User reviews

I can see exactly why comparisons to Dead Poets' Society abound. Having attended boarding school and developed an irrational attachment to that film at the time, I have since discarded it like an overworn leisure suit, and tried to move on to more interesting fare. But honestly, this film made me think -- in all the ways that school should have, and the DPSociety didn't even try to.

Robin Williams has never starred in a thinking man's film, which is why, in the end, the comparison between the two movies doesn't hold up. To get The Emperor's Club, you have to actually grasp why someone might be inspired by history -- by a time when men could truly fail, or conquer, or establish a foothold in eternity. The fact that we know Socrates existed is astounding. It is luck. If James Carville goes down in history it will be an accident, if a likely one. The point of this film is that difference -- the difference between men whose character demands to be remembered, and men whose character demands to be forgotten. It is also the story of two systems of reward and recognition -- one that produced Plato and one that produced Jerry Springer. That is why we study history, as the movie says. To learn from and be inspired by the great leaders who came before us, and to overcome the moral mediocrity of the modern world.

But, as the film concludes, great men are no longer chosen to lead. The Emperor's Club, while cloaked in the guise of a charming elitist flick, is actually a tale of profound disappointment and disillusionment regarding human society. The few great men who are left exist in the shadows, while the ignorant grandstanders wield political power. We elect them; we are in their hands. And it is all because of a lack of awareness, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of history. People don't vote for principle -- they vote for rhetoric. And it shows.

I was not expecting too much from this movie, other than the always pleasurable experience of watching Kevin Kline. But, wrapped up in the sentimental moralizing, there was the story of a great man doing the only great thing left: trying to bring others out the darkness. His success or failure is as immaterial as the execution of Socrates -- it really is the thought that counts.

I can't help feel bit jealous when ever I see Private Schools in movies. My high school was unfortunately full of teachers who didn't give half a goddamn about you. And it was/is one of the most respected (read pretentious) in the country. I never learned one single thing that was actually of use to me and I believe going to such a place is mostly responsible for turning me into the faithless cynic that I am now.

In this movie Kevin Kline (a seriously underused actor) plays a history teacher who is dedicated to making sure his students grow up to be fine and morally sound, upstanding people. They all get along until Sedgewick Bell (Emile Hirsh)the hell-raising son of an arrogant Governor arrives in class. His grades are terrible but Mr. Hundert sees intelligence in the boy and struggles to push him in the right direction at the expense of the rest of the class who actually want and care for education. Over the years he comes to regret his mistakes but sees a chance to put things right again with a reunion of all his former students organised by Sedgewick who appears to want to put things right.

There are loads of Student/Teacher movies out there but what separates The Emperor's Club from the likes of Dead Poet's Society and Mr. Holland's Opus is that Mr. Hundert's teaching is never in doubt. But he is flawed. Kevin Kline is so good in the role that for most of the film I thought I was watching a real person and not a character. And doesn't he sound like Niles from Frasier?

I do wish I went to somewhere like St. Benedicts or at least had a teacher like Mr. Hundert. It seems that teachers who really care only exist in the movies As are students who are willing to learn. Or perhaps it's just my bad non-education that skews my opinion. Still, I know good movies when I see one and The Emperor's Club get's my recommendation if you're sick of Hollywood, massive budgets, overblown SFX and intrusive marketing and just want a good character drama.

The movie deals with a good and idealist teacher (Kevin Kline) of Roman classic history and his relationship to a roguish and rebel pupil (Emile Hirsch) in a high class school . The teacher tries to redeem him but the continuous challenge makes that the incorrigible student (besides , being senator's son : Harris Yulin) results to be more and less difficult or impossible to dominate him . Meanwhile , the starring falls in love with an attractive , though married teacher (Embeth Davidtz) , and has problems with the college director (Edward Herrmann).

The picture is based on Ethan Canin's book titled ¨ Palace thief ¨. The story is narrated with sensitivity and intelligence and here are treated ethic and moral issues developed in great sense of ductility and fairness . As the teacher will have to face on the complex truth that can be manipulated or phony . The motion picture takes part of the School Sub-genre , whose maxim representation turns out to be the prestigious ¨Dead poet society¨ by Peter Weir . The film is displayed throughout among past and present time where we find the same characters though twenty five years later , except Kevin Kline the actors are different . The actors' interpretation is excellent , such as Kevin Kline as a mature and upright teacher who hands perfectly the role , Emile Hirsch as the rascal young is top-notch as well as Embeth Davidtz who is wonderful and enjoyable . James Newton Howard's musical score is sensitive and touching . The story was well directed by Michael Hoffman . Rating : Above average , well worth watching.

"The Emperor's Club" is a lot different than you would think. It does run a bit on cheesy sentimentality, but the ending is more than surprising considering the type of film this is.

It is a period-piece about a teacher (Kevin Kline) at a prestigious school for boys, and how he tries to "mould" a strong-willed fifteen-year-old boy. And if you want a hint at the surprise ending, don't read any farther, because I cannot control telling you that in the end he does not change the boy. Which is what truly amazed me. Most of the time in films like these, we see the free-spirited kid become proper and respectful. But not so here. This tale doesn't have a perfect teacher turning a bad boy into a perfect boy. It has a flawed teacher wasting years on one student. Years later at a party, he tells the boy, Sedgewick (now an adult), "as a teacher I have failed you." And that's what is so very different about this movie. It isn't as heavy on the drama as I thought it would be, and comes across a bit cheesy and fluffy at times, but the ending is more surprising than "The Sixth Sense" ever will be. It doesn't rely on tried-and-used methods, but goes for a new route. And just when you think that it's as depressing as it can get, the very, very end gives your spirit a bit of a boost.

Kline realizes that in those years that Sedgewick attended his class, he ignored the other students who were trying - and actually cared - about what they were doing. It kind of sheds a new light on the films where a teacher devotes time to one student in particular, because after seeing this film, I bet ten bucks next time you watch a film of the same roots you'll realize that the teacher is ignoring the other students. And "The Emperor's Club" exposes this. Kline's character is flawed, and while he is a good teacher, he makes mistakes, such as spending so much time on Sedgewick and bumping a smarter kid off of the school toga challenge, just so he can put Sedgewick in it (the challenge).

Kevin Kline isn't Otto here. "A$$hole!" is not a motto here. We've got Kline giving a thoroughly convincing performance as a 1970s all-boys school teacher. Kline's makeup at the end of the film is quite good as well, as opposed to something like "The Dish" where Sam Neil's makeup looks like it's about to fall off his face and his wig is about to be plucked off by a gust of wind.

I also liked the student actors in this film. The actors they got to play the various students were pretty good; in fact, many of them were very good. I hope their careers continue after this film, and as hateable as Sedgewick was in this film, the kid who played him was pretty convincing. You always know this when you start to like or dislike a character, much less hate or love them.

At the end of the film, I like the subtle differences in years. In the 1970s, a group of boys travel across a lake to check out the all-girls school, where nuns shoo them away. 28 years later, as Kline's character walks towards his schoolroom, we see boys and girls walking around. In 28 years society has changed, and it's funny to wonder if that group of boys from the 1970s ever thought that in 28 years, what they were paddling across a lake for would be right next to them.

Greetings again from the darkness. Being a huge fan of "Dead Poet's Society" I was anxious for this to hit the theatres. Always interested in teacher teaches student who teaches teacher storylines. While easily watchable, this film is no where near the class of "Dead Poet's Society" from either a movie or story point of view. Yes there are some attractive young actors surrounding a veteran cast, but the story rings hollow, despite Michael Huffman's direction around the beautiful campus. Did notice Jesse Eisenberg among the students. Was recently impressed with him in "Roger Dodger". His options may be somewhat limited due to his physical appearance, but he does possess a certain screen presence for a youngster. Kevin Kline is fine, if not understated in his portrayal of the lead. He seems to be alternately an eager beaver and disappointed 'parent' depending on the scene. Not a lot of depth written in. With the message, I do hope English teachers across the country do not unknowingly select this to show in classes. It has some discussion possibilities, but not the ones you would assume.

Klein was superb as the bookish teacher intent on molding boys' characters' as well as teaching them. When he went out of his way to aid a troubled student he wound up depriving another causing some concerns for his conscience. The boy he felt he should help was the son of a bigshot politico who had no clue as to the needs of his son. Too busy being a power broker this ass arrogantly claimed he would mold his son's character. How? He's seldom around and when he is there is no communication between himself and his offspring. Like so many fathers, I wonder why they even want children knowing there is no inclination to interact with them. Brings to mind the Harry Chapin song "Cat's in the Cradle" which speaks to many, many dads. The Emma Willard School provided a nice backdrop for a very good film. 4 stars.

Another teacher flick that is well made and Kevin Kline is perfectly cast in the lead role. We have seen these films before but the one thing that makes this one a little different is......... (If you don't know the ending, DO NOT READ)...that the teacher here fails to teach one of his most promising and brightest students. Kline does a good job of showing the disappointment and how it hits home even after years and how the college seems to have stabbed him in the back. He really feels betrayed by everyone and when his former students get back together for another contest this is where he figures out that he didn't fail and realizes a lot about himself. Kline is in perfect form here and I hear that he might get an Oscar nomination out of it. Not a great film but one that does take a familiar story and gives it a little different twist.

Perhaps teacher movies should be judged on their own merits, but it's human nature to compare. Although I also love Dead Poet's Society, I consider The Emperor's Club one of the most compelling movies I have ever seen. The two are actually worlds apart, with Emperor's Club definitely a more cerebral film. Dead Poets seems more student oriented (students shun conformity as a result of teacher impact) and Emperor's Club more teacher focused (teacher struggles to inspire challenging student and is faced with difficult choices). Also, they have very distinct themes, with Dead Poets focusing more on individuality and 'seizing the day', while Emperor's Club revolves around character and ethics. Unlike Dead Poets (and also Mona Lisa Smile), the Emperor's Club teacher has no controversial subject matter or approaches, just relatively traditional (though passionate & effective) teaching methods.

The story depicts Mr. Hundert, a highly respected and idealistic Classics professor at an ivy covered, prestigious boys' prep school, St. Benedict's. He tries to impart a passion for Greek & Roman history to his relatively motivated students, while also conveying the importance of principles and contribution to society. All passes smoothly until the arrival of Sedgewick Bell, the obnoxious and rebellious son of a slimy Senator (who neglects his 'nuisance' offspring and exhibits an unfortunate tendency to profanity). A battle of wills ensues between teacher and student, as Sedgewick not only disrupts the class himself but inspires rowdy disrespect among his classmates. Mr. Hundert sees the vast potential in this antagonistic student and makes every effort to motivate Sedgewick to apply himself to his studies and also to exhibit personal integrity. In the process, Mr. Hundert, himself a dedicated teacher with great integrity, neglects his other students to focus on the one. He illegitimately enables Sedgewick to participate as a finalist in the school's annual Mr. Julius Caesar Contest, secretly passing over the truly deserving student, Martin Blythe. A reunion 25 years later will depict the impact of this teacher's flawed choices on his former student's character and whether or not past injustices can finally be righted.

I don't want to give the outcome away, but this reunion provides a fascinating portrait of Mr. Hundert's students as grown men. We can examine the world's view of their success versus our own, witnessing their career choices, their wives & families, and especially their character traits...whether contributory and noble or self absorbed and dishonourable. Compelling glimpses of two of these student's offspring, Robert Bell and Martin Blythe IV, prove to be incredibly revealing.

Kevin Kline, an under rated actor, is masterfully convincing in the role of the scholarly, dignified, and conflicted Mr. Hundert, and his 25 year aging process seems well depicted. Also, the roles of the boys Martin, Louis, Deepak, and of course the unpleasant Sedgewick are all well cast, as well as their older versions.

This is not simply another great film about an extraordinary teacher who has a profound impact upon his students. What distinguishes this movie from the rest is that Mr. Hundert, though a wonderfully dedicated and moral teacher, is himself flawed and compromises his own principles. In some respects, this actually makes him a much more three dimensional, realistic, and compelling character than such previous exemplary teachers as Mr. Chips (Good Bye, Mr. Chips), Mr. Keating (Dead Poets Society), and Mr. Holland (Mr. Holland's Opus). The theme here revolves not only around Mr. Hundert's impact on the boys but also his inner conflict, actually more significant than any external struggle with the rabble rousing Sedgewick or the misguided system that focuses more on fund raising than academic excellence. The film makes the point that sometimes the moral choice is not always clear cut, that crossing an unethical boundary can appear all too justifiable, and that one unprincipled decision may lead to another. There is a subtly conveyed sense as to the extent that Mr. Hundert's unethical decisions have haunted him during the intervening decades and possibly even affected his subsequent career path, as he is passed over for the Headmaster's position and begins to question his own value as an educator.

The little sub plot is actually quite engaging (not irrelevant, as some claim) that portrays the potential romance between Mr. Hundert and Elizabeth, a lovely but married fellow teacher. Its purpose is to give another indication of Mr. Hundert's character and integrity, this time revealed through his personal life. Although these two are obviously close kindred spirits with a mutual attraction, he makes no attempt to move beyond platonic friendship. His emotional but restrained response is well conveyed when Elizabeth announces that she is moving to England with her husband, who has obtained a position at Oxford.

Personally, I found all the Greek & Roman History class scenes quite engaging and enjoyed the competition with its trio of toga clad contestants. It all made me wish I was a student myself in Mr. Hundert's Classics class, surrounded by all those busts of Cicero, Socrates, Plato, and Caesar.

The Emperor's Club is a unique, intelligent, and thought provoking film that contrasts society's misguided values with the truly meaningful and important. Very few movies today deal with ethical issues, but this one explores such moral matters as teacher favouritism, bending the rules, and cheating. It prompts discussion, encouraging the viewer to question his own views of right and wrong in these situations. The movie also challenges our thinking as to exactly what does constitute teacher success, as we watch Mr Hundert come to grips with his own personal definition. The quiet ending may be less intense and dramatic than Dead Poets Society, but is equally moving and powerful. As a former teacher myself, my hat goes off to Mr. Hundert. Although very human and with some lessons to learn himself, this dedicated teacher serves as an inspirational role model for viewers of this film as well as for his students.

Fine drama about a history teacher, performed my Kevin Kline, and a tough and rebellious student, performed by Emile Hirsch (who we saw in "The Girl Next Door" and "Lords of Dogtown" with Heath Ledger) The aspect the movie focuses on is the influence of a teacher on the personality and character of a student and what he will become in his future life.

The story is nice, but it's nothing new. What saves the movie is Kline's and Hirsch's performances. Both give an excellent performance. The director has also made several years ago "One Fine Day" with George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer.

So, is this movie worth watching? If a cliché-story doesn't disturb you and you're a fan of Kevin Kline and/or Emile Hirsch, you should certainly see this. "The Emperor's Club" isn't anything new, but you'll have a nice time.

7/10

I say that this is a tough sell of a movie because it seems like most movies marketing of late have to have some catch,hook or twist about it to sell to audiences,something either sexy,violent or both. Movies that stress intellectual or moral higher pursuits are somewhat rare to come by and when they are,they either are heavy-handed(Dead Poets Society)or arcane,word-of-mouth projects(Kidco,Stand and Deliver).If they don't feature some level of arousing interest(two examples:Sirens or Kinsey,both films I greatly appreciated BTW),then they are probably going to fall under the wheels of Hollywood's promotional behemoth if they are produced for the large screen.

Such,I suspect,is the case with The Emperors Club, a Neil Tolin screenplay based on a Ethan Canin short story. The central figure is one William Hundert(Kevin KLine,perhaps never more dignified in role),a well-respected and generally popular teacher at a Catholic,boys-only academy,who teaches the classics(i.e.Roman and Greek history and culture). His long stay as an educator is put to the test(probably not the only time,but what has to be the most memorable) in the 1976-77 school year when an arrogant,selfish son of a congressman(Emile Hirsch,avec David Cassidy fro)enrolls in the school,for whom Hundert decides he's going to make a special effort to "mold" into a true student of enlightenment. His efforts then have effects on both his students and himself that stay with him long after.

Well-acted,well-scripted,thoughtful and gently guided by Michael Hoffman(who directed Kline in the pleasant Midsummer Night's Dream adaptation three years earlier),this film quietly came and went in the Autumn of 2002 and it seems like a shame,but not un-understandably so. This is a show with virtually no violence and very little(if any)sexual content and the majority of the cast are either rising young stars who haven't quite reached high acclaim yet or are older character actors,so one will enter this on virtually a blind-faith interest of the film's topic or(more likely)an appreciation for Mr.Kline. To be honest and tell on myself,when this film was out I passed it up and didn't really sit down to appreciate it until very recently,and that was a a free library rental! As is,free or not,this is clearly a unique and recommendable movie.

A teleology that is well woven and true to classical form. Artful writing on the part of Canin and Tolkin. If you are familiar with political philosophy, history and rhetoric you will appreciate the Emperor's Club more than the average movie-goer. Unfortunately, it lacks strong female characters - where is our Cleopatra, our Hypathia, our intelligent women who were solid and outspoken? They historically exist, but remain buried for all the intents and purposes of this film.

Let me explain to all of you why this movie sucks.

1. It's grossly naive.

2. It's culturally chauvinist to the point that it's offensive.

3. It's based on ideas about how history works, and how people work, that are antiquated and ignorant.

4. Every line in this movie is a cliché or sappy or both.

5. Kline's character is a repressive (and repressed) authoritarian figure who refuses to let his students express themselves or experience life in any way, yet the film expects us to take his side throughout.

6. Goddamnit people need to stop making such crappy movies.

This movie is predicated on the idea that there are such things as great people, whose names and dates will be indelibly incised into history, and not-great people, who will be forgotten. The emperors of Rome were great, today's corrupt politicians are not, and it's the job of high school teachers everywhere to mold the rotten youth of today back into classical-era heroes. The naiveté here is so thick it's like being smacked in the face. The fact of the matter is, statesmen two thousand years ago, along with philosophers, teachers, and the rest, were no less driven by self-interest than their counterparts today. They lied, stole, killed, raped, supported bigotry, neglected duties, broke laws, made unjust laws, insulted each other, betrayed each other, and committed all the trivial and nontrivial day to day cruelties that are a part of the human experience. Yes, cultural pressures were different then, but it wasn't a utopia by any stretch of the imagination, and people were just as flawed as they are today.

Kline's character, a teacher has a quote on the wall of his classroom by some ruler from the 12th century b.c. who boasts about conquering some place that no longer exists. His name is not remembered by history, Kline tells his students, because, though he conquered, he didn't contribute anything to humanity. He was not a great person, whereas Socrates and Julias Caesar were. Quite to the contrary, we know of important Greeak and Roman figures not at all because they were great in some abstract sense, but precisely because the Romans, who valued and preserved Greek culture, were far and away the dominant political power in Europe and the Middle East for hundreds of years, up until Medieval times. It is because of that dominance that their art and history survive, and that they were pedestalized by the elite classes of the people who came after them. We remember them because they were conquerers. The author of Kline's plaque is forgotten not because he was any less great than Julias Caesar, but because he was worse at establishing lasting empires.

The result of this movie's ignorant mistaking of the morally arbitrary machinations of political power throughout history and the chance changes in how history is retold that come with cultural shifts for an ideal system that preserves true greatness and filters out everything else is that the movie is pretty much culturally bigoted. In other words, according to the movie only Europeans from Greco-Roman antiquity, and possibly American founding fathers, can be great people. Yes, Greco-Roman antiquity is the subject Kline's character teaches and he would primarily take examples from it, but he basically defines greatness as belonging to that specific culture, that to be great you must be like the people of that culture, and the implication is that people from cultures that the great Greek and Roman leaders conquered are not only not remembered because they lost, but also because they're not worth remembering. Similarly, people from other places altogether, whose cultures don't conform to Greco-Roman standards, are inferior and not worth mentioning. Kline's character never cites historical figures from ancient China or Mexico or India or Mali or anywhere else in the world, and if you've seen the movie, can you honestly imagine him ever thinking it was worth his time to even learn their names? As viewers, this movie asks us to embrace what Kline embraces, to join him in his love of the greatness of our culture's heritage, and implicitly, to join him in disregarding the rest of the cultures of the world.

Finally, this movie is basically just goofy. So this guy has one mediocre student. I'm sorry, but that's not going to do it for me. If his student was really having problems, the was real kids often do, then maybe that would be a bit more compelling. But this kid is just "bad" because he isn't studious, he tries to have fun, and he thinks about girls sometimes. Cry me a river. The truth is, he's right in a lot of ways: when his friends are adults, they'll be a lot more happier that they snuck off one day and rowed to the girls' school across the lake and had an actual life experience than that they once memorized the names and dates of some Roman emperors (which, from what we see, is basically the extent of what Kline's character actually teaches).

Basically, this film is not only crushingly sappy and not compelling, it's wrongheaded and a bit offensive too. And all you people who like it have bad taste and should stop reviewing things online; you might mislead someone.

Thrilled by numerous comparisons and analogies with Dead Poets Society I watched The Emperor's Club Maybe I expected too much but however I was disappointed. The promising story about a teacher who inspired his students turned out to be a far from spectacular and hardly inspiring movie with plenty of strangely prepared and rather questionable moral messages.

The movie follows a long experience of William Hundert (played by Academy award winner Kevin Kline) as a professor in a privileged and prestigious school for boys, particularly two episodes from his life divided by a long period of time. He is an idealistic teacher who believes that the main purpose of his work is moral development of his students, in his own words moving their characters. That sounds pretty good but from very beginning of the movie it meets some problems. Professor Hundert teaches history, precisely ancient Roman and Greek history. But besides this Hundert's history classes (I guess not the subject of primary importance in such schools) the movie is pretty ignorant about the rest of normal life in the school, the rest of teachers (by some minor details we can guess that not all of them share Hundert's beliefs) and students. Our group of students take Hundert's history classes every day, in their free time we can see that they're talking about them and learn by heart events and names from Roman history while they dearest ambition is a victory in a traditional school competition based on knowledge of Roman History. At least it's a bit strange and it leaves some kind of emptiness. Moreover Hundert's approaches of reaching his difficult way of moral development of his students are not very clear. Besides for a few sentences like "importance of living rightly" or "what will your contribution be" mentioned in a movie trailer most of the time we can see literally only learning of ancient history and in rare moments its interpretation, by the way, rather superficial and also questionable. The conception of moral development by only education is also a doubtful moment. There are two important scenes that bring some self-contradiction of the story. First one is when professor Hundert notices that one of his students is reading a history book about famous Carthaginian general the only words he found to say that this material is not included in school program of his course. Pretty strange for such a teacher. The second is related with main moral opponent of professor Hundert, Sedgwick Bell. Despite all above mentioned contradictions of the story it insists that before Sedgwick's arriving into that school there was a full idyll. So here we meet Sedgwick Bell, a son of a senator, who pay no attention to studying and whose behavior is rather too glaringly for others. It looks like a personal challenge for Hundert and after the first signs of understanding and possibly even sympathy between them the student eventually let him down. Here's the main movie conflict, a moral confrontation between good and evil and the beginning of future Sedgwick's moral degradation. However it's also not very clear. When Hundert meets Sedgwick's father despite his intentions (second important moment mentioned before) he comes just as a teacher complaining about a bad student and despite his attempts he is unable to rise above that. What is more the movie never shows teenage Sedgwick as an evil character. His character is too stereotypic image of modern American politics (well, not only American) but all that we can see in the movie is just a childish pranks, teenage rebellion easily expected in his age and situation. His lack of good manners in his first days in the school is obviously also signs of protest not rottenness or vicious character. The last part of the movie which obviously was supposed to show moral triumph and superiority of professor Hundert and his students over Sedgwick Bell is also has its contradictions an problem points . Now we meet new Sedgwick Bell, a successful citizen, businessman and politician. The movie asks a question what cost his social achievements were reached but the idea of re-matching school competition after many years as well as the fact that these lessons of ancient history survived in memory of former students after such a long time is far-fetched. The same thing is with an imposed impression that throughout the years all students except Sedgwick were successfully moved and inspired by professor Hundert. Using words of other authors, possible message of bad apple or leopard spots that evil is always evil meets lots of problem here. Another message about purposes and means (the end justifies the means) is looking much more suitable here.

Aside of the story there are some positive things here. The movie tries to avoid clichés usual for such a movies, cinematography is good here, some scenes are quite good and finally the acting in the movie is obviously not bad but unfortunately most likely The Emperor's Club is a movie where numerous flaws of the story and weakness of some moral messages easily outweigh all the rest. Kevin Kline and young casts have decent performances. To sum up my thoughts The Emperor's Club is a far from greatness but watchable movie, a movie full of large but unrealized ambitions and wasted opportunities. Well, at least on the contrary to majority of Hollywood production they tried to make something decent and memorable.

Nothing about Emperor's Club will strike you as new. It's first half especially is an almost perfect retread of Dead Poets Society, et al. But -- Kevin Kline is as effective as always, and the film does introduce flaws into the estimable teacher role that are new, which automatically makes it more interesting than it otherwise would have been. It is a good film in that it's well acted with a better than average script; you've just seen most of it before, and even the new part is rather predictable, if only because the direction is too obvious. A lukewarm recommendation, to be sure, but still a recommendation. It does make me want to watch Dead Poets and Goodbye Mr. Chips again, though.

There is no doubt that Kevin Kline is both a funny man and a fine comedic actor. However, as he has proved yet again, anything other than dramatic roles is a waste of his acting talent.

In the finest film he has made, he is superb in his role as school teacher and mentor to a generation of boys -- including one particular bad egg.

Excellently cast, scripted and acted, this is a must see.

In the movie, The Emperor's Club, the base of the story declares a strong sense of character. When we see the boys at the academy, having a phenomenal teacher, everything seems perfect and right. But when Mr. Hundert gets a student who has absolutely no respect for authority, it turns their perfect world upside down. But the way in which the teacher handles the boy is what makes this movie so great and yet so wrong. Instead of judging the student right away, Mr. Hundert takes a step deeper into the boy's world and finds that all his pain is rooted in the relationship with his father. The student does not seem to be able to please his father and cannot find anything to validate who he is as a young man. Mr. Hundert does everything that he can for the student but ultimately he cannot change the boy's heart. This is where I found the movie to imply a false principle. It seems as though after the Mr. Julius Caesar contest, Mr. Hundert just gave up on him. Why did he not keep perusing him? I am a Christian and I guess this is why I have such a problem with the message the movie is sending. Mr. Hundert keeps saying, "I have failed him as a teacher," and then he finds his validations in his students who have had great success in life. It is all rather selfish. Why did he not try to not only help his student but show the student love? As a Christian we are called to love God and love others and to go out and make disciples. This student was basically asking for help in all the ways that he acted. He was starving for attention. We are not called to judge others because we do not know what kind of hurt or pain a person is carrying with them. The way that they are acting is not the issue; the issue is what caused the hurt or pain that they carry. Mr. Hundert attacked how the boy was acting out even though he knew what the root issue was. Instead he should have acted on the pain of the relationship between the boy and his father. Now I know this is just a movie, and I know it does not have a Christian view, but even with Christianity aside the message is wrong. Here we have a leader who cared about his students, who built relationships with them, who gained their trust, and respect, and as great as he was he did fail this student. I believe that when we have moments in life when we have the opportunity to truly care about someone who is hurting so much that no matter what happens we will not give up on them, we will fail every time. This is because we as humans, who are selfish and have a corrupt nature, cannot love someone unconditionally without Jesus Christ leading our lives and living in our hearts. When we make Christ the base for everything that we do and everything that we live for, he lives through us and is able to love people unconditionally. We have no power to change hearts, only God can do that through his son Jesus Christ. So all in all, the movie is good and portrays a message about integrity and character, but when it comes to impacting an individual's life and to mold and shape someone struggling into an individual with true character, the movie gets it wrong. If anything it shows how weak man is without Christ in his life, and how incapable we are to truly love, care, and pour into some ones heart without Christ reigning in our own hearts. But when Christ is in control of our hearts, he gives the power to make huge impacts on people's lives. It is just like the verse, "I can do all things, through Christ who strengthens me."

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I don't care if others think it was predictable - so what? Wasn't Jaws predictable? How about Alien? Once in a while a movie has a lesson in it - like this one. Even if it is a lesson that gets played over and over.

I really didn't care for the mildly romantic banter between Kline's character and his female interest. Maybe the purpose of the character was to show Dr. Hundert was not gay - but that seems awfully shallow to me. If this movie was not about a gay teacher, why did the writer feel obligate to prove the reverse? All in all though, this was a GOOD movie - very good.

For starters, Kevin Kline ages pretty well. Crowe's performance in A Beautiful Mind showed the transition of a man's life from his youth to his tender, elderly age. The way he walked, talked, and how he held himself was excellent. You had no trouble believing that Crowe aged with his character.Unlike Crowe, Kline never ages a day except for having some gray hair thrown in. Not having a love (a successful) interest nor having a child was part of the story, but it did not help the story either. Just like the giant deal of the Julius Caesar competition, it was hard to believe and hard to accept. Sure, the school prides itself on this tradition, but come on, how big does this competition have when only 20 students take the test in a school of 500? That too, did not help the plot. Too fictional to compare to Dead Poet's Society.

For years I "boycotted" The Emperor's Club because it seemed to me (based merely on the trailer) it was a re-packaging of Dead Poet's Society for the next generations. 10 years later I finally watched it and realized I was wrong. (I also think the majority of reviewers here are misunderstanding the story and its significance.)

All plot and character development serves to reenforce the claim made best by the classical liberal arts: form-over-function and existence-precedes-essence. That said, the character development is compelling. Hirsch's character is charismatic, albeit troubled. Klein's character is admirable, but somewhat insufferable. He buys into an exaggerated or distorted sense of his roll as an educator and mentor-ironically deviating from the morality of his subject matter.

I suspect nearly everyone falls for the director's bait and switch: it is the teacher who is the student. To the extent any of us are successful in life it is because he forever remains a student. Or as cited in the film: "To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child" -Cicero.

It saddens me this movie is not available for purchase/streaming. I am thankful to the many artists involved in its creation.

Kevin Kline is the quiet teacher of Ancient Civilization at an exclusive boy's school. He fastens his sights on Emile Hirsch, the disruptive slacker of the term. Under Kline's influence, he digs in and starts to perform.

It's repressed in its performances and unsure of itself; the subtext winds up being stated explicitly by Kline in a voice-over at the end. Despite Kline's typically committed performance, and that of the rest of the cast, it winds up being little more than a gloss on GOODBYE MR CHIPS with Kline getting the girl. With Embeth Davitz, Edward Herrman, Rob Morrow, and Jesse Eisenberg.