Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

njmollo Thomas Jefferson by Ken Burns is a reverential documentary but never out of ones mind is that this man of "extraordinary intelligence" deemed the black inferior to the white.This question, probably the most important, is exposed but left unresolved. The only historian to put Jefferson's attitude into any context is a black one.The white historians list Jefferson's many qualities and his desire for "a pursuit of happiness" but each positive quality they list can be juxtaposition with the word "slave".Almost presented as religious scripture, the life of Thomas Jefferson and his ideals are quoted from his documents and letters but it is often forgotten that this man was a politician first and foremost and being so, could easily be classed as a man of malleable and corrupt principles. Is there one politician through out history that was not in some way corrupt?What must be remembered is that when Jefferson uses the word "people"; he is not including the African American. For historians to presume that his carefully crafted words apply to all is a mistake. I for one cannot reconcile the man and his beliefs. To state high principles in published prose yet live the life of a slave owner does not sit easily. His words become far less principled in light of the man's example. Do as I say not as I do.

seepruittsplace In reading this review I find myself asking what this viewer is really looking for. In one voice we are told the production show Jefferson "warts and all" and in the next appears to condemn the work for showing he was a Southern with slaves and that his relationship with those slaves (i.e. Sally Hemings) and his animosity towards other "Founding Fathers" as inappropriate at the least and cruel at the worst. This viewer states more of Jefferson's own words should have been used - which would have been wonderful, but if this viewer truly knew Jefferson's history, this viewer would also know that Jefferson destroyed nearly everything he had ever written about or two anyone along with nearly everything anyone wrote to him. Therefore we can only piece together a picture of this man by others of the period who wrote "about" him, not necessarily to him as well as records found in France, England and our own Archives. An American who wishes to examine American history is hard pressed to find the facts which would make our history clear and easy to understand and perhaps that is for the better as it forces us to look closely and most of all to think.

CitizenCaine From the opening use of the tortured Hamlet, Ken Burns documentary on Thomas Jefferson paints an enigmatic portrait of self-contradiction. The first half of the film focuses on his younger years leading up to his presidency. The film presents a fascinating illustration of a young man that attended the College Of William & Mary, studying 15 of 24 hours per day en route to his early beginnings as a law apprentice. Highlighted are the many personal setbacks Jefferson experienced: the deaths of his parents, in-laws, most of his children, and eventually his wife before he reached age 40. It details the construction of the Declaration Of Independence, which Jefferson wrote. One astonishing sequence shows the progress Jefferson made in writing it, complete with crossed out phrases and corrections provided. The commentators note that Jefferson wrote nothing short of an abstract assertion of tenets that touched all of us on a basic human level. His years in Paris touch on his longing to be reunited with his daughter and a love affair with Maria Cosway, a British cultural aesthete. Jefferson was present in Paris at the dawn of the French Revolution and then finally he returned to Monticello.His presidential years were marked by the contradiction of the expansion of individual freedom and the exclusion of that freedom for certain groups: namely, Native Americans and Blacks. Jefferson was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase, yet encouraged the removal of Native Americans from the east to the west. Jefferson owned slaves, many of them inherited from his father-in-law, but introduced or pushed no less than a dozen pieces of legislation to emancipate slaves long before he became president. One effort fell heartbreakingly short by a single vote in 1780! Imagine what a different country we might have had, if this was accomplished at that time. The film draws Jefferson as a family man, scientist, and scholar, who was disinterested in politics and being a statesman. Yet Jefferson became the very first Secretary Of State and the third President, and is mostly remembered by all for being a President. However, Jefferson himself valued his founding of the University Of Virginia, his writing of the Virginia Statutes, and the Declaration as his greatest accomplishments. His later years were marked by more personal tragedies, financial ruin, gardening, house parties, and more reading and studying. His library consisted of over 6,000 books! Perhaps the historically significant thing about his later years was the renewal of his friendship with our second President, John Adams, in the form of correspondence. The incomplete building of Monticello is a metaphor for Jefferson's life really. He was, what we would call today, fundamentally a life-long student; he was always growing and learning. The film is reverential in tone, with solemn musical interludes, and praiseworthy commentary from historians. It raises no questions and provides no answers really; it just presents Jefferson's life in straight-forward fashion. It does not avoid the difficult issues, but neither does it tackle them in great depth completely. That would be taking us away from the subject, which is Jefferson. ***1/2 of 4 stars.

ivan-22 Ken Burns and company do an excellent job of giving us the whole Jefferson, warts and all. But one begins to wonder why they didn't do a documentary about someone else of the times, someone who didn't own slaves, didn't deport all Eastern Indians to the West, didn't build a museum for his personal abode, didn't praise the French Revolution in the most immoderate terms and didn't sink deep into debt. Whether he impregnated slave Sally is almost tangential and immaterial. He "did" so many other things! It is often said, one shouldn't judge a historical figure by today's exacting standards. Yet it is also said, by those same people, that time must pass to allow us to objectively evaluate today's leaders. And as if this weren't enough, one also hears these souls denounce "moral relativism". Go figure. But one needn't judge Jefferson by today's "politically correct" standards. One can be content with judging him by his own time's and, indeed, by his very own standards. And, one can emulate his own extremely harsh judgments of fellow founding father Alexander Hamilton. It's disrespectful to the founding fathers not to judge them. They judged each other, and they wanted to be judged. This good documentary is marred by interruptions from overexposed, self-important pundits from all corners of the vaunted political spectrum, a common documentary flaw. Interpretation and opinion should be served on a separate plate - please! A little more verve and humor would have added spice and made for a less reverential opus. Jefferson wrote so many letters. There should have been more quotations from the horse's mouth.