Love Cary Grant, not this poorly written sermon
923340
This entire film is a thinly veiled discourse justifying the infidelity of husbands as the natural course of marital events, and not a very good one. It wouldn't make any difference if the script were clever, but alas...

The plot attempts at wit by giving the infidelity to the wife, then showing how a reasonable (man) husband would behave in the circumstance.  The set up is that Deborah Kerr has a great marriage with her loving and attentive husband, Cary Grant, but when Robert Mitchum takes an intentional wrong turn on a tour of their home (their main source of income), she immediately falls in love with him, and begins an affair

His character is repeatedly asked throughout the film if he cheated, but refuses to answer such an irrelevant question.  Grant even has a line explaining this is the reason why wives wear rings and husbands don't. Kerr's character is a the stereotypically ditzy (woman) wife who doesn't know what she wants until a man shows her, or there is money involved (she initially tells Mitchum to leave, but then invites him for tea after learning he's a millionaire).

The film tries very hard to be clever but never quite makes it, lacks likable characters or believable situations, drags out too long, and is even missing pivotal scenes (Mitchum & Grant talk after the fact about the recourse Grant's character decides to take, but we don't actually get to see him bring it up!)

If you want a fun and clever film about infidelity with Cary Grant, I would recommend Indiscreet.
4615797
As a lifelong Civil War buff I cannot recommend too highly the 1974 TV miniseries entitled Carl Sandburg's LINCOLN.
All the chapters are engrossing and the acting top shelf. Hal Holbrook as America's 16th president is simply magnificent.

That said, based on my copy of the MILL CREEK two-DVD set:

<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Sandburg-s-Lincoln/dp/B004Z2ECX0/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Sandburg's Lincoln</a>

...I must say this one's terribly flawed.
Every minute of my copy has good sound and color, no film damage, but for some unknown reason any motion at all beyond mouth movement is terribly spastic, jerky like the image you'd see from a cheap webcam.

Maybe this defect has been corrected by MILL CREEK since my purchase some years ago. Maybe not.
If Carl Sandburg's LINCOLN is available from a different manufacturer, that's how I'd go if I wanted to purchase it.
2811455
Lighter Hitchcock, `To Catch a Thief' is fun, entertaining and delightful, but sadly it is so light and fluffy that it remains forgettable and rather uninspired.  Cary Grant and Grace Kelly make for a beautiful (despite his overly tanned physic) and engaging on-screen couple, but this tale of thievery and romance is very `been-there-done-that' with little to make it demand our attention a second time.  It possesses Hitchcock's astounding visual sense, but it lacks the edge that he lends to his other films.

When a slew of burglaries reminiscent of those committed by John `The Cat' Robie make Robie the prime suspect he finds that he is using his talent to track down the real thief and clear his name.  Along the way he finds himself romantically involved with the beautiful (and wealthy) Frances Stevens, a young woman who happens to have an inkling as to who John `really' is.  As he gets closer and closer to the truth he finds that the truth may very well be the end (literally) of `The Cat'.

Like I said, the film is good, but there isn't really any `pop' here.  The acting is fine.  Cary Grant was used a lot by Hitchcock, but for me this is one of his less creative and interesting performances.  He is ridiculously tan here, which also makes him look rather leathery and old, which takes away from his `he's so cute and charming' appeal.  For me, this film is elevated because Grace Kelly is so deliciously charming here.  She really carries the film, and her natural giddy almost childish infatuation with Robie's true identity is appealing and engaging.

I love her.

The final rooftop chase scene is brilliant (leave it to Hitchcock to capture some suspense), I just wish that the rest of the film had had that crafty intensity.  Instead, this feels like a warmed over love story with a chase scene or two thrown in for good measure.  It could have really been something better if it had switched focus to something more admirable.  Still, it gets a B from me, a low B, but a B.  It is lightweight Hitch, but it's still Hitch, and it contains some of his signature director touches that make this a worthy viewing, even if it is only once.

This is still better than the dreadfully overrated `Rear Window'.
3404195
For the record, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is one of my favorite movies, one that I have seen many times, and I unfailingly find it to be moving, uplifting and inspiring.  I expected to enjoy the book equally, but unfortunately I found that I had a number of reservations about Nikos Kazantzakis' book.

As a reader, I tend to appreciate good, detailed research: the better the author has done his homework, the more that I feel I can really appreciate and get into a story.  Unfortunately, Kazantzakis' research seems to have been minimal at best.  The people populating the world of "Last Temptation"'s Jesus are basically modern Orthodox Greeks in first century Jewish clothing.  There are endless references to later Christian notions of hell and heaven, in addition to guardian angels, saints, devils, monasteries, abbots, friars, rosaries, etc.; there is absolutely no attempt to recreate an ancient Jewish mindset- in fact I was almost expecting Jesus and his friends to attend mass and perhaps light a candle in front of an icon. As "Last Temptation" is mainly about the psychology of a human Christ, who was born and raised a Jew, this greatly weakened the impact of the novel for me.  I was not really sure how I could believe or sympathize with a character who, for me, was in no way convincing.

There are other weaknesses too.  If the indifference to Judaism isn't bad enough, there are also references to things that came along centuries, if not millennia later, such as gunpowder, ears of corn, velvet, cashmere shawls, and- most unbelievably- palm-reading Gypsy fortune-tellers.  There are also general inconsistencies.  For example, Mary Magdalene, who is always called 'Magdalene' even as a girl, is described as a daughter of a rabbi from Cana.  She does move to Magdala later, but why isn't she called 'Mary of Cana' if that is where she is originally from?  For that matter, if everyone knows her father, why isn't she just called "Mary bat [daughter of] So and So"?  It's little things like that which completely distract me from the no doubt powerful and moving story the author intended to tell.

The misogyny is also appalling; all the women in the story are forever saying things like, "You forget that we're women, and weak," and, "You must learn that a woman is like a wounded doe.  She has no other joy, poor thing, except to lick her wounds."  I also find the style to be flowery yet without being interesting, rather in the manner of Anne Rice, although this might be a problem with the translation. (However, authors like Flaubert and Tolstoy possess exquisite styles, which have come through many, many translations.)

On the bright side, Kazantzakis tackles the subject with energy and bravura, and his ideas are truly brilliant.  I do apologize to all the Kazantzakis fans out there, but I really believe that Scorcese improved the story in his film.  In my opinion, he made it more concise, authentic and emotionally powerful, and softened the unpleasant denigration of women and earthly things that seems to be a constant thread throughout the book.  Many people love this novel, and get a lot out of it, and I think that's great.  However, I personally can't get into it.  Ah well- that just means that it's time to watch the movie again!
2978148
More of a inspirational film than Christian, it is well cast and looks great.  Until I started watching Nicholas Cage in FAMILY MAN one night.  Now WHAT IF seems like a cheap rip off they tried to mix some faith elements into.  An F for  unoriginality. It's practically plagiarism, if you watch scene by scene FAMILY MAN and compare it in the first few scenes.

It's a fun movie though and worth watching once.
566785
I agree with with one of the posters here who said that Jeffrey has a long history of producing books that later turned out to bw nonsense. In his first major book, he predicted the rapture would happen in 1988.

Grant is very biased in his writings. He tells his Christian reader what they want to hear and bends the truth to fit his own personal beliefs.

I've met him in person and found him to be very arrogant. I think he is a poor example of a Christian leader.
18713
Rob Bell,  This book is born because you were "offended".  Did you ask Jesus if you should be offended....or does common sense prevail?  Perhaps the American way should be the Christian way..."I'm okay, you're okay" let's be kind and generous with each other (not that there is anything wrong with that, in fact, let's all being doing that...but there is more to our human dilemma than kindness and filling lack).  My own heart heckles my discipleship and transformation.  Your questioning mind leads us to a way of reconsidering what has been "preached and taught" for centuries and as our minds wander/wonder with you into this realm, we become hypnotized by the  "fairness" doctrine, which seems a clearer explanation, ne, understanding, of God's love...or...are we leaving God out of the conversation and just defining His love?  Yes, I think that's it.  And now we can all relax, feel better, and tranquilly lead worthless lives for the kingdom.

Following Jesus has consequences...following Love is man's best effort...oh the frog in the heating water (who eventually blissfully boils to death).  Perhaps that is a good picture for your "Love Wins" doctrine.  You give plenty of print to what Jesus and the Bible say so we are lulled by acquiescence to the truth, but you have woven in a false doctrine of grace.  So, pray tell, why did Jesus have to come and die as the ONLY way to save us from our PENALTY for being created, living a human life of ignorant bliss (the Bible says no one is ignorant of their Creator) of why His death mattered to us?  You are trying to show that the Gospel's message is that God can't be the "bad" guy...no...God is Love..therefore your message that Love Wins defies the scholar's version (God is just and holy and the penalty for sin is JUST) and subscribes to one where because God is love..He just COULDN'T let anything bad happen to His created images...no...He gets them all, eventually...it really is WIN WIN!  You are telling the world "No Worries"...live and think well, doing your part to make this world a better place, believe in "god".  This means you are on God's side and all BELIEF in God is measured to us as good and worthy of heaven.

Satisfaction and success, as defined by Jesus, look a lot different than our culture's definition.  Hey Rob, we are NOT supposed to answer our own questions about God, we are to seek after wisdom and righteousness and Jesus has taught the truth and the Bible reveals what it looks like to please God.  YOU have muddied the waters.  Here are some better questions....
Am I going to believe Jesus?
Am I going to obey Jesus?

So I call out to you Rob, come on the real journey of faith...it is RADICAL, not comfortable,....you in?

People, I don't think Rob Bell is being honest with his title...it should read "THE GOOD HUMANS WIN" with the really bad humans losing, of course...so IT IS ALL GOOD!  I'm okay, you're okay!

Rob Bell leaves us with "continue business as usual in your Christian walk, spiritual journey or quest for godlikeness, and please don't listen to the legalistic, elitist, unconscionable religious bigots masquerading as reformers for THEY ARE WRONG...and surely you can see things as I do since we've had this conversation.....so says Rob.  All "LOVE WINS" believers...good luck with that!

The Bible leaves you with "come follow Jesus and die to yourself, God is sovereign, there is a plan and it has been revealed."

Most false arguments against the Gospel of Jesus Christ (there is no other Gospel), are because someone is "offended"!!!  Heaven help us!  Rob speaks to the "offense" in the first chapter and if you too are "offended" then you too will devour the rest of the book.  BEWARE...you are being DECEIVED!!
3960007
From early in Grant's film career, 1936, and not as polished an actor as he would later become.  The script is formulaic: We've all seen the "rich guy posing as poor, looking for the meaning of life" story many times since this film, and it probably wasn't the first, even when it was made.  However, that being said, Decency, Honor, Fair Play, are all recognized, and approvingly.  The script gets a little creaky as it tries to navigate the moral issues associated with having wealth vs a desperate need for money.  I could not suspend my disbelief that the female lead wasn't marrying Grant for his money.

So, where are we?  Early work for Grant. Creaky script. Ending that strains credulity.  But the film succeeds because the language is fine, it's a morality play that turns out happily, no one is blown up, and there are no high-speed car chases.  So it's a pleasant way to spend an hour.
138019
I am very disappointed in this book. I feel like this was a huge missed opportunity. I adore Cary Grant and his movies and I've read and enjoyed several books about him and relished the idea of getting his only child's perspective on him. Perhaps not every family secret, just a glimpse at a side of him the public never really knew. But the only thing I got from this book was that Jennifer Grant took her luxurious, want-for-nothing upbringing for granted - and still does. She spends a lot of time trying to explain that it was just the way she grew up, she didn't know any other life, she was very lucky... Okay, we get the point. Can we move on from that now?

The stories from her childhood are surprisingly uninteresting and reveal very little about Cary Grant as a man and a father. Charming stories about Hollywood's most charming man are few and far between. It won't take you very long to discover that this is really more a book about Jennifer. Jennifer acknowledged early on that she wrote this book very, very reluctantly and took a long time to get to the point where she was okay with doing it. After reading this, I can say with certainty that she should never have tried. Her reluctance and guardedness show through on every page. Hopefully her mother's book, which comes out soon, will be a better foray into the Cary Grant memoir department. There are very few people on this planet who knew Cary Grant as well as Jennifer Grant and Dyan Cannon did and I hate that the chance to get to know him a little better, through perspectives only they can provide, was so badly squandered.

Good Stuff? Not so great.
1397843
Why Hollywood insists on trying to make movies about God and the Bible without including God and the Bible is beyond me. Much like "Noah", this film is beautifully photographed, the scenery is superb, and the acting competent if not stellar. Where is fails miserably is in the portrayal of Moses as a man who rejected God, and then came to grudgingly do what God wanted without developing the faith so exquisitely described in Exodus. The ancient men of the Bible feared and loved God. these movies depict men who do neither. Read the Bible - pass on these films.
1998093
Having picked up this title at a used bookstore I forgot about it for quite some time, but now I found it and finnished it in what? three days. It was quite the read for a convert to the catholic faith...
The author's style is light, and his story and characters full of insight. However, I found myself getting frustrated and annoyed at some of the "truths" delivered by a cynical and disillusioned narrator.
For example: The doctor, Edward has come across a theory stating that maybe the "safe" method (i e only having marital relations on infertile days) may be the cause of birth defects. The author tells this at some length, but later when all the catholic couples "come to their senses" and go on the pill - there are no complications whatsoever mentioned, and there should have been, considering the pill back in the 60s and 70s had quite high levels of hormones. But that's just details...
What I miss is the genuinely religious person who actually lives and believes, even though the rest don't. But in the world of David Lodge, this doesn't seem to be the case. Faith is just another ornament, but catholicism heavier than most, pulling the catholics down with guilt and hypocracy. And this is not the faith I know, nor the church I live in.
But still, I recommend this novel to anyone who wants to understand, maybe not the catholic mind and catholics of the 50s, 60s and 70s but how they are viewed by someone who was probably there when it was all happening. This is not a complete picture of catholics in England...or anywhere.
4118073
I've seen this movie before (Cary Grant is one of my all time favorite Actors)...
I thought people may want to know that this Movie was released in 1937 - not 2008, the year when someone - or more likely some company - picked up the license.
(Love Amazon.com; I just HATE when Amazon Video doesn't even do a basic check on the info!)

From what I've read in the reviews, this is an awful transfer to DVD.  If it is, please don't give up on this film!  This movie is one of those rarely seen, early Grant movies when the "studio system" didn't know how to bill him.  I'll be watching it no matter what the quality of the transfer, just to see Cary acting before he was the star he deserves to be...
1159103
From his daughter's  point of view Cary Grant was an amazing father.  He was the good stuff in her life.
1766289
I will preface my review with the disclosure that I am a Conservative Christian who enjoys a good horror, sci-fi, or fantasy story, even from non-Christian authors like Stephen King or George R. R. Martin or even based on pagan or atheistic theology like "Planet of the Apes" or "Star Wars." But there is a point where I draw the line and am unable to enjoy the book, and that is where I perceive it to become excessively-disrespectful or contradictory of my faith.

"Margaret's Ark" is a more-serious take on the concept behind "Evan Almighty," the less-popular sequel to Jim Carrey's "Bruce Almighty." It's a cool concept, but I was hoping it would have been presented from a more Biblically-accurate standpoint.

A modern Great Flood story in which survival depends on the strength of your faith, this story, unfortunately, misplaces the object of its faith. Instead of believing on the One true Messiah --the Son of the One true God-- the faith presented herein is in the politically-correct false god of Unitarianism. Anyone who would read both the Bible and the Q'uran, for example, should quickly recognize their incompatibility. Although they have the same initial roots, they diverge in two completly different directions. You can believe the one or the other or neither, but you can't believe both any more than you can believe both an angel and a demon. If Jehovah and Allah were the same being, He would be a schizophrenic psychopath.

I had the same reaction after reading "The Shack" by William P. Young. The first half of the book was a compelling, suspenseful masterpiece, but it completely went off the deep end when it started to delve into theology.

I think "Margaret's Ark" suffered from the same problem as did Darren Aronofsky's "Noah" -- the author strayed too far from the source material. In Aronofsky's case, he clearly wanted to discredit the source material. In this case, I think the author simply didn't bother to actually read it (as evidenced by the repeated mis-identifying of the source as Exodus, rather than Genesis).

Like I said, this story is built on a great premise, but I couldn't get past the illogical Unitarian theology it presented. And in a story whose whole premise is based on faith and salvation, I can't recommend one that so blatantly sends the wrong message, causing the ill-informed reader to miss the proverbial boat.
3520500
Samuel Goldwyn's THE BISHOP'S WIFE (1947) was released a year after Frank Capra's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/IT-S-A-WONDERFUL-LIFE/dp/0782002064/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE</a>, and the picture is in a way related to it. Both are Christmastime stories of angels sent to help someone, and both feature little Karolyn Grimes as the main characters' child. ("Look, Daddy! Teacher says, every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings.")

"The Bishop's Wife" is Loretta Young. Her husband, Bishop Henry Brougham (David Niven) is trying to raise funds for a cathedral, but he's confounded by Mrs. Hamilton (Gladys Cooper), a curt, wealthy widow and primary donor who wants the edifice to be a memorial to the late Mr. Hamilton. When Henry prays for Divine guidance, an angel named Dudley (Cary Grant) appears.

A side story concerns Prof. Wutheridge, delightfully portrayed by Monty Woolley. He's an aging, atheistic historian with a severe case of writer's block (been working on the same history of Rome for 20 years).

Dudley gets involved in everyone's life, bringing joy to all he comes in contact with except the man who conjured him up, the bishop. Partially scripted by Billy Wilder and Robert Sherwood, this is a story filled with magic, a few neat special effects, and lots of love. Highest recommendation!

<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/THE-BISHOP-S-WIFE/dp/B000056HE9/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">THE BISHOP'S WIFE</a>&nbsp;is also available in DVD, as is&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/IT-S-A-WONDERFUL-LIFE/dp/B000HEWEJO/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE</a>.

Parenthetical number preceding title is a 1 to 10 viewer poll rating found at a film resource website.

(7.5) The Bishop's Wife (1947) - Cary Grant/Loretta Young/David Niven/Monty Woolley/James Gleason/Gladys Cooper/Elsa Lanchester/Karolyn Grimes/Regis Toomey
858764
Story is not true to Austen's life, judging from the biographies I've read...much is added for dramatic effect in the relationship between Austin and LeFroy. That said, if it WERE accurate, it would no doubt be far less entertaining.  :)  The characters are believable, the story line (although enhanced) is compelling, and McAvoy and Hathaway have great chemistry onscreen. I watch it at least once a year, as a die hard romantic, but if you are a stickler for historical accuracy, you may have less appreciation for this film.
2756609
How can anyone like this movie???

There wasn't one car chase; one shootout; not one time Cary Grant grabbed Deborah Kerr's you-know-what(s).

No sex, no violence, and way too many sex-starved violins.

And Cary Grant posing as a Greek!  (Oh, the humanity!!!)

Still, all the gals who just LOVE this movie.  Did you love the part where, as they past the Empire State Building, Deborah Kerr *curtsies* to Cary Grant?  Eh?  I forget her exact line to Cary but it was something like: "Your wish is my command."  ... Now there's a liberated chick for ya!  (Yeah, baby!)

I otherwise like Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant.  (And, God knows, they've never had a harsh word for me.) But this movie is laughable.  A prima facie case of prima facie pretense.  (And half a pound of baloney while you're at it.)  This isn't love, even in La-La Land.

I've seen better making-out at the Junior Prom.  (Greeks and all!)

And talk about manipulating the audience's emotions.  Sheesh.  All Deborah Kerr needed in her wheelchair was a puppy dog, an American flag and a picture of the little baby Jesus.  (That other cocker.)

Also, what about the guy Deborah Kerr was supposed to marry?  She comes home from her cruise and what does she do?  She dumps the bum.  Just like that.  And he (mirabile dictu) -- he just bows out of the picture, no questions asked.  Get outta town!

Go ahead, try it sometime, lady. ... "Hey, Fred, you know that we were supposed to get married.  Well, guess what -- forget you, Fred!  And the caterer truck you came in on."

There shold have at least been a decent fistfight between Cary Grant and the jilted fiancee.

Of course this would have meant that Cary would have gotten his nice Brooks Bros. suit all wrinkled.  But so what?  Besides, what the fark is it with Cary Grant and his suits?  In jst about every picture he's in, he's got a suit on.  He sure never takes it off in this flicker.

Enough already with the suit, Archibald.

Mind you, it's not that I'm jealous.  So Cary Grant is handsome.  So what.  Take away his suave manners, his Continetal charm, his feency-schmancy suit, and what do you got? ... A horny guy running around in his underwear looking for the Empire State Building.

(Rim shot!  Ba-da-bing-bing!)

Listen up, pilgrim: anybody who jerked a tear over this facockta movie needs therapy.  Fast!  "Weep-weep-weep, what can I do, what can I do?  I can't help crying over poor Debbie and poor Cary."

What can you do?  What can you do?!  YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!  Look at you crying like a woman.  "What-can-I-do?-what-can-I-do?"

Listen, you look terrible.  I want all you nutty people who gave this turkey five stars to eat.  And I want you to lock yourselves in your room with a dozen or so Gary Oldman movies, a dozen or so Chuck Norris flicks and a life-size inflatable doll of Freddy Krueger.  And then we'll see about this Woltz fellow who won't let you climb up the side of the Empire State Building with that big hairy monkey you have the hots for.