Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Micitype Pretty Good

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Python Hyena The Emperor's Club (2002): Dir: Michael Hoffman / Cast: Kevin Kline, Steven Culp, Patrick Dempsey, Embeth Davidtz, Emile Hirsch: Standard drama representing an all male school. Kevin Kline plays a professor of 34 years who reflects challenges he faced when one student pushed the limits. He takes great pride in educating students but the son of an authority figure disrupts class. Plot throws in a curve ball just when we believe can predict the outcome. Familiar plot observantly directed by Michael Hoffman who previously made the dazzlingly underrated A Midsummer Nights Dream. Kline brings intellect and a sense of passion but he pretty much carries the film. Steven Culp play the basic stereotype who appears only when convenient for the plot. Patrick Dempsey is hardly seen yet receives a strong billing in the credits. Embeth Davidtz plays a teacher but her footage is hardly necessary. She is basically there as a potential romantic subplot for Kline who should decline since he is the only one elevated above the familiar grounds here. The students are a mix bag of stereotypes that recycle from other similar films. Well made film with great location shots but for a superior film on similar grounds, I would recommend Mr. Holland's Opus. Strong message of influence and reflection that can haunt us and cause question in our character. Score: 6 ½ / 10

Evan Wessman (CinematicInceptions) I know this point has been addressed in practically every review for this movie, but I have to talk at least a little bit about Dead Poets Society. This is NOT like DPS in quality, principle, or plot basis. I only say this because I, like I'm sure many people did, expected Emperor's Club to be like a 21st century's Dead Poets. It's not an entirely bad film, but it definitely could have been better. The quality of the plot and characters would have been fine if they were included in a genre other than drama, but since the plot and characters are pretty much the only elements that the story has it's kind of unsatisfactory.The characters as a whole were slightly below average. William Hundert is clearly a solid teacher and does his best to engage all of his students in their education of the Greeks and Romans, but is rather weak and soft outside of the classroom, which aren't great qualities for somebody in his position. The truth is, he fails nearly every student as a result of failing Sedgewick. Sedgewick Bell's main purpose is to elevate himself socially by defying Mr. Hundert. This part of his character is fine, but his exposition as someone who feels the rules don't apply to him feels forced. James Ellerby and Elizabeth had too little screen time for the importance they were treated with and probably could and should have been left out entirely, or at least included differently. If the movie had been a true story, their two characters would have been fine, but since it's fiction, there's really no excuse for their incorporation into the story. Senator Bell's role was good, especially in how his actions on screen generated necessary exposition for how he was treated off screen. The three other main students of Louis Masoudi, Deepak Mehta, and Martin Blythe definitely deserved more attention and I think the movie could have been much better if we got to know the three of them better.The plot could have been much better. The first hour or so is fine with Mr. Hundert teaching his students and going into unofficial battle against Sedgewick's vices. The Mr. Julius Caesar contest was well done too, especially the display of Sedgewick's cheating because it was presented in such a way that the audience keeps perfect pace with the characters. However, the back half with the Julius Caesar rematch was kind of weak. The 25 year hiatus between the two contests was very poorly executed, particularly Mr. Hundert wanting to become principal. It had no pertinence to the rest of the story except to lead in the older Sedgewick funding the school and the Julius Caesar rematch. The scenario was plausible, but they could have easily found another one that wasted much less time on screen (for instance, the school just needs funds for Hundert to keep his job). The second Caesar contest goes fine until we find out that Sedgewick cheats again. The sequence was executed well again, but come on, there was no reason for Sedgewick to cheat again. Winning the contest wouldn't have helped his career or his ego or anything else. Why he wanted the rematch to begin with is perfectly understandable, but unless he's just *that* competitive, there was really no point for him to cheat again. The falling action after the second contest was alright, and you get a good sense of how most of the characters' lives will continue. You might find the ending satisfying, but I couldn't root for Mr. Hundert enough to really feel like he'd earned the recognition of his students.The acting was decent, but don't expect any award-winning performances. The rest of the execution is standard in the score, editing, directing, and stuff like that. The script actually wasn't too bad despite the lower caliber characters.For prospective viewers, I would recommend that you not spend money on it, but not count it out from your "to see" list. It's not bad as a family movie, but you may want to screen it first and see if you want to filter anything. It really could be PG and the scenes that make it PG-13 feel a little forced and don't really advance the characters or story (think Planes, Trains, and Automobiles). I don't know what genre fans I would recommend this to, but probably don't watch it based on any of the actors and be warned that it doesn't have attractive amounts of comedy, romance, action, horror, or qualities of any other genre. Basically, it's all story. If you don't like it after the first Julius Caesar contest, it's probably best to stop. If you want to see it through, just be warned that you might be disappointed. Overall Rating: 7/10.

Lee Eisenberg I've heard a lot of comparisons between "Dead Poets Society" and "The Emperor's Club". Both movies are worth seeing, but I wouldn't call the latter quite as good as the former. Still, I liked the depiction of the professor's drive to do what is best for his students, regardless of what his superiors say. In fact, it wasn't until I saw this movie that I'd ever heard of Hamilcar Barca.Kevin Kline certainly puts his best effort into the role of the mildly iconoclastic professor in the 1970s. Nonetheless, Michael Hoffman (who had previously directed Kline in "Soapdish" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream") should have had a little more to work with. I'll have to read "The Palace Thief" to see how the movie stacks up.Also starring Emile Hirsch, Embeth Davidtz, Rob Morrow, Edward Herrmann, Harris Yulin, Paul Dano and Jesse Eisenberg.

TeachStuph Many of us (myself included) are drawn to stories of timeless truths - in fact, it is the very basis for entire theories of historical interpretation and educational instructional pedagogy. The problem is, the more we are educated as to how the vast majority of people actually learn, the "classic" interpretation is shown to be critically flawed.Although Kevin Kline is indeed stellar in this film, and points are scored for the overarching post-9/11 discussion regarding virtue and its tempering of the blind seeking of ambition and power, the beat-me-over-the-head-with-the-symbolism-bat mentality of the movie and the flawed premise of the timeless beauty of a classical approach to instructional pedagogy kills the film (for me) on a critical basis, and becomes nothing more than manipulative dreck disguised as intellectual gold.Contention One: You don't have to beat me with a bat. I get it. The senator (and then his son) who loves cigars, civil-war era guns, ordering his secretaries around, and generally abusing the power of his high office is bad because his is a naked, unadulterated ambition. He gets what he wants, but at what cost? This is repeated over and over and over again in the film. I get it. Say it once, show me the American flag fluttering at the end, and let's have a discussion about it. Drag it out, show me a disappointed child who has overheard a conversation in the bathroom, and mix in some classical references to the Greeks, Romans, and paths we should walk on, and I'm done with it.The problem? Well, we simply can't ignore the fact that Julius Caesar (along with many of the other 'greats' mentioned so reverently in the film) acted mainly out of... yep... naked, unadulterated ambition. And people will say "Yes, but what about his great contributions?" Well, many evil, evil people (Hitler, for example) made contributions, too. The inspiration for America's interstate highway system (if you can even consider that a great contribution given the headaches it has caused) was inspired by the ruthless efficiency of Nazi Germany. This is just an example, but history is not so black and white - and even Socrates and Plato didn't have the market cornered on selfless sacrifice.Contention Two: People don't learn the way Mr. H. teaches. 10% of the people might learn very well through rote memorization and drill-and-test style instructional pedagogy. This is the "classic" way of learning, right? Many of us learned to play this game. Unfortunately, what happens with the other 90% of society who aren't attending St. Benedict's? Part of us is forced to agree with young Mr. Bell when he says: "Who gives a s...?"As someone who loves and reads about the classics (and reads voraciously on a number of subjects), I will state here and now that only a small fraction of the population can walk the path Mr. H. so steadfastly praises. I can teach about honesty, virtue, and right thinking and living without even touching Socrates, Plato, or the whole of Western Civilization for that matter. Confucius and Lao Tse might want to get in on the discussion, as well. So believe me that while I sympathize with the overarching message, I am horrified by the fact that we are encouraging people to watch this film and say: "Yes, that's how all children should be educated in America, by golly! We have to get back to the basics!"All of our emerging knowledge of teaching and learning styles and pedagogically-sound instructional practices SCREAMS against the rows of desks, endless rote memorization, quiz- show style assessments, and class rankings that for the vast majority of the population NO LONGER HOLD A USEFUL PURPOSE.On the surface, this is a calm, beautiful film that should inspire us to go back to the great works and read them. Underneath, however, are critical flaws that doom the enterprise and should make us shiver to the core of our being for being drawn into the charade in the first place.