Reviews

I can't believe that the reviewers before me (except one) saw the same production I did. Honestly, as it was concluding, I was amazed I'd enjoyed it as much as the very best crime thrillers I've seen from Britain, Scandinavia, Belgium, and elsewhere. I found it exhilarating.

It may not have been flawless, but I thought everything was above average to exceptional. The main actors were phenomenal (two secondary parts were a few beats off but not terrible). The photography and editing were great. The story was compelling for nearly the entire four hours. The third episode slightly faltered for me. In the end, that may have been best: I'm not sure I blinked during most of the fourth episode.

Perhaps other reviewers had seen this specific story done (like Professor T, another great one, it seems to be a popular remake) before. They walked into it with expectations that weren't met (too similar or dissimilar)? Don't let them dissuade you. If it's caught your interest, give it at least 20 minutes. I can't help but think most will enjoy. I wish they'd have continued the story. Instead, I'll have to look for other works by the makers of this fine series.

It's been years since I've been this sad to see a film end. Wish I were more eloquent, so that I could do it justice.

Two twenty-something brothers are struggling with the loss of the only parent they've really known and to find their way - especially one. They head north to their dad's fishing cabin. It's a great visual, emotional and intellectual adventure. The three main characters, our two leading actors and Quebec's north, are fantastic in their roles advancing that adventure. And the crew put it on film beautifully.

One of the things that struck me is how well the film shows the confinement of emotion generally expected of men. The cast and crew deal with this and so much more, brilliantly. I was deeply moved.

I'd highly recommend. I may be the first '10' vote, but I won't be the last.

I'd never want to have to bring a book to life, with all the limitations normally involved. I bought and read this series (those available at the time, then buying the rest as they became available) a few years ago, just after losing the last member of my family after taking care of her in my home for 3½ years. My emotional attachment to these books is strong because they helped me move forward, helped me adjust to a very new life. Today, when I saw the e-mail that we could buy or rent the film, I bought and watched immediately.

The music didn't help. I understand they needed to advance the story. If they'd done the book more literally, the film would've been four hours. So the filmmakers were left with difficult choices. For me, it would have been worth it to add ten minutes to more closely follow the death of (I won't tell who). Other than Harry Potter books/films, I've rarely both read and watched a story. I'd read this book three times before watching; a first. Trying to tell that much story in under 90 minutes, they were going to need to leave out significant moments, moments every reader, as much as, treasured.

Unfamiliar with any of them, I really liked the cast. I'd already decided I wouldn't (based on the trailer), but the three boys, the good friend, the parents and the sister - even the obnoxious twink bit part - were all really well done. I look forward to watching it again without taking 20-30 minutes to adjust to them not being exactly as I envisioned when reading. ( I pictured and mannered the two leads a lot like the two leads in 'Get Real', though American.) But at the end of the film, I had the same sense of the characters that I had with the books -- still liking Jace best.

The filmmakers gave a lot of effort with a lot of talent. There were a few especially well done moments of (I'll probably need to watch several times to adequately describe) unique editing/photography. I love the story. I just wish they could have found a way, other than musical numbers, to condense it. But I liked it better than I thought I would.

I want to give it a higher rating, maybe I will after another viewing or two. If you've found it to stream somewhere, and it still has a fairly low rating (currently 6.0), I'd encourage you to give it a try. There's a lot there. If you're debating whether or not to put money on it and you haven't read the book, follow your gut, and stick with it. I think you're likely to find it a rewarding, worthwhile watch in the end. If you liked/loved the book, just watch it.

I've enjoyed many of the cast members in numerous solid-to-great films and series. Emma Thompson is an all-time favorite. I love history. WWII and how one of the world's most liberal societies/democracies became a fascist nation with little dissent fascinates me. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

To do this film, these powerful actors had to believe the project was worthy. I can only assume that it was sloppily edited and poorly directed & filmed for this film to be this dull, unengaging and unsatisfying. This is the absolute worst IFC film I've seen yet.

Before watching, I was a little surprised by the avg 4.9 rating here and the fact that Netflix predicted I'd love it. Normally, if a film has fewer than 6 stars, it's a real dud. Not this one.

This film has a number of weaknesses (scenes that don't quite fit or seem a little forced) and strengths (editing, filming, acting are all very good). It's a coming-of-age story that, for me, didn't come off very well (the main storyline needed a bit more substance) but still held my interest. I liked a number of the characters and felt I was getting to see a bit of what may be going on a few hundred miles north of me--at least to a degree. In the end, the picture was satisfying enough where I was glad I saw it.

If the low rating is still there, yet you're reading the reviews to see if you want to invest a little time, give it a try. It certainly isn't for everyone. I doubt I'll ever own the DVD. But if you're interested, it is well-done enough that it may speak to you or be good entertainment.

It took me a minute to adjust from 'Rita', one of my all-time favorite shows. Her name is 'Hjordis'. They may teach in the same school. They may both be strong characters. But their worlds are very different. Their strength is expressed very differently.

You might say that this is the G-rated cousin of 'Rita'. The intended audience is clearly much younger or broader. The focus is on a group of kids brought together to create a variety show to commemorate anti-bullying week/month (?) directed by Hjordis--with added pressure coming from the anticipated attendance of a member of the Royal Family.

At first, I was a little disappointed that we don't see Rita at least fly by in the background or something (or that I didn't catch it if she did). But Hjordis has learnt to stand on her own. After seeing it, I think everyone involved was wise (intentionally or not) to have her fly solo here. I think that Helle (the headmaster) is the only other character the two series had in common.

While it isn't flawless, it's much better than most other 'family' or children's programming or films I've seen. I don't think that it was condescending as most US and Canadian programming I've seen has seemed, attempting to address bullying/the differences among us issues with kids. This is not my genre. Without having seen 'Rita', I'd have still enjoyed it greatly. But having already seen three seasons of 'Rita' probably helped. If you've found it on-line, try it.

After loving the series and being saddened by its cancellation, this finale was horribly disappointing. If I'd seen this first, I'd have never watched the series.

Jodi Balfour, whose character had been so much fun to watch in the series, seems nearly lost here. Gladys has been unsuccessfully transformed from a rebellious, strong upper-class young woman with a tremendous moral compass into a spy, in part, responsible for saving Canada's war effort and winning WWII.

Meg Tilley's Lorna Corbett, whose transformation toward the end of the second season from pragmatic, strong, steady (and quietly caring) matron went beyond the emotionalism of the end of the series losing all pragmatism and most of her strength and steadiness in the film. For me, part of what made her character compelling in the series was her silent nobility. In the film, if she'd blubbered 'for my girls' one more time, I'd have turned it off.

Other characters made less wild transformations. Though I was having a hard time rooting for Kate and Betty, whose happiness meant something to me in the series.

I can't tell you why I loved the series as much as I did--though I'm sure that the intelligent portrayal of women as strong equals helped. I'm not sure why the finale fell into a flat sea of mediocrity, but from my perspective it did. As a fan of the series, I'm still very glad I saw it. If you're about to, maybe you won't be as disappointed as I was if you go into it with lower expectations.

I could have gotten over the annoyance at how my city is portrayed. The media and most other non-Detroiters seem to get off on looking at the very worst Detroit has to offer. We're used to that. Though, of the TV shows and films I've seen that have been made in Detroit since the State of Michigan introduced subsidies and tax breaks for the entertainment industry, this is the most exploitative.

There's nothing there. The acting is subpar. They story lines I watched weren't intriguing and the dialog could be a parody of Hollywood's worst. If we were back in the bad old days of pre-cable, three networks plus PBS and a few independent stations, this might come out as an average show. But we aren't in the 60s or 70s. We're in a whole new millennium where one can find (on-line streaming) shows from countries with 5-10 million people that make every aspect of this look like amateur hour.

Yes, this is a sad story. But it isn't that well done. It's just a series of interviews and video selfies. Part A: The lead up. Part B: The love story. Part C: Loss and those dreary, horrible Hoosiers. Nothing new. Nothing extraordinary. Nothing learnt.

I felt very uncomfortable in one respect. These boys sure enjoyed filming themselves to a point where they seemed like exhibitionists. I felt like a voyeur and that they wanted me to be a voyeur. One other reviewer likened this to MTV's "Real World". I agree in the sense that this screams "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!"

This documentary felt like a set-up: Let's get back at the nasty in-laws. They were nasty. They do deserve being told and having the world told what absolute turds they were. But this shouldn't have been the story/documentary in and of itself. It felt like an extended story within a documentary. It could have been told just as effectively and thoroughly in ten minutes. The filmmakers could have incorporated this into a documentary about the need for marriage equality or something.

Did I get upset? Yes, but any lesbian or gay man over 15 wouldn't be surprised by any of it and most have experienced worse first- or second-hand. It just isn't compelling enough to be the subject of an entire documentary.

Am I glad I saw it? I guess. If it interests you, you probably should watch it. Understand that it does not warrant an average rating of 8.0, which it has in May 2014. One can't watch this and think it's a great documentary after watching any of a number of quality AIDS or PBS documentaries. Trust me, I'm not a tough grader. I just checked my ratings: Out of 183 documentaries seen during my 14 years with an IMDb.com account, I've given 67 a "10". 'Bridegroom' just isn't that good.

I don't disagree with the first reviewer much. But I do disagree with the overall rating.

Two things were really subpar in this film: The sound quality and the first two main characters/actors we meet. That could be enough for anyone to switch the station or press eject after 10-15 minutes.

The direction and editing were mediocre. Some of the dialogue was horrible, some good. The remaining main characters/actors range from alright to rather good (though limited by poor direction). I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the kid outperformed the grownups by such a wide margin.

I like the concept: An established couple facing an adolescent who, in turn, is facing them. Neither the couple or the kid are very pleased, at the start--and we never get to the saccharine, though many would think the ending overly optimistic.

I think it's reasonably evident that everyone involved tried very hard to make this come together. I'm glad I stayed with it. Unfortunately some lacked the experience/training to pull it off better.

It's been a long time since I've so vehemently disagreed with a high average rating.

The "plot" has so many holes in it that it becomes laughable. We're really meant to believe that this little girl is more concerned with and terrified by the death of a dog than her parents? This family of half-wits would haven really taken her in? A boy of that age is going to be so enamoured with a girl (?!?) that he's going to adopt her in that manner and be willing to steal for her? What I saw was a mediocre attempt to use children to sell a movie to adults. Clearly, most saw something quite different. The only thing I came away from this film with was, one hopes, a somewhat accurate view of poverty in rural France during and before WWII.

Far better, less manipulative yet more moving films involving children are Kolya, Where the Wild Things Are, Son of Rambow, Billy Elliott, Central Station, Little Miss Sunshine, Close to Leo, Ma view en Rose or the Harry Potter series. If this film helped people trying to get over the tragedy and aftermath of WWII, mission accomplished. In the 21st century, to me, it's a second rate competitor with infomercials on late night cable.

This film is a perfect example of how to take a fascinating subject, come up with 25 minutes of substantive material and stretch it into a six hour borefest resembling the shape a documentary might take if Fox news decided to make one. Even the participants in this obnoxiously obstreperous film can't conceal their laughter at the stupidity of their attempt to show one of the few great times in world history where people take a stand and work to make a better world. If only the creators had spoken with Ken Burns for 5 minutes, they might have come out with something mildly intelligent instead of this cure for insomnia.

I've long felt that Mr Carter is most likely the greatest man to ever occupy the White House. This film reinforced that. I've long been a staunch advocate of Israel and the right of Israel to protect itself. This movie (and the book around which it revolves) did nothing to change that. What did change, what I found really embarrassing was the behavior of the advocates of Israel shown in this film. I say this as someone who lost a close friendship with an Arab over an on-going argument regarding Israel when I quoted Golda Meir: There will only be peace when they love their children more than they hate us. But it goes both ways.

President Carter reminds us that, in order to seek peace, we must take risks and have open minds, open arms and open hearts. The "pro-Israeli" protesters and interviewees in this film seem to care nothing about ending the nonsense that has touched every single Israeli and Palestinian Arab family over these past 60 years. If seeing and listening to President Carter hadn't been such a thrill, I might have left this film with great disdain for these opponents of peace. Instead, I feel as though I was allowed a two hour glimpse at the greatness of a man who will never be appreciated appropriately in history books. He's an incredible man. What prevents me from giving this a ten is that the editing and direction of this film were far from incredible.

This is a lovely follow-up on L'Auberge espagnol. Nobody who enjoyed that should miss this. Especially if, like me, you like films that catch you up with characters you'd enjoyed before like Before Sunset/Before Sunrise. I wouldn't call this a sequel in the sense that it's a rehashing of the original film. Rather, it's a continuation or follow-up on the story. Loved it.

If this sounds intriguing to you, it's great. But for the proper full effect, watch L'Auberge first.

In all honesty, I now find myself saddened by the thought that M Klapisch may be done with them now. I hope that, in a few years, we get to see these old friends again. Only this time, get a better distribution company in the US. Unlike L'Auberge espagnol (which I saw at the cinema), if it weren't for Netflix, I wouldn't have known this film existed. I keep making deals with myself that I won't buy any more DVDs because we know they'll be obsolete in a few years, but here's another one I'll buy.

I rented this because I think Stephen Poliakoff is one of Britain's best story tellers. Clive Owen and Alan Rickman are good actors for which Rickman gets acclaim and Owen doesn't. Considering that the talent here was massive, this film is crap.

Those who enjoyed it might like to think of the rest of us as prudes. I've appreciated films which I found distressingly unpleasant (i.e. Dans ma peau/In My Skin). Yet I don't find incest distressing. It's something with which I've no personal or second-hand experience. I'm not convinced that it's inherently harmful, when consensual, so I'm not going to judge it.

The truth is that Poliakoff fell flat on his bum with this one. Some of the dialogue is worse than I'd expect from a second-rate Lifetime movie. I didn't understand (or feel as though I gained an understanding of) any of the characters or their motivations. Owen and Rickman gave good performances. Reeves was uneven, perhaps due to her having the most idiotic lines of the film, a la Harlequin. The direction and editing weren't very good either. I wonder if Mr Poliakoff was working with severe time limitations and was actually more concerned about the (now complete) development of the docklands (into something that resembles suburban American concentrations of office buildings with, arguably, no character, like Southfield and Troy here in SE Michigan) than telling a story about such uninteresting people.

Unless you're wanting to spend money to see every last inch of Clive Owen, surely available somewhere on the internet, there isn't anything here that isn't done much better elsewhere.

This is a first effort (by the director), an adapted play and a film about racism. Many films crumble under the weight of one of those components. Its adaptation isn't 100% successful, but once you've adjusted to the pacing and dialogue of a play, it works really well. The quality of filming and direction is great for a pro, impressive for a first. Sound was the real let-down here. I'm inclined to believe that this was the fault of the DVD I'd rented (which simply has the film--no menu, no trailer) because everything else was done to such high standards. If the film hadn't been as good as it was it would have been frustrating to keep the remote in hand, turning it up to 30 one second, then down to 15 the next, then up to 23, then down to 12... I don't think that the two lead actors' roles could have been done, or been directed, any better.

As a white suburbanite, I often feel insulted or beaten over the head by anything dealing with racism, Spike Lee included. I don't think that I'm giving anything away here by saying that the racism is nearly undetectable in the beginning, yet crescendoes so subtly that one is nearly neck-deep in it before realising that it's there. There is no cheap 'down with whitey' theme here. There are none of the increasingly common idiotic white jokes or parodies that would start race riots if reversed. It's an honest portrayal of two high school students, well done in every respect.

Straight away, I'll disclose that I'm fascinated by politics and my views are probably to the left of most Nader voters, yet I've given over 5% of my income to the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates and pressure groups traditionally allied with the Democratic Party in recent years.

This documentary takes the same cynical view of American politics most people use as an excuse to not involve themselves in the democratic process: Republicans and Democrats are the same. I think that this has been refuted by past five years--and it was simplistic and naive, at best, to think so before then. We get side-tracked by tactics of the LA and Philadelphia police departments, which would be good grounds for a POV documentary on PBS, and a number of other dead-end subtopics. Then, we get to see a few things C-SPAN and the networks failed to show, like the shadow convention--one of the reasons I give this a low average rating, rather than a poor rating.

What this documentary and so many others fail to disclose is that we do live in a multi-party democracy within a two party system. The different factions within the Democratic and Republican Parties essentially give us the same choices one sees in the advanced multi-party democracies of Europe and elsewhere. We get to vote in primaries, they don't. Very briefly, Hoffman allows Barney Frank (always wise, witty and worthy of one's attention) to tell it like it is: Those on the left have abandoned the Democratic Party, if not the democratic process entirely, allowing it all to drift to the right. Simply put, most of those on the far right vote Republican. Most of those on the left don't vote, or waste their votes on people like Nader. Hence, Republicans win, Democrats lose. Unfortunately, Congressman Frank's wisdom (two minutes?) is almost wasted among the garbage here. I don't mean to split hairs here, but Rep. Frank was incorrectly identified with (R-MA) rather than (D-MA). Evidence of careless fact-checking? A thoughtful discussion with William Baldwin was the only other redeeming factor here. Unfortunately it was edited out, presumably because his was a progressive voice somewhat favoring the Democratic Party. It's among the extras on the DVD. Interestingly, among the predictions asserted by those being interviewed in this film, his are most eerily true.

All in all, I would praise this if it were an effort by high school students. However this was done by people who should know better. Hopefully now they do.

I've never seen a documentary filled with so many annoying people, both those who did and didn't want to be HIV+. Haven't seen many that are this poorly filmed and edited. This could have been something constructive, something helpful. The subjects in this documentary are not only allowed to make fools of themselves, they're allowed to make false or exaggerated claims repeatedly, i.e. all gay men over 40 are HIV+ or virgins.

While the topic is dreadfully serious (why I've given a four rather than one or two) and begs for discussion and action, this documentary does little more to advance either than a thirty second PSA. If this goes to DVD, think twice before renting, let alone buying.

I'd looked forward to seeing this because Meryl Streep, Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson and Simon Callow were in it. They didn't let me down, doing the best with what they had--which wasn't much.

This is a fantastic example of Hollywood being able to play the religion card to the delight of its audience: Zealots are nice, well-meaning people who will come around and understand us poor gay people when given the chance. (rubbish, as evidenced by some of the bigoted comments here) We've angels all around us.

The networks have been feeding people this comfort food for a decade now, with its sappy overly-sweet superstitions. I'm surprised that people have been buying it for this long. Quite frankly, I'm a bit more than surprised that the rating for this was so high. The cast were the only strength here. Patrick Wilson makes for nice eye candy. Just make sure that all this sweetness doesn't rot your mind.

While I'm sure that the cinematic effort shown in this film is quite worthy of praise, the result is a film that spits in the face of decency.

This piece of fiction, under the guise of telling the story of the Civil War and the birth of the KKK (or a nation), is so fundamentally flawed with a racist depiction of elected blacks during reconstruction (who, among other things, are responsible for our public education system) that I can't imagine anyone not finding it disturbing.

As a descendant of two Michiganders who were among the first troops to defend Washington in 1861 (and later died), I'm revolted.

Being accustomed to Hollywood formula films, I thought that this would be a waste. Instead, it was haunting and intriguing. Unlike some here, I thought that the characters were fascinating and brought out by stunning talent. Am rarely left so moved by a film. If I'd seen it at cinema, don't think I'd have slept for a week.

Thank heavens we have our good friends to the north to give us such films without accents and colloquialisms that leave us guessing.

It only left me with two questions, which may be stupid Detroiter questions: Why on earth would anyone still be driving an AMC Pacer? Who would keep it so well preserved?

The reasons I bought this DVD are because I'd rembered this film as being great fun (having seen it 15+ yrs ago on TV), Maureen Stapleton is a top drawer actress and I'm nearly as sentimental as the film.

But there is so much more. It's done quite creatively. The five or so bits where the two main characters sing their thoughts to themselves worked. Normally that would be difficult to pull off & Hollywood would flub it up. Part of the reason why I enjoyed it (or found it acceptable, which I normally wouldn't) is because it's quite apparent that they're from a generation raised to be selective about the thoughts they share, in stark contrast to today's society. It's also shot in a rather different manner, or have I forgotten how films of the 70s were photographed?

Queen of the Stardust Ballroom raises the moral bar by ignoring unwarranted judgements and dealing with more important matters.

And Maureen Stapleton... she's one class act and a brilliant actress.

Another enjoyable installment, from Mr Maupin, about normal fun people who do find themselves tangled in many webs.

For anyone to whom the pacing seems a bit odd. Please remember that this was originally written for a newspaper. Each installment had to move quickly and leave the reader interested. It's good to see that Showtime has remained true to the articles (which were turned into books) again.