wigs, his make-up and his costumes. Maria does not only love Ned, she lives for the theatre and dreams to be on stage herself. One night she "borrows" Ned's costumes and wig and makes her dream illegally come true on a little stage. She is a full success and so sets the wheels in motion: A duke has seen her performance, a duke who has connections to the king and soon the law is changed: Women are allowed to act on stage now. Kinaston sees the end of his career and drowns in despair. But it is Maria again who might save him.

A fascinating tale about men in dresses, women in tights and the theatre in Shakespearean England. But "Stage Beauty" is so much more. It is about two people whose heart belongs to the theatre and who are so deep into it that reality and fiction is sometimes a dangerous mix. It is about a man and a woman who find their way in a time where this way seems not to exist. It is dramatic, sometimes wonderfully romantic and fragile, very entertaining and simply beautiful.

Hands down for Billy Crudup's performance: This beautiful man is not bad as a woman, but basically the film celebrates his male beauty. When he is on stage he's incredible and when he's off stage he's simply hot but also convincing when facing the greatest crisis of his life (in his role I mean). But actually the person carrying the film is a fantastic Claire Danes. Once again she is playing Shakespeare, this time not Julia but Desdemona. She is strong, she is beautiful, she is courageous but also sympathetic. The supporting cast is what every director and viewer can only dream of: It includes Tom Wilkinson, Rupert Everett, Hugh Bonneville and Ben Chaplin.

If you haven't seen this film yet, do so, it's a great experiences. It enchants, it gives your dreams wings, hope and strength. And is great entertainment, too.