Reviews

It seems a bit much. I was annoyed by what seemed to me the confusion of the stories. I would have preferred a more straightforward telling, with less cutting back and fourth. Much too much time spent showing the bald figure standing at the "tree of Life," And who is he, by the way? The queen is, I suppose supposed to be Isabella, who sends Tomas on a question. This is, I suppose in the story that Izzi wrote, and I get this, except that I never figure how it ends. What does he write in the last chapter? How does what he reads, and which part of it affect his outlook? If he is supposed to be accepting of her death at the end, is it because of somethings he has read, or experienced, or what? I am puzzled by the bald Jackman in the Bubble. What is the significance of Tomas basically turning to grass after he eats the nectar? Usually I can puzzle out films like this, but maybe I should read the comic book first. Very nonlinear.

What kept me glued was the consistency of Patrick's character. As indicated by the opening voice-over, he was seeking to save his soul even as he walked among characters ruined by corruption. Patrick is something of a saint without conventional piety, or at least none shown here, willing to make hard choices and willing to take the consequences. At the end. I am left convinced that the child has acquired a guardian angel who will do whatever he can to make sure no harm comes to her but with no certainly that he will succeed. Affleck is certainly superior to his brother as an actor, but I think that even Ben could have made Patrick convincing. Director Affleck obviously has a lot to learn, but he has made a damn good movie. Many of those above have pointed out things he could have done better, but the actors save him from some of his mistakes, and the end result is worthy of real praise. I agree he has found his proper niche, but he is also beginning to find his feet as an actor and--it seems--as a person.

I hadn't remembered that it was so much of a travelogue, but the film evoked memories of the Rome We visited in the '60s. Didn't return until the late '90s and the difference in traffic is what we noticed most. The crowds they show in Rome were smaller than I remember from that time, I guess because they were shooing them away for the shooting. Speaking of, I wonder how many couples have acted the Rome and Juliet balcony scene in Verona? I witnessed one myself on a visit in the '80s. The performance I hear was better than Donahue's.

My wife and I was enjoying the movie and she commented that Hampton Fancher was better looking than Donahue, and we speculated how the story might have developed if they had let "Albert" be less a dork. I agree with someone above that trying to have Angie play a neurotic doesn't work. I don't know why they I expected them to given Pleshette more comedy lines. She was a natural comedienne.

I may have missed this, because I haven't read all the comments. Has anyone noted the meaning of the scenes of the actual funeral procession? The son offers a great amount of money to pay for pall-bearers from other villages who will bring the father's body home. It becomes a grand procession in which the late teacher is honored as a great hero. "Di's" determination that the village honor the service of her husband achieves what she wanted or expected. The procession moving through the snowy road also reminds me, ironically, of another event, when in 1950 Chinese soldiers moved across mountainous terrain that we thought they could not cover. A great people, the Chinese.

And, oh yes, the photography reminds me how much the Chinese loves their reds and golds. Stunningly beautiful.

My wife got a free ticket because she works at a high school. I just went along. Very surprised by the quality of the production. Swank is believable because she can project strength and intelligence. The way she turns the kids is believable. Hernandez is excellent, the real second lead, and if this doesn't get her more work, their ain't no justice. As a former teacher I was amused that they showed her with only one class. My wife and I agree that dramatically her first meeting with the class would have benefited by showing her with a "normal" class first. First day, getting along as expected--because she is obviously a strong teacher--then, "booomb" chaos. I didn't like the character that Dempsey played, which is the point I guess: she is very strong, he is without ambition. To be sure, we are told that her 'father" thinks he was a bad choice. The chemistry between Swank and Scott Glenn is excellent. He is outstanding. I would nominate him for an Oscar, because he does everything a supporting actor is supposed to do. Swank of course worked very well with Eastwood. Not good as a romantic lead, she might, however, do well opposite a strong younger actor.

I certainly agree with Melj about the quality of the show. The show tonight about the abducted boy is typical. I was happy to see Close featured. I have admired his performances since he played the bionic-man type in the series--what was the name--several years ago. But of course all the characters in this show are well drawn and the acting more than good. The pacing of tonight's show was typically tight, the writing terse, the acting understated. Very dramatic, of course, but the thing ended as we all wanted it to. The boy actor is quite good. Where do they keep coming up with young actors this talented?

IMHO this is the best of all the superhero movies. One gets the feel of a comic book, with the humor--including a malicious comic heavy--reminding me of the original Captain Marvel comic books. The characters are "human" enough to grab our sympathy but "cartoonish" enough that we suspend our disbelief gladly to see them exercise their magical powers. In some ways this is as ground- breaking as "Snow Whites," even though "Polar Express" has more of the same "feel" as the Disney movie. It has, I think, taken what old Disney films did in two dimensions and extended it into three. The voice characterizations are well-done. It may be nothing peculiar to this film, but the actors seems to have fun doing things verbally that they cannot get away with while doing live action. I expect to see sequels of this. Indeed the film ends with the cliff-hanger than seems to lead us toward one.

Bobby Jones has the same feel as the many old movie biographies of the 1950s, like the Glenn Miller Story, but it is better written and better acted and certainly the historic artifacts are better, although it is true that everything looks so new! There is no high drama, but one gets a sense of the sheer effort it took for Jones to succeed. Anyone who knew only the bare outlines of his career, and about his background, may have assumed that he was a "natural"to whom the game came easily. The opposite is true and the movies demonstrates, ironically, why amateurs have disappeared from golf. The effort needed to excel is too great except for the most gifted of golfers. Tiger Woods would not be what he is if he had to work at another job for 9 months a year.

But my questions is: what do some people hate morality tales, but especially the ones that are true. Is it inverted snobbery? I think so.

The production values of this film are first rate. My only quibble is why they cast such an Anglo-looking actor in the title role. The most striking point made was to set so much of the "action" in the city of Jerusalem. The confrontations between Jesus and the authorities make the crucifixion much more understandable. "John" has Jesus make many visits to the city, unlike the synoptics. who portray him as a Galilean country preacher. The length of the film works against it since one is ill advised to buy the large cokes before going in, as there is no break.

Recently I saw Caine, Duval, and Osment on the Charlie Rose Show, and

Osment awes me with his maturity. Sometimes if you didn't know better, you think he is 25, not 15. I think he also amazes his co-stars, too. One can guess that the pairing of Caine and Osment had to happen after the nice things that Caine said about Osment at the academy awards. Gene Osment ha s done an amazing job so far keeping this kid's head on straight.

As to the movie: kind of uneven. I don't think that I have ever seen a ranch house like the one they use in this movie, but then Texas is a big state. Duval is the best thing in the movie, since the accent is natural, and in heroic mode he is believable. Caine's accent keeps slipping, and Osment is too far off. Even city boys had a drawl then. I was surprised they didn't do more with the boy-lion, thing. What they might have done is suggested in the cartoons shown at the end. Osment knows how to behave like a boy his age. Hope he grows up three or four inches so he can slip into age appropriate roles. That is his plan.

Very good production values and good acting by the principles. What is wrong with it, IMHO, can see seen in the scrolled message at the end, which depicts Luther as the champion of religious liberty even though the movie ends with Germany on the verge of an era of religious war that was to ravage the country and leave it fractured into hundreds of petty states. Oddly enough the movie recognizes the consequences of Luther's radical views by showing the results of the Peasant war and telling us that up to 100,000 have died in it. Fiennes only occasionally is allowed to show Luther's habitual sarcasm ,his fanaticism, and his war-like spirit.He does show Luther's great personal and popular appeal. The film also shows the crucial role of Frederick the Wise,(well-played by Ustinov) without whom Luther would have early on been thrown into the flames. It goes beyond the historical evidence in making Frederick a Lutheran. . It fails to give Phillip Melancthon his due. Without his aid Luther could never have translated the Bible into German. It was, after all, Melancthon who taught Luther his Greek --and to an extent his popular German.

I saw the film aboard the QE2, not in a theatre, because the trailer gave me absolutely the wrong impression of what the film is about. The trailer showed only cars banging into one another and physical violence. The film is actually about two men whose lives are thrown into collisions and as a result each man undergoes a moral conversion. One can almost say. a religious conversion in the case of the one character(Ben A.), since he goes through the process of reconciliation, from examination of conscience to confession(involving as part of the symbolism) a real priest and restitution and personal reconciliation with the other character. The other character(Samuel J.) gets a whole new look at his own personality and the underlying basis of his alcoholism. All this is done while maintaining a fast pace--all the action talks place in one day, and against the unflatteringly amoral background of modern law and commerce.

The ending is trite, which detracts from the whole, and according to Michell is what the studio wanted.

This film seems unable make up its mind whether it is black comedy or not. If the main character were treated as someone truly unhinged rather than mildly depressed by her circumstances, but who eventually awakens,(like the main character in "Nurse Betty") it might have worked. Some awful things happen to some of the characters but I felt nothing for them, this includes that of the star. There is a hollowness at the heart of her portrayal as if she cannot imagine what her character should feel.

I think that Disney has come up with a winning new character in Stitch. The story line is not as good as it might be , but it starts off with a bang and keeps moving. The occasional frenzy ends down often enough to make us care about the characters and it has plenty of comic touches. It seems to be a hit, so that will give a boost to two-dimensional cartoons.

A very good start. I was a bit surprised to find the machinery not quite so advanced: It should have been cruder, to match we saw in the original series. The cast is interesting, although the Vulkan lady comes across as a little too human. She needs to school on Spock who, after all, is the model for this race. Too bad they couldn't have picked Jeri Ryan. I like Ms. Park, the Korean(?)lady. The doctor has possibilities. Haven't sorted out the other males, except for the black guy. He's a really likeable. Bakula needs to find his niche--In QL his strong point was his sense of humor and his willingness to try anything. He is, of course, big and strong enough for the heroics. The heavies were OK, although I didn't like their make-up.

The presence of character's such as Geoffrey Chaucer and Edward, the Black Prince, tell you WHEN and WHERE you are, and the rock music track let's you know that what you are seeing is surreral, but there is enough grit and true human emotion to make you believe.The actors do it straight, so that it rises above parody, despite the Monty Python touches. Hero and heavy are both first rate, as are the supporting characters. I have seen many medieval stories, but none that so intensely focuses on the business of jousting. The Czech stuntmen make it clear that you are not at medieval times, but watching something as serious as rodeo work.

Horsley gives a good Errol Flynn imitation. Too bad his career didn't do any better. The film moves along rather well, and if you like gore, this has enough to please you, but so much as to turn your stomach. By and large, this is a flick worth seeing again ever so often.

Well acted and the wars scenes set in Stalingrad are disturbingly realistic. but the suspense doesn't build to the climax as I hoped it would. The ending is too predictable and sentimental to be believed. Did the director substitute a "soft" ending?

Except for the tendency to turn some of the opponents of the President into strawmen, and of course, to make "O'Donnell's" role in events larger than life this is good stuff. Director is able to maintain dramatic tension, even though we know the outcome, by neat plot twists. Furthermore, these are the two most credible Kennedy brothers I have yet seen, and I wish the focus had been more on them.

For what it's worth, I remember the time and I never for a moment thought that we were close to war, because the Soviets were too far out on the limb. But maybe I was wrong.