Reviews

What I like first and foremost in this show are the AWKWARD situations. I feel like crawling under my seat with embarrassment two times per episode at least. And it's the worst kind of awkward! Just when a moment seems perfect, no clouds in the sky for once, someone says something totally embarrassing for everyone present (yes: most of the time, that would be the mother, Sally Field at the very top of her game if she ever was), and it makes everyone mad at her for destroying the perfect moment - but they find it hard to say it in his/her face as brutally as they feel it...

I feel utterly powerless. This is such a poor description of the brilliant writing, the perfect casting (I agree Flockhart is not at her very best - but she still brings that soft and confused quality she always had to the show, and she fits into the cast just as well as everyone else). Something in this show is just making me applaud at the end of each episode. I find it highly enjoyable to watch its creators striving for new, exciting situations and unknown territory with each episode. It's REFRESHING. And although I'm at least one season behind (I'm in Europe), until now, I find it's getting better and better: I remember I liked the romance between Flockhart and Lowe at the beginning... but all the wrong turns this family's story keep taking are SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING as things progress.

I think this is a show that deserves to be checked out. At the very least. I'm really grateful it's there. Warmly recommended!

(At the time I'm writing this, I'm wondering if this year, 2010, the show's has been canceled - it would seem so, IMDb doesn't put a final year unless a show has come to an end.)

For reasons so subjective I don't' feel like discussing them, I loved this movie. I caught it on TV on a December 31st and cried a lot, as it just kept addressing issues that were of extreme relevance to me...

Now: I was particularly struck by the contrast between the pro and contra comments. I forced myself to read some of the "negative" comments (containing the recurring formula "worst film I have EVER, EVER seen" in their title), and I had to admit that these comments made perfectly valid points on several issues all through the movie that were hard to defend. I had chosen to push aside these issues so I could enjoy the movie. I could also say: I had been struck by most of them myself, but it didn't prevent me from diving into the story and characters.

Then i began to look at the "Was this comment useful to you" ratings, and I realized something remarkable: roughly put (I didn't do a study of every comment), while the positive reviews got about two thirds of "yes" (yes, this comment was useful to me), the extremely negative ones almost invariably got about fifty-fifty of yes' and no's. Meaning strongly negative opinions (some of them outright hateful) got at least half of their readers on their side. At the very least, that made me think that there had to be something seriously wrong with this movie, and that still, I had managed to ignore it. I also realized that there were issues related to the U.S. of which I, as a European (German living in Switzerland), wasn't aware, but were very real and obvious in the States.

I apologize for not ending this with a conclusion that makes even a bit of sense: I didn't find any. Except a renewed confirmation of how subjective perception can be, depending on the mere MOOD one is in. When I watched this picture, I was in an absolutely non-critical, non-putting-into-perspective mood, only concerned with emotions and with what I could relate to within the boundaries of my personal life. So all the while I was watching, I extracted exactly what I needed out of what I saw, not an ounce more. I feel like having had a glimpse on why *anyone* can embrace *any opinion* at some point and feel he is absolutely right and sincere about his reasons. Kind of scary.

Switzerland is amazing... Between the three national linguistic areas ("swiss German", French and Italian), who *each* have *two* TV channels, we pretty much get almost all of the best American and British TV shows there are. And most of the time, thanks to double-channel audio, with the original English sound!

We got to discover TWIN PEAKS probably first in Europe (at least on the continent, not sure about the U.K. ...), it started in Germany six months later. Just one example.

Three or four years ago, I discovered Wonderland late at night, and surely was absolutely riveted. I wrote to the (german swiss) channel who'd broad-casted it to thank them for selecting it, and they seemed obviously delighted someone had appreciated their choice...

Couple of nights ago, I found it running again. It was the episode where Dr. Lyla Garrity (Michelle Forbes) has suddenly to give birth to her child while visiting an innovative institution... I guess this is the "cliffhanger" someone mentioned here: the baby's fine, but she is in very bad shape, in a coma when reaching the hospital... and we don't get to know the end of it, of course...

Everything that needed to be said has been said here about Wonderland. So I'll just silently mourn once more how such a jewel was put to sleep against all odds - but we learn to be thankful when something good lasts on TV.

I'll finish with an apology in the name of the European Community. And that would be: for the blunt stupidity of Wylie_Times from Sweden, stating that, supposedly, "as soon as something good comes along there's hundreds of protest groups immediately calling it offensive" AND that this is "Just typical America". Simplification is still the easiest way, and the easiest way still the favorites choice of so many. I'm not saying I'd never take this kind of shortcuts, I know I'm human. It still horrifies me when I see others taking them, though.

Will they ever put WONDERLAND on DVD?

I thought the comment displayed was ironical. "Excellent! Great fun!" Then I read the comment. And found out: no joke. And saw a seemingly endless list of 8 to 10 stars rating other comments.

So I randomly jumped to page eight... and am here to thank Dan Phillips (filops@yahoo.com) from California for his 5 out of 10 stars comment entitled "Just did not work for me", 15 June 2002. He expressed some of the mix of desperation, anger, but mainly disbelieving shock I experienced when confronted with actors I loved involved in a *non-movie*.

I'm really trying hard to find something positive to say. The special effects sometimes were good. In certain action scenes, sometimes there was rhythm. Some brief shots of Julianne Moore smiling were nice.

But what is worse than a movie trying to be funny. Sometimes you hear dialog that is perfectly funny - potentially. And somehow, the movie manages to choke it to flat-line. Bad editing, bad directing for the actors: both Duchovny and Moore have nothing to prove... and let's not even recall Dan Ayckroyd also got entangled in this mess somehow. If this movie has nothing to offer but the sadness of a doom, it's neither their fault nor any of the other excellent actors who in any given other flick are allowed to contribute to the collective effort.

I saw this when it came out, and watched the end on TV again tonight, just to be sure... I was remembered of the suffering (no, I really mean that word, no quotes, nothing) sitting through this *thing* with my one movie-buff friend, both sharing the same painful experience (and he has a tolerance level for Z movies about 80 stores below mine) and holding on to our seats, unable to believe the movie would stay this terrible until the very end. There are hundreds of flawed movies out there I'll take any time over this one. There's always SOMEthing that'll make it worthwhile. But not with this one, no.

I'm not arguing my case, I'm offering no explanations, only complaining, I'm aware of that. But for once, I really feel totally alienated by the reality that people obviously enjoyed this movie. I'm flabbergasted. I just can't imagine that a movie for which someone should be arrested, a movie so utterly bad at every level, could be taken for what it only claims to be but fails obscenely at being: a comedy. I remember thinking, when I went into the theater, that the three-eyed smiley on the movie's poster was a really cool idea. And, of course, I remember coming out, shaking my head in disbelief at the fact I couldn't think of ANYthing in the movie that even remotely held the promise of the poster. (the fact that that three-eyed smiley doesn't play any role whatsoever in the movie just exactly depicts how wrong the whole thing is)

No movie ever made me feel like this one: money spent on nothing, actors I admire wasting their time, becoming aware a director can use his power to prevent a 90 minutes movie from being anything the whole time through.

I still can feel how it was to see this movie. I usually don't bother writing about films I disliked. This one's in a league of its own, I felt offended by it... can you tell? ....I must apologize. I'll - hopefully - never write a comment like this about a movie again. As I hope I'll never watch one like this again.

***WARNING: terrible waste of time and money for everyone involved, and for you if you watch it.***

Every time I catch this movie, I'm reminded of the haunting, overwhelming spell I experienced with works like Cimino's "Deer Hunter" or "Heaven's Gate" (as well as several others) that convey this raw feeling of "being there" mixed with lyrical, poetic power. They seem the result of a mysteriously invisible success at combining rhythm, camera work, set design, sound, acting and what not.

Funny, though, how each time, I'm left with a drilling question: "what is *wrong* with this incredibly inspired movie?" I found some answers reading the following reviews: I almost completely second the views of

1. sumrrain, April 25th 2001, who mostly nails my feelings better than I could have *AND* offers some possible explanations as to what prevents the movie from being even better;

I found also found valuable ideas in the review by

2. gpadillo, November 9th 2004: I haven't read Hardy's book, but I like to hear gpadillo's take on, amongst other things, what kind of adaptation we are dealing with here.

Now, I personally feel the urge to give credit to Sarah Polley's performance. Her presence in most every scene she appears in is so intense and profound as we perceive the multiple layers and the strength in this girl much less fragile and lost than she appears. As I see it, she provides the second underlying main story, hidden literally by the more spectacular Mullan and Kinski, just as well as her character is sort of hidden and hushed to silence by the painful relationship between her parents.

I can't think of a lot of "young women coming of age" characters portrayed this powerfully. Nathalie Portman in "Beautiful Girls" as well as Bryce Dallas Howard in "The Village" come to my mind; not much more, in my very subjective opinion. Both actresses which I have tremendous respect for (and I really couldn't care less if Portman made some career choices considered as "poor", or sometimes unfortunate...)

This is one of the most ambitious and successful cinematic challenges undertaken in the last ten years, and I really think one can hardly afford to skip it if interested in what a big budget movie *still* can be nowadays.

Like lots of upper-medium quality screen adaptations of best-seller thrillers (The Pelican Brief, if only for one instance), i find myself watching this one every time it airs. There truly is enjoyment to be had from the high profile acting of Hackman, Weisz AND Cusack (maybe he's rarely mentioned in the previous comments because what he does is not spectacular; I find it hugely effective nevertheless). I don't think of this as a masterpiece, but, still, as a movie that keeps your attention - and tells many a little tale about humble people's problems (I find the jury quite believable, EVEN with all the admittedly too numerous loose ends). There is rhythm, the actor's performances are captured so we can enjoy them, I rather like the cinematography.

Now, as a fan of Grisham's best works, I'm warmly recommending to anyone who hasn't read the book to do so: it tells you 10 if not 100 times more about the characters (in the book, the "bad corporation" is the tobacco industry, but considering this film doesn't claim to achieve more than good entertainment with a plus, the choice of shifting to the gun lobby works just fine), about the ambiguity and problematics involved accusing the manufacturer of a product for what happens to people who use them, and about the ways people like Finch (played by Hackman) use to get what they are commissioned to do, the ruthlessness when money's involved... and about justice being thoroughly human and far from flawless, subject to a lot of considerations other than sorting out right from wrong.

Grisham has written a couple of books that blend entertainment and information masterfully, this is one of them; the movie takes what it wants from the book and almost creates a new story - and rather succeeds doing so! Recommendable entertainment for sure. For my ongoing pleasure watching it, rather than a seven, I ended up giving it an 8 !

As all other comments have pointed out, this is a real delight, thanks to top acting and directing talent, great dialogs, clever parody of Morricone and spaghetti westerns... I know the film by heart, as it has been on french TV at least once a year since it was made: 30 years ago! I'd really be interested in knowing what kind of entertainment value people from the USA, people who are neither living near France nor in a french speaking environment, find in this movie. Because it seems so very specifically french to me...

And I noticed that more or less every comment here comes from someone who's got either a language or some other European strings attached helping them getting the movie's humor.

Louis de Funès is a cult figure in France, he is an artist apart from everyone else. I love him, and I would be so curious to know what effect he, as well as that french comedy style, have on someone who doesn't have my cultural background...

Anyway, to anyone who has the opportunity to see this film, it's quite a curiosity, unique in its own way!

As *Ron Smolin* points out in his comment (July 17th, 2003), this isn't a movie that's going to change your views on the universe. It's pretty Disney formatted: good wins versus evil; the handsome & smart hero gets the handsome & smart girl; even fat people and small people and foreigners and geeks can get a beautiful, SLIM girl (of course, not the other way around); and making money's OK, if it lands in the pockets of the heroes). All those imperatives are there like on a menu for the movie that won't hurt anybody's principles...

That said, there are moments to be enjoyed, some nice ideas in the production design, even a little self irony (rather shy, but you can spot it if you pay attention...). The actors, especially the "geek-team" and most other supporting roles, really do a very good job (they actually helped me get over the too perfect, too tasteless "Andy" character, played by the otherwise very capable Adam Garcia).

It's really like a movie for early teens that can entertain grown-ups as well - and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

Perfectly OK for harmless entertainment. And for that little dreamy delight we can experience when we manage to forget that, most of the time, the world is a much more cruel and complex place than it is in this movie...

My motivation for this comment is the only, very negative review, that says exactly the opposite of what I found in this movie! The overall rating is terrible (though 11 votes is not representative of anything), and the film definitely deserves more.

To me, it has a good story, for once. It avoids Asiatic horror movie clichés and creates a mood of its own. It is superbly photographed. Under a seemingly classic form and approach lie lots of elements that makes this movie much more special than you'd expect it to be in the first 10 minutes.

It's well worth a try. To be perfectly honest, I saw it in a festival, and one develops a certain tendency to see the good things in the four to six movies you watch every day, so I can't rule out that I might react otherwise if I saw it today.

Still, I am confident this is more than just another Asian horror-flick, and that, if you're curious and open-minded, you'll find something to feed your movie-hungry appetite...

I felt like writing this essentially in response to the comment on 'L&O-Special Vctims Unit' being the best L&O 'edition', as posted on 18 November 2004 by "canadianfreak_17" from Guelph, Canada.

I clearly disagree with that: Vincent d'Onofrio (AND of course the brilliant writing behind most of the episodes!) gives the show an unmistakable, unique quality. I think he sometimes overdoes his psychoanalytical, manipulative stunt, creating a caricature of the character he plays so well the rest of the time. Also, his partner Kathryn Erbe as Det. Alexandra Ames is sometimes too much reduced to her supporting act, not being given any opportunity to stand out - even if only once in a while. D'Onofrio truly takes a lot of space, it's "his show", and the writers must have been drawn to give him more and more importance. Speaking of which, I'd really like to see some of the first season, to check if she was more his equal than in the later ones (which I believe I saw); maybe it was that way from the very start on...).

Still, with the excellent other characters outstandingly cast (Jamey Sheridan and Courtney B. Vance), it's a solid and well crafted show. I'm always quite curious about the twist(s) and the way d'Onofrio is going to squeeze the truth out of the perpetrators (more often than not, we have a 'Colombo'-like quality in the show, knowing who's guilty and the story being how the investigation will nail him!)

I felt like writing this essentially in response to the following comment: 'Best one in the L&O Franchise', posted 18 November 2004 by "canadianfreak_17" from Guelph, Canada.

Of course, that's because I strongly disagree with 'L&O-Special Vctims Unit' being the best L&O 'edition': Vincent d'Onofrio (AND of course the brilliant writing behind most of the episodes!) gives the show an unmistakable, unique quality. I think he sometimes overdoes his psychoanalytical, manipulative stunt, creating a caricature of the character he plays so well the rest of the time. Maybe, also, his partner Kathryn Erbe as Det. Alexandra Ames is sometimes too much reduced to her supporting act, not being given any opportunity to stand out - even if only once in a while. D'Onofrio truly takes a lot of space, it's "his show", and the writers must have been drawn to give him more and more importance. Speaking of which, I'd really like to see some of the first season, to see if she was more his equal than in the later ones I believe I know (maybe it was that way from the very start on...).

Still, with the excellent other characters outstandingly cast (Jamey Sheridan and Courtney B. Vance), it's a solid and well crafted show. I'm always quite curious about the twist(s) and the way d'Onofrio is going to squeeze the truth out of the perpetrators (more often than not, we have a 'Colombo'-like quality in the show, knowing who's guilty and the story being how the investigation will nail him!)

There are more votes for Michael Haneke's "Caché", which came out only one or two weeks ago !!!!

How can Woody Allen be a virtual stranger in his own country to such an extent ??? How can someone setting ALL his film plots in *New York* for thirty years get so little interest in his own country - and be a *Superstar* in Europe?

Unless the film just came out *days* ago in the United States (in which case my above comments would look very silly, I admit it...) - well, this is a complete mystery to me!

I haven't seen the movie yet, you might have guessed, but I strongly suspect I will like it (especially as so many people are referring to "Crimes and Misdemeanors" to describe it, which was one of his last great movies, if not the very last). I have a very soft spot for Mrs. Johanssen as well...

(Edit: I have learned in the meantime, reading one of the threads about the movie (below), that Allen's films are hardly being shown in the U.S. *at all*. That explains the few votes, but is quite sad an stupid as well, knowing one of the main factors for it is his affair with his adoptive daughter. Now, I don't approve of this, neither did I appreciate it very much when I first heard about it. But if this kind of story being intolerable to the American people was followed through - and I'm confident that in the U.S., there too many open minded people to let that happen on grand scale - then there would be an awful lot of famous artists needing to be censored...)

I rarely take the time to rate, let alone to comment on a movie I give a 6.

This one has a lot going for it. When I searched IMDb, I looked for a movie of the seventies or eighties... NEVER would have thought it's not ten years old. So, at the very least, it succeeds in re-creating (or mimicking?) the atmosphere of that time, including how movies of the seventies feel. That's quite an accomplishment in itself!

Jared Leto is unrecognizable (to me, at least) and very convincing...

I saw this on TV. I was tempted to leave, but stayed on it until the end. The movie manages to have quite some power of attraction, although the story is rather thin after all... as is Prefontaine's character himself. There was a moment where I just became tired of everything evolving around him and his problems and success... I wondered more and more when someone would tell him there where other people in the world. But no, everyone around him is full of dedication and just wants him to win... it becomes ridiculous. The way his girlfriend, who's equally devoted as anyone else, who's there only to comfort him, NEVER to criticize him, reminded me of some movies of the seventies where women had the same kind of extreme, self-denying devotion - another reason for me to believe the movie actually WAS MADE in that time.

It becomes ridiculous, the girl appears to be really brighter than to only be there for him, never encouraging him to question his self-centered attitude... I'm aware this sadly has been true for ages in most couples before the first feminist efforts told women they had a choice... and that it hasn't stopped either just because we are in the third millennium... But the movie is smart in other ways, so it feels wrong his characters aren't.

Well - still, the movie has an undeniable charm. And I still recommend it, maybe because the naive side of it strikes me as rather sincere than sarcastic, and, again, because you really believe you are in the seventies. Don't run for it, but give it a shot when you can.

Only 2 comments as I'm writing this, and this movie definitely deserves better.

I saw it at a little horror festival in France in January.

This movie is about being lost when you're supposed to become an adult, being lost in the harsh, individualistic world we live in... (that sounds very common, but the movie isn't.) It also takes on voyeurism in a quite original way, even questions photography and "beauty"...

There is a perpetual and nameless menace surrounding the young girl we follow. She feels alone, misunderstood. But she's got strength and will and talent...

Her obsession with death will ultimately be an opportunity for her to face herself, although she really seems to loose it as the story unfolds.

I really find this movie appealing and quite outstanding, and I want to recommend it... ...but there is that finale!!! I can't talk about the ending without destroying what is certainly an intended impression...

*******************

but I feel this movie should warn audiences about its extreme violence.

*******************

That said, there are a lot of reasons to watch this if you have the opportunity.

(I wrote this in 2001, and just discovered I posted it for another movie, so I put it here, as it is...)

I'm much too shaken for critical distance, but I still feel the urge to tell everybody to see it, unless you're allergic to the genre.

The cinematography, while extremely beautiful, never stops from supporting the story.

I hope the incredibly dense sound texture of the opening sequence is on the original soundtrack (most of the music is very efficient, though maybe too present some times).

The director has given every one of his deeply sad characters a human quality that keeps them from being pathetic, so they're "just" very human. You feel he loves them and wants us to do so too. In that, he succeeds indeed.

The actors are overwhelming, a dream cast. Geoffrey Rush is just perfect (thanks for DIRECTING him, Mr Lawrence! Some of your colleagues forgot to do so), and Anthony Lapaglia is amazing. What a joy to see Barbara Hershey again, like an old friend we missed, And surely Kerry Armstrong will be offered more opportunities to take our breath away in the future, right? So, I'll only express doubts about the way things (don't) turn out towards the end, that odd feeling of a happy end in disguise - but then again, what i've seen by then outweighs this by far.

(in terms of laying bare the human soul, it has kind of a "FESTEN"-like quality, but set in deep Australia, with a comfortable budget...)

No walk in the park, but very warmly recommended !

I am from Germany and live in Switzerland, and have seen around me how ugly primitive anti-Americanism can get. So I want to state this is not my orientation at all.

Now, I have read through the first two pages of user comments on this movie, and gave up finding even one single review questioning this movie's incredible message.

Take one of the most politically correct actors active in Hollywood (if not the King of them all...?), Mr. Denzel Washington. I admit I love him as much as anyone else, and I think he gives a good performance here, so that's not what bothers me. Now, put him with the most gorgeous, irresistible little girl on earth (I share the enthusiasm of many for Dakota Fanning, it would be hard not to...). They become friends, she helps him feeling needed as a person again and he becomes a father/big brother to her - to my humble opinion, if quite classical and nothing revolutionary, the scenes where they form that bond are by far the best thing in this movie! - and she DIES, or he thinks so.

Now, you show this wounded man (and very widely beloved actor) getting in to a revenge fury in reaction to being deprived of the one living being who was making him feel alive again, and can we hold back our own sympathy for his state of mind when faced with the murder of a (perfectly lovable, very young) child? STILL, what animates Creasy's CRUSADE has to be called by its name: a personal revenge action that crosses every moral and legal border one can think of.

I don't remember ANY Hollywood movie telling me an "eye for an eye" is OKAY... until MAN ON FIRE. Creasy, BY ALL MEANS shown as the GOOD GUY in this movie, moves from personal distress to using the skills learned and perfected during his missions for U.S. governmental secret services - i.e. TORTURE, EXTREME INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE, and finally ARBITRARY EXECUTION - to make the BAD GUYS suffer before murdering them. All because he's mad at them and, to a lesser extent, because the not quite disgraceful nor unsexy mother tells him too.

I'm shivering as I recount all this being in a mainstream movie... and NOBODY seems to flinch !!!???!!!

It's a small consolation that, at least, the incredibly irritating MTV-like flashes and super-short shots bombarding you from time to time have been spotted by some: =shawn_eason= : "to top this all off Tony's use of Mtv-style filming gave me the biggest headache, far worse than the shakiness of the camera in Blair Witch...sigh why did he need the unnecessary flash zip pow here then there, then back again... my head is spinning." ...unfortunately, just before that, he considers "It would of been an OK movie say (and I hate to say it) the girl wasn't alive because then it would of justify his rampage, however, she was alive" (so, if the girl had actually been murdered, the executions would have been okay...) and he finishes with "I still think it was OK though." :(

As well, my enthusiasm for Dakota Fanning reflects in =jana1251= 's comment (at least she doesn't explicitly approve the story...).

The comment title "does considered, planned out bloody revenge make you go "oooo"?" by =Janessa= was very promising, but not at all, it's "well worth the rental"...

About half of the comments are by women, so the Denzel-magic seems to work equally on both sexes to erase any sense of criticism as long as he is the one in charge...

I AM SORRY for this being a very long comment that does nothing but complaining. But I am genuinely SHOCKED that a movie that is essentially blessing a bloody crusade WITHOUT EVER HINTING THAT THE HERO COULD BE WRONG (that would have made the movie into something more interesting as well as less ambiguous human-wise!) doesn't seem to raise so much as an eyebrow. I don't feel like discussing this movie (which has about as much qualities as it has flaws). Since I'm condemning it from the start, I couldn't care less about the ending being happy or not...

I would recommend to watch it as an incredibly irresponsible statement by the movie industry to a large audience: "If deeply harmed/wronged/hurt, the GOOD guys are allowed to exercise vendetta in the form of torture and assassination."

Think about it. Please.

I'd like to very warmly redirect everyone to dog_bites_back's comment. He says most of what is essential, namely about the misleading marketing THE VILLAGE has badly suffered from.

From the viewing of 'The sixth sense' on, I can recall how deeply grateful I was for the feeling there was finally someone who had that genuine love for movies AND the talent/ability to use the means of a big production in a way that, in the end, you have an impression of INTIMACY.

This I found again in THE VILLAGE. Walking out of it, there surely were questions, irritations, feelings that the movie wasn't well balanced in some ways...

But there is so much to find in it that the movie still gives me more, by far, than it frustrates me. It is generous, it is sincere (in my opinion at least), it tells a story and puts you in a state that are VERY unexpected. That's the highest of what I expect from a movie.

The ambiance, the mysterious uneasiness between the inhabitants, the numerous secrets most of which remain basically unanswered (not typically Hollywood, now, is it?): all those points make it something precious. Something leaving space for you to travel into the story with your own life, your feelings, your memories.

I still can imagine very well that you'll be totally puzzled, or even unnerved, if you're not in the right mood for it.

The trailers, as dog_bites_back points out, are so completely WRONG that it's a joke. And a suicidal one at that: they surely HAVE done the film and its career some terrible damage, as you could only be very disappointed when, after being promised some "BLAIRWITCH PROJECT meets THE HOWLING meets SEVEN meets Lars van Trier" product, you discover something that has more to do with Ingmar Bergman.

Oh yes, it does. The rural setting of the action, the village and the woods, supernatural elements, the depth of the characters and the intensity of the acting, all this can be related to the Master from Sweden.

I almost forgot, because it is so obvious, but the film is so beautifully photographed it takes your breath away (and always serves the story, my opinion again...).

After taking good notice that you WILL NOT see a horror-flick with the clever Shyamalan touch, you should ABSOLUTELY see this movie, one of the most original works on the big screen for a long time.

Zapping away late at night, I catched that movie just as it was starting.

I was intrigued by the nightmare-like shot of the woman besides the dead man on the side of the street. That was certainly the purpose of said shot, and in a way, the whole movie is trying to avoid us from loosing interest... which isn't a good sign, generally.

Funnily enough, there are still just about enough qualities that made me stick to it.

As was very well described in a previous comment, the film has a good cinematography, and you realize how poorly filmed about 80% of what you see when you turn on TV is...

Then, the story manages to stay touching, and full of surprises, again well stated in that other comment.

I almost wished someone had helped the director to lift his film above the thin line he was very close to be crossing. It's so hard to combine comedy, grotesque, horror, and whatever else he tried to put in that movie (I'm typing this while it's running, I left the TV on... just to tell that I was more curious to know what I had found than to really watch all the way...).

SO: it's not a success, but, to me, it came just at the right time to show me that a failure by people who where SOMEHOW inspired and had a certain know-how in making movies can be a relief - after watching TV for hours. Reminding one that TV mostly just PRETENDS to show you nice pictures. But when you see REAL cinematography, REAL story-telling with pictures, you snap out of your mind-nap. You look up, and you start using your mind again.

Just one humble testimony... obviously not aiming for any objectivity.

If you like movies a lot... if certain movies have played an important part in your life... then maybe you shouldn't miss this one!

...It's ending as I finish, I glanced from time to time. It gets better and better as it goes. Better than I expected.

I gave it a 7, but almost an eight when I saw it didn't reach that very average.

Katharina Schüttler is so huge as main character (she's 25 years old)I thought about Hanna Shygulla (R.W.Fassbinder's fetish actress), the comparison is by no means far-fetched.

The film is very well done, in the reality-drama genre, which is a difficult one as everything seems to have been done in that field. It makes plenty of room for the incredible actress (I understand it has been written with her in mind), but all other parts are excellent as well.

It's no happy movie, Sophie's destiny gets more terrible as time goes by. (So: not to watch if you're feeling down...)

But a very reassuring sign that Germany is beginning to have a Cinema and a generation of directors and actors/actresses that want to do tell stories in today's world, and who seem more and more capable to!

Recommended!

I distinctly remember that, on the way out of the theatre, I realized I had totally forgotten about the film being an animation!

I couldn't remember, and still can't, when I was that drawn into a movie and into the world of an author. Certainly very subjective, but I felt that this work speaks to the child AND to the grown-up in me, and I didn't experience that so often...

The incredibly intense moods, particularly some very calm moments where nothing happens, almost no sound... beyond words at its best moments (which, to me, is: most of the time!), though I admit - to give it the honesty it certainly deserves - having being a bit lost in the overwhelming diversity of caracters and events some times...

But that's really nothing compared to what this film gave to me (I didn't even say "film" on purpose...).

Not the one to watch if you want to get violently distracted... (Mission impossible 1 & 2, Terminator 1 - 3, and so on).

Definitely worth watching, I'd put it in my top ten of the past ten years.

How do you describe emotions? This movie shows what pictures and sound can do when a master is using them to let his soul speak...

Everything has been said in the other comments.

I knew the Nikopol-trilogy, and I suppose it can help to be familiar with Bilal's world in general and this very comic in particular to enjoy the movie...

BUT: from the first minutes on, what you see really takes your breath away in any case. One may or may not enter the mood, the very personal mythology of Bilal, but this is something to be seen. And give yourself the pleasure of a real movie screen, there must be a HUGE loss when you watch this on TV, as widescreen as it might be. There's so much to see, so many textures...

The actors are all excellent, and I personally thought that the weird feeling resulting from the mixture of real actors and 3D characters has an effect especially close to the feeling I know from reading the comic.

I do have problems myself with Bilal's own little world and his way of short-circuiting the story whenever and however he pleases... he often lets his characters loose their continuity, while they are truly interesting most of the time.

Anyway, it's a very pleasant surprise, incomparably more consistent than the works of Jeunet and Caro (two french filmmakers having committed "Delicatessen") who are totally into gimmicks and special effects for their own sake. Jeunet later did "Amélie Poulain", about which everyone (in France, anyway) has his own opinion... and also SHOT - in every sense of the word - the last ALIEN movie (IV) - although at second vision, I admit I liked some of it.

I would add this to "AVALON": to be seen for its visuals alone, and maybe more...

Though I feel the film as a whole is unsuccessful, there is something - like the evolution and in the unsaid things between Meg Ryan's character and the cop (Mark Ruffalo)- that makes this film, to me, definitely worth seeing for.

I'd say that about any Jane Campion film! While I think AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE is one of the greatest movies I ever saw, I just couldn't relate to THE PIANO - although I believe it to be an interesting experience, and containing some beautiful moments.

And Jennifer Jason Leigh is quite wonderful (it seems to serve her not to be the center of the movie).

A wreckage by Jane Campion will always be more interesting than a well accomplished film by... no, this is mean, I won't say the name.

Don't go if you're not prepared to sort the good from the bad in a confounding, sometimes frustrating film... but I also remember moments where I was asking myself if I was watching a masterpiece...

At your own risk, but that pays sometimes!

Learning recently the first season of "24" was produced in 2001, I realized i was still having the secret thought that there was a kind of "justice" that will bring GOOD movies and TV-productions like this to you in no time.

In Switzerland, we are quite lucky, as we get the best shows on TV... sooner or later... AND, most of the time, we can chose to watch them in their original language (I'm thinking about English in most cases, of course). We even systematically beat french broadcasts by months, sometimes years...

But in this case, we got to see season one of "24" this year's summer...

Still better than not, but I remember "Twin Peaks" taking less than a year to show up on our TV-screens.

About the show, it's really as good as it gets, imho...

I'm VERY curious how they will manage to follow up on THIS one !

"Not much to add" (that's how I started - before writing all that follows...!) to the positive statements made in the other user-comments I've read before seeing this remarkable movie tonight.

(just in case: IT IS ABOUT Janey, a young girl in her teens, experiencing new feelings while watching the marriage of her parents finalizing its disintegration during the summer holidays, and her mother allowing herself into adventures Janey both despises and envies...).

It's not often I get drawn into a motion picture like I did into this one. It has got a thoroughly admirable quality of obviousness, thanks to the perfect way everything - the story, the photography, the rythm, the actors - merges to give the film its "harmony", some kind of "flowing completeness" that is, indeed, known to me more by listening to music than from watching a movie.

The dream-like quality has been rightly pointed out, and I might add that the relationship Janey has with her little brother (yes, that small born comedian is sort of a little miracle by himself...) makes me want to have had a sister (which I didn't) I'd have gotten along with just that well...

As I read somewhere, Christine Jeffs has directed several music videos, and that certainly shows, but in the best way possible (not only mastering the means, but having already a VERY personal and original way of using them !).

Small regrets are that I found the score itself (which otherwise contributes to the whole just as well as everything else does) is a bit too invading at some moments, where Jeffs just should have trusted the power of her visual language... AND I share with other IMDb-users that feeling of complete bewilderment, when faced with THIS seemingly USELESS ending/showdown...(what IS this??? WHAT FOR???)which almost, but just almost, trashes the whole experience... although it allows for a brief, and in my opinion breathtaking, reconciliation sequence between mother and daughter.

Very warmly recommended; just forget everything I wrote before and enjoy a work of art of a movie !

AND THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO RECOMMENDED IT !