Reviews

Wow, I was hoping for a lot more than this.

It's script reads like a play and is stilted in the way most plays are.

People just don't talk like this.

Combined with poor casting and stiff direction it makes for a self aware and distancing film.

It seems a little over rehearsed as well and therefore very unnatural.

If you like good films, like '21 Grams', where the direction and acting is assured and the script beautifully fluid, you won't like this piece of poor theatre.

I didn't really want to say much more but I have to write ten lines. The shooting style is also stiff and I couldn't imagine one of the actors actually 'being' one of the parts. Even Ray Winstone as the east-end detective was arch and stilted. His lines were appallingly written, where much of the normal banter between people who don't know each other was dispensed for lines that assumed a relationship. Just like most middle-class, self aware theatre pieces. In fact the longer I write this the worse it gets. Can I stop now please ?

Others have said it in other comments and I have to agree with them. Moog was an extremely important man in the world of electronic music and he really deserved a better tribute than this rambling mess of clips. The film maker never gets to grips with the guy in any way, shape or form but what I find more frustrating than anything is his choice of music to represent the moments in history. Perhaps he was on such a low budget that he couldn't afford certain rights but when Bob Moog talks about 'Switched on Bach' as being a ground breaking album, changing the public perception of what electronic music could offer, there isn't one single note from the album played. There's not even the mention of the composer's name. How can you have a documentary about Moog and not even mention the name Walter Carlos ? Quite unbelievable. The 'Switched on Bach' moment is quickly passed over for some reason and rushes into a short Keith Emerson clip. I also seem to remember that Tangerine Dream are never mentioned or any of their music played. All in all there are so many holes in the production it limits both its appeal and historic interest. Shame really because it queers the pitch for someone else who may want to do the job properly.

This wasn't a feature film in any sense of the word. The characters were mere cyphers mechanically going through the motions of this lecture, written by someone with little idea of what makes drama. God knows why anyone decided to finance this piece of rubbish and I suppose it was just the names that decided to be associated with it. Meryl Streep is someone who I have a lot of time for and consider her to be one of the greatest actresses of all time but she was simply bad. Very bad. And it was because she didn't have a real character to inhabit, as none of them did. At a time when the American people really do need to reappraise their attitude to war, they deserve something much better than this to kick off the debate. Please do not go to see this.

The bits I liked first. Both the leads were better than I'd anticipated, particularly Kiera, who I've not had much time for as her previous attempts have been stilted and wooden in some cases. She's matured into a nice actress and her part came across as very believable. James McAvoy likewise did a great job although his accent was quite variable. Vanessa Redgrave was simply stunning. Her role was made difficult because it was so small and so important. Every moment had to be convincing and it was perfectly judged. I hadn't read the book which I'm glad about and I shall now go out and buy it. The story was fabulous with a stunning ending which I think would have been spoiled if you'd already read the book. This needs to be a shock and I'd imagine its anticipation would only water its effects down. What wasn't so good was the directors inconsistent handling of the script. There were some nice scenes when the two leads played together but there were also too many scenes that were heavy handed and a few quite laughable. The most expensive scene in the film on the Dunquerk beach was horrendously camp and self aware which was a shame. You could almost see the AD's q'ing the cast, horse and dog handlers and viz effects guys. There was also some dodgy casting and the guy who married Lola needed a quick word in his ear about his woodeness. It's probably not in the book but I would have liked a few more scenes of the two leads together to show their attraction to one another. We needed a little more detail of their depth of feeling so their separation is more poignant. Overall the film was a little frustrating because with a better director it could have been a great film but his heavy handedness got in the way too many times.

I really enjoyed this film from beginning to end and generally I'm difficult to please. I'm a little older than the average audience and so I knew this story really well having watched it unfold at the time. I also remember watching Orson Welles' masterpiece 'F for Fake', based around the same subject and anyone who's seen 'The Hoax' should watch 'F for Fake'. Richard Gere, and in fact, all the cast, were at their best and delivered a great script with all the tension and dynamics it needed. Gere and Molina worked very well together and I'd say it was probably Molina's best performance to date. Beautifully shot and cut, it was pacy but not too pacy like many current films. I liked the few library shots to help with creating a feeling for the period and of course, the music helped with that too. The story was told well, although if you weren't quite familiar with the outline of what happened, there could be some moments of doubt. However, knowing the story well made it all the more enjoyable.

The last half an hour or so completely destroys the previous portion of the film and I'm sure other comments will bear this out. Quite why Boyle didn't recognise this when he read the script and got the writer to make some changes, I really don't know. Although the film teeters on the edge of credibility, Boyle pulled it off for the first three quarters by a combination of nice shots, music and great editing. The acting was passable but not the best element of the film. Then, just when it could have become really interesting if the writer hadn't had a complete brainstorm, it descended into a silly slasher movie, so far removed from any sense of credibility, that the whole thing fell apart. Quite why the writer decided to go in the direction he did is impossible to answer because with a little more thought he could have brought the film to a fantastic conclusion. Instead he destroyed what he had started. What a shame.

Living close to Glastonbury I've seen a great deal about the festival over the years and most of the programmes have been so so. This documentary could easily have been a mess because of the sheer archival volume but it's not and mainly because it's been so sympathetically edited. The nice thing about the way that it's been cut it that it hasn't followed an obvious structure. It could have been chronological but it isn't, or it could have followed themes which it hasn't either, so it makes for a constantly surprising trip, never allowing you to fall into predictable rut. The over riding feel that the doc presents is how truly eccentric some of us British are and that's nice cos over the years we've tended to become a little boring by mimicing too much of the US way of life (which isn't known for its eccentricity or originality). Having worked in TV for over thirty years I'm hard to please as far as film structure is concerned, so its always exciting when something like this comes along. Go to some lengths to watch this work of great love and tenderness and you may learn a little more about what separates inspired work from the average and mundane. I really loved this film and everyone who worked on it should be extremely proud of themselves.

Although the film has its moments, this isn't the best script from Chris Guest and is a little sloppy, almost taking the audience reaction for granted. Even with Guest's track record, you can never take an audience for granted. By that I mean, Guest seems to think that no matter what the storyline or casting, his audience will be behind him. That's dangerous thinking and in this case, I think Guest has taken his eye off the ball. Guest's greatest moments are when the script reflects a reality we can all relate to but there were times here when that just wasn't the case. The casting of Ricky Gervais was nonsense. Ricky of course is great but he was working against simply ludicrous casting. It was also quite obvious that the acting in the film they were making would never have been Oscar worthy. For the comedy to stand up, the premise its built on has to stand up too and in 'For Your Consideration' this just wasn't the case. Chris, get your eye back on the ball mate, or you'll end up dropping it altogether.

I must say I've never been a great fan of Hanif Kureishi and don't quite know why he's got a following. He simply hasn't got anything to say about anything and all the films he's been involved with are arch, self aware and vacuous. Save for the acting of all the principals, Venus is typical and has got absolutely nothing to offer. The 'plonky' directing doesn't help. It thinks its being terribly serious and adult but the cardboard cut-out characters are handled in a theatric and self aware way. Only their inherent talents save the film from being truly diabolical. I went with my nineteen year old daughter and she felt exactly the same way. I saw it yesterday and I've forgotten most of it already. That sums it up really.

I was really looking forward to 'Babel' as I've liked Inarritu's previous films, particularly '21 grams' which I think is one of the best films of all time. Perhaps I was hoping for too much because, in the fullness of time, '21 grams' will probably be seen as Inarritu's zenith. It has one of the most sophisticated structures of any film ever made and is almost unfaultable on any level. For some reason 'Babel' seems a little forced to me and the script doesn't have the sharpness of his previous films. There are long music sequences which I found boring and pointless and I'm not sure that Inarritu and the writer, Arriaga, had as much passion for the subject as '21 grams'. It just comes across as a little forced and lifeless. Almost as though they had to make the film rather than wanted to from their soul. That's not to say its all bad. The performances are great and very real as you'd expect. The camera-work is top notch and the editing solid, although they haven't been as ballsy as in '21 grams'. Of course the director didn't just want to re-make '21 grams', I can see that, and its not what I'm saying but, simply taking the film as it hit me, didn't move me or grab me like his previous films. Perhaps I was expecting too much. Still, I've got my copy of '21 grams' on DVD which I look at at regular intervals. It's unlikely that I'll ever see a better film than that.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this film and its likely that I will have forgotten about it in a few hours. Which is a shame in a way because the whole cast were directed and acted extremely well. Its the script that I have an issue with and I find it odd that it was ever financed. I'm really bemused by what it was saying. The story was slight to say the least and didn't tell me anything about humanity or society that I could take away as insights. The Norton character (another masterful role by a much under rated actor) was a one-off and didn't have any connection to anything,anyone or group of people that I can think of. There was an odd little scene with Norton talking to no one in front of a mirror which I couldn't help but relate to the famous 'Taxi Driver' scene. I'm sure everyone else will feel the same. Sadly, in this case, the scene was a damp squib and a pale reflection of the De Niro masterclass. That's not to say Ed Norton couldn't have delivered if he'd been asked. I suspect he was never asked. I think the script had the seeds of an idea but the writer/director just didn't have the wherewith-all to push it further. So the end result was a bit of a 'so what'. Shame, as it was a missed opportunity.

I haven't seen Ayer's previous films and really went to see this one because of Christian Bale and the good reviews I'd read. Christian Bale is a truly great actor, perfectly cast in the under rated 'American Psycho' (one of the best films made by a woman !!) and the only positive element of 'The Machinist' which was otherwise quite a poor film. However, don't get the impression that Bale hogs the limelight here because Rodriguez gives as good as he gets and their relationship works in a beautifully balanced way throughout. Most of the minor roles work well too although none as well as the two leading roles. The script moves along gently and is a damning indictment of the macho world we live in. They needn't have been ex-soldiers but its probably more poignant that they were. The dialogue could have been played in a farcical way but Bale and Rodriguez pull it off really well. A very well handled film throughout and hopefully it will mark the beginning of a very successful directorial career for Ayer.

This terrible script was very badly handled in every way way except for the action sequences which were quite nicely done. Its a shame really because they've obviously spent some cash on the film. The casting was appalling, especially Mickey Rourke and Jimmy Carr who was a complete woodentop. The costume design the worst I've ever seen. So, who is the audience for this. Adults ? Certainly not, yet it pandered to them with some silly jokes and nods and winks. Kids ? Could be of interest to those keen on the 'boys own' adventure films. But because it was trying to be jokey and self aware it wouldn't come across as a serious attempt. The acting was either over the top (Bill Nighy) or downright appalling (Jimmy Carr, Sophie Okonedo) and the bit parts reminded me of those awful Saturday morning flicks in the sixties. Geoff Sax is a nice guy who I've worked with in the past and although he handled the actions sequences nicely (though not as well as Paul Greengrass in The Bourne Supremacy), the rest of it was really, really bad and hopefully he'll move on now and be a bit more picky with his scripts. This was the worst thing he's probably ever done.

Another mechanical production from the hands of Ron Howard. I was worried when I heard he was the chosen director for this project and although its been well shot and tells the story reasonably well, the acting is mechanical and lifeless like all his other films. I'm sure he's a nice bloke but its somewhat surprising that for a lifelong actor, the acting is always his weakest element. There's some poor casting in my opinion too. Audrey Tautou,Alfred Molina and Paul Bettany didn't do much for me and were particularly poor. In fact Paul Bettany was the only 'over the top' character and slightly embarrassing at moments. Hans Zimmer's music was fantastic as always but it couldn't compensate for the workmanlike direction. A missed opportunity which would have been handled much better by another director. A shame.

A beautifully crafted, written, shot, edited and acted film. You have to watch closely and concentrate but its certainly worth the effort. The director has created a consistent world and if you give in you'll be swept along towards the final scene which brings the whole thing together. My only small gripe is McGregor's phoney US accent. Why do US studios insist that their UK actors put on these awful accents that go some way to spoil their performance. Gambon in 'The Insider', Caine in 'The Weather Man' and now McGregor in this film could all have done their performances justice by ditching their preposterously phoney accents, particularly Gambon.

What on earth was the UK National Lottery thinking of when they put money into this film ? It has a terrible script, stilted acting and an amateurish self-awareness. I was very disappointed when I saw this as I was expecting a lot more from the reviews I'd read but then I'd forgotten that the director was the guy who did 'Coffee and Cigs' which is probably one of the worst, most self-aware films ever made. It's one of those films where you have to suspend your disbelief, cos you know in the real world Bill Murray, or his mate, Winston, would have phoned the girls rather than trudge round the country, or at the very least just ask them the obvious question once he had arrived. The scenes with the second girl he went to see were particularly bad with some of the poorest acting I've seen for a long time and such stilted setups that it really beggared belief. This director is professional and taken seriously ? Jeez, what is the world coming to ?

Although Sean Penn's performance is great its nothing like the real guy. I'm just surprised that the writer and director didn't portray Byck as he really was. The real story is much more interesting than this rather pallid version.Was it because the audience wouldn't have warmed to him ? Was it because he swore such a lot ? Whatever the reason the film does no justice to the real story of Byck at all and is simply a US film industry whitewash. Yet again. Of course you don't have to include every detail of the character to get to the essence of the man but my objection to the script is that the real Byck has been rubbed out and replaced by this slow and mild mannered person who seems to bear no relationship to the real person. Sam Byck was interned in a mental hospital for a number of months, paraded outside the White House dressed as father Christmas holding a placard which read 'Impeach Nixon'and his tapes were full of obscenities. This was not the man Sean Penn portrayed. Shame as I thought we'd had enough of the US film industry trying to rewrite history. As an aside, I thought the music was awful too.

The reviewers had written very positively about this film so I went with high hopes. Possibly too high, particularly when Hollywood is producing poor quality films aimed simply at getting butts on seats. So this is supposed to be a return to quality stuff is it ? Sure it had lovely sets, costume, shots but where were the real characters ? Where were the insights into human behaviour ? It brought nothing new to me at all and I couldn't fathom what it was saying at all. Simply because it was saying nothing. All the characters was far too simple as were the scenes, dialogue and structure. And don't start lecturing me that this is how it was in the 50's. I grew up in that decade and saw films like 'Look Back in Anger', 'On the Waterfront' and 'Rear Window'. Surely what was needed was to bring more characterisation and development of the story, not less. Heaven help us all if this is seen as Hollywood getting serious.

Certainly the worst film I've seen for a long time. And the main reason is its terrible script written by a thespian. Theatre writers can't write film (let alone good theatre). The characters are just automatons with no souls. Such a shame too because Woolfe is all soul.I just couldn't have cared less about any of the characters. They weren't real in any shame or form. It will be a sin if this terrible, terrible film wins anything at the Oscars.

Spielberg has made some awful films in his long career (AI for one) but this is by far his worst. Its such a shame because the guy is obviously highly talented, doesn't need the cash, and should have the confidence in his own abilities and the audience not to need to stoop to Disney techniques in order to embellish a great, true story. So many things just didn't add up, particularly in some of the characterisations - the young girl's parents, for instance, just weren't the type to have thrown her out of the house when they found she was pregnant. No, reality really is better than fiction and all those things that Spielberg added in a naive attempt to interest the audience were just the things which turned them off. And, oh, what was that awful boring, long, pastiche of a title sequence at the front? Most of the audience were asleep, or talking, before they saw the first frame of the story. Hollywood yet again gets it wrong.

By far and away Martin Scorsese's worst film. However, he's such a great director, I'll forgive him. This was history by Disney and if he'd backed off and not tried to make an epic history film it could have been OK. He should have narrowed down his canvas to a much smaller one and concentrated on just a fwe characters. But he tried to stuff the whole history of New York into a simplistic storyline. The characters weren't believable and Daniel Day Lewis did a remarkable job with terrible materaial. Put this down to experience Marty and promise never again to do history - leave it to Disney.

Yet another British film about working class angst ridden twenty somethings. Such is the lasting influence of 'Trainspotting'. But this script is poorly thought through without engaging characters, scenes and especially, dialogue. Its all very very stilted in the way a first student film might be although the lead actress makes a good attempt to create a character. Sadly, the director wasn't so good. I saw this film in Bristol a few days after seeing 'Donnie Darko' which didn't help as 'Donnie Darko' is a masterpiece. I know it was a totally different subject but the characters were angst ridden too. However, they were beautifully developed. So the message really is to people like the BBC and Channel 4 - we've had enough of working class angst ridden twenty year olds and writer/directors who have nothing to say.

This is a great film made by a great film director. No one would ever guess that this masterpiece was a first film made by a 27 year old. Besides a great script, the acting is first class and there is a true sophistication in the use of the camera, the editing and all round detail of the production. Phew.....wish I'd made it !! PS And its not about a dysfunctional boy who has visions of a giant bunny - its about what goes through your head when you're at the point of death.