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.
paulamor
The Emperor's Club is a perfect example of the fact that good trappings cannot save a movie whose structure is damaged. The spine of the story is that the teacher Mr. Hundert is intelligent and passionate, but holds no influence, while Sedgewick the senator's sun is self-indulgent and corrupt, but wields great power. It is supposed to conclude with the teacher being the master of the senator after all. This is to be played out in the history contest, "Mr. Julius Caesar." Ideally the movie would have Hundert cheating to allow Sedgewick to win the contest, only to realize that instead of instilling passion for the subject, he has confirmed Sedgewick's corruption. Then at the rematch, Hundert can play it straight and restore the title to the rightful winner. The problem is that to have a rematch, Sedgewick must lose. And Hundert must discover his cheating. This scene drains all the impact out of the later contest, and confirms the conclusion that Hundert is simply a pretentious person who always gets his way and could stand to lighten up. Only a fellow ivory tower intellectual could fail to have sympathy for Sedgewick as a youth, which prevents us from seeing him as the villain in his adulthood.Instead of addressing this flaw, the screenplay lets it stand, creating a train wreck of a movie that has to force its theme in through unimportant scenes. Kevin Kline is a good actor in the right role, but the structure dooms this movie to be mediocre.
james harrison
I've now seen this film twice and on the second viewing got even more out of its storyline.Although not a difficult concept to reckon with - to choose between honesty and deceitfulness - this movie successfully forces you to ask just why it's wrong to cheat your way to the top - if you can get away with it that is.We all know that cheating is wrong - but why? Fair play is what life is all about, playing to the rules and giving everyone an equal chance.In effect, this film teaches us nothing we don't know already about lies, truth, honesty and deceit but it does make you ask why these things remain fundamentally important.It's probably a film that everyone watching will get something different out of. From the idea that here's nothing I didn't know before to the idea that cheating doesn't matter if it doesn't hurt anyone - which is the real measure.The fact that a teacher (Kevin Klein) decides to encourage a failing student (Emile Hirsch) by improving his score - at the expense of an already successful pupil - is a clear case of 'morally-correct cheating' - much like Robin Hood redistributing the wealth from those who have too much to those who have too little (although he was a bit more blatant about it).Ultimately though, this action fails everyone - including Klein's character.There is a glimmer of hope amongst the ashes at the end of the film - an act of forgiveness which seals the overall lesson being taught by the movie.It's a feel-good-feel-bad film and one which is definitely worth viewing. The acting is consistent and, for me, the best aspect of the entire movie is the soundtrack, which compliments the mood and the action perfectly - one of the most intelligent film scores around.
