Reviews

I throughly enjoyed watching this riveting series focusing on village and small town life in England. It provides fascinating insights into life during 19th century Oxfordshire. The predilections, superstitions and at times misguided notions of the time.

Characters are drawn out beautifully and show the sturdy yet brittle complexities of some of the major male characters like Thomas Brown, Robert Timmins and Mr. Dowland. The series also draws with clarity the inner resourcefulness and wisdom of the character of Dorcas acted solidly by Julia Sawalha, as well as Laura's character played by Olivia Hallinen.

One of the striking concerns observable in the series is how religious dogma breeds a profound ignorance in the character of Thomas Brown because of his rigid and blind adherence to what he considers are the principles of his religion. I found this element highly informative and enlightening especially from a patriarchal perspective which was so dominant at the time despite being misinformed. A truly cautionary element of the spirit of the time in which the series is located, to say nothing of masculine rigidity in both Thomas Brown's and Robert Timmins' characters. In the latter case this rigidity is relatively tempered with some early indicators of reasoning induced by Robert Timmins' wife.

I saw the film years ago when it came out but it was on TV tonight and got my full attention once again. Everyone acts really well and you care for the characters. The only person i.e. Debbie (played by Leslie Mann) is nasty and mean to her husband played by Paul Rudd (a consistently great actor). Debbie's character grated on me because of constant insults and disses of her husband. Leslie Mann impresses as entirely comfortable playing the b_tch that it makes it seem perhaps she is like that in real life as well. Undoubtedly Leslie Mann is an excellent actress. She is married to Judd Apatow who directed the film. Judd clearly has a deft hand directing. I can't think of a film he's directed that didn't impress me except perhaps Pineapple Express which I felt bordered more on a Larry David kind of sensibility.

Undoubtedly Knocked Up is an excellent film and I was most impressed by the delivery scene in which the character played by Seth Rogen comes into his own.

I liked the movie but cannot rave about it as some of the other reviewers. For me the film's fault-line has to do with the working class parenting which experiences great challenges in raising their only teenage son. The parents are portrayed by Ray Romano and Laurie Metcalf. I liked Ray's portrayal of the father but I thought Laurie Metcalf was miscast perhaps because the range of reactions/responses she has is very limited. I found her portrayal of the character wanting at every point. Ray Romano is the sad sack of his family who works at the family business. Ray remains the quintessential Ray, he never strays from his range as characterized in "Everybody Loves Raymond". I think Ray needs to get out of the Sad Sack dead pan delivery style he is so known for. It will do him well to get out of that stereotype we are so used to. In the movie he could have done with a shave at least in some scenes. Jacob Ward plays the couples teenage son who has come of age and on the verge of entering college. His portrayal was at best average even though his role could have had some more meat.

Overall it's a watchable film but one thing the film portrays beautifully is how working class families deal with parenting and fail miserably at every step. I think it was a true reflection of what happens in a working class family i.e. The conflict that drives a wedge in pulling away from a blue collar life to one where education is valued, albeit in the film it has to do with a basketball scholarship for the son.

In this Our Life, to put it in a nutshell, Bette Davis plays a shallow psychopathic narcissist and does a great job of it. Somehow I have this feeling that it is easier to play evil, wicked, villianous and selfish characters than it is to play a level-headed decent person. The reason I hold this view is because I believe it is easier to portray an extreme position which is easily disliked or even hated; than it is to portray a reasonable thought-out individual. The latter requires subtlety while the former doesn't. My experience of a negative role is derived from role playing not from acting. Perhaps it is different in acting but I don't think so.

For some reason I have always preferred the younger Bette Davis to the older nasty roles she played. In my opinion Bette Davis did not age gracefully so the nasty dark roles fitted her personality well. My favorite role portrayal by Bette Davis was her role in Now, Voyager in which she plays a young and sympathetic character. But In this Our Life whoa she does a mean impulsive narcissistic woman who is focused on her own selfish and devious ends.

As is usual for older Hollywood classic films this movie has an excellent if simplistic narrative but it makes for good viewing regardless.

How Do You Know happens to be among my all-time favorite comedies. The chemistry between Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd is unmatchable. Jack Nicholson does an amazing turn as well. Even minor characters like Reese's baseball coach does a great job. I loved her remark about "smiling at bastards". Lenny Venito in the hospital scene outshines many great actors. Absolutely brilliant, and so spontaneous. That entire scene is so meaningfully and empathetically shot it is nothing short of a masterstroke. The dialog in that scene had me by the pulse from second-to-second.

And Owen Wilson plays his character beautifully as a successful yet self-centered baseball player. His epiphany when Reese is walking away from him to the elevator is beaut of scene and echoes the reality of break-ups from the male perspective meaningfully.

I loved Paul Rudd's vignette scene about playdoh, it still resonates so freshly in my mind even though I saw the movie some years ago. Of course I have by now seen the film at least thrice.

Paul Rudd's and Reese's interactions at his cluttered apartment are a sheer pleasure to watch. I loved the line "it's the opposite of a bus strike".

How Do You Know is an amazing comedy if you know your comedies. Perhaps it's complexity may put some people off but I found it a sheer joy to watch from start to finish. Highly recommended.

There is absolutely no chemistry between Reese and Ashton. Jesse Williams had oodles more chemistry with Reese. Ashton basically just phoned in his performance. I have seen Ashton do better but he was dry and didn't look like he made any effort. I thought the movie might pick up but it never did.

Ashton really ought to quit acting. I am surprised given his so-called body of work he even gets offers. Rimcoms are hard to come by these days because moviemaker are all going for Marvel, or zombie type films. This one came after a long time but boy does it SUCK. I am a big fan of Reese but even she couldn't save this movie.

After having seen all the film adaptations of Lady Chatterley's Lover 1981 onwards, in my opinion none of them can hold a candle to (this) Ken Russell's version. It has beauty, poetry, squalor and vision. I write this in Oct 2019 and after viewing the previous versions. Joely Richard's radiant beauty and sensuality, Sean Bean's passion however roughly expressed and his earthiness are to be treasured. I just wish Ken Russell's version was available uncut in Blu Ray.

The 2015 adaptation is particularlyy bad and poorly cast, the characters look weak and project a superficial aura and do not make you care for either of the characters in the film. And have nothing of the feel of the period. Some of the stone faced house staff look like they were hired from some military regiment for their wooden expressions.

The 2015 version of LCL suffers from the same problem the 2015 version of Far From the Madding Crowd suffers. Poorly cast characters. Though of the two Far From the Madding Crowd is slightly better.

The movie starts out slowly and descends into melodrama and gratuitousness. The movie is poorly edited and wastes a lot of time during the first about 30-40 minutes. Instead it could have shown more of what what was going on in the lives of the characters.

Patrick Sabongui who plays Imir Shaw acts very well as a sombre man out to expose the lies within the family; with a larger purpose.The movie tries desperately to fit the story into a morality tale esp. during the last 15-20 minutes. The sad thing is from the dinner scene onwards everyone, including Imir, start to overact, become melodramatic as Imir starts to expose family secrets. From this point on the movie becomes unwatchable and to me cringeworthy. Because this is not how people respond to real life situations, esp. the son. His overacting is a real piece of work. Perhaps good actors otherwise but given a terrible screenplay which constantly (and obviously) tries to inject moral justifiability for what is unfolding after dinner. Of course the movie will appeal to those who somehow empathise or identify with the moral message. The movie validates a politically correct and superficial morality without delving deeper; sort of like skits on Saturday Night Live.

There are many reviews singing accolades to the film and I too applaud this otherwise excellent interpretation. Frankly, I was disappointed in one important aspect of the film. I thought Carey Mulligan was miscast. I am afraid Carey's Bathsheba had little impact on me. There was none of the charisma of a Bathsheba. I am not sure if I am biased because of the lovely Julie Christie who played Bathsheba in the 1967 version of the film, which she did virtually perfectly in my view.

In comparison Carey, for me, does not portray the complexity or character of a strong-willed woman like Bathsheba. Generally speaking, to her advantage, Carey looks much younger than her age (29 y/o). But as Bathsheba she comes across as too plain for a character like Bathsheba's. The sense I get from most reviewers and film goers is that Carey faithfully captured the character of Bathsheba. However, for me Carey has none of the gravitas of Bathsheba's character. She also does not portray the romance a woman like Bathsheba possesses, esp. given she has three strong male suitors, each portraying a different kind of strength. Carey Mulligan was perfectly cast in the 2009 film "An Education". In the film Carey portrays a teenager in school even though she was actually (or about) 24 y/o at the time.

To my mind actresses like Evangeline Lilly, Anne Hathaway or Emily Blunt would have portrayed Bathsheba admirably. Lena Headey, even though she is actually 40 y/o would have also done well as Bathsheba. In contrast, Carey Mulligan is too much of a Plain Jane I am afraid. There is none of the strong female pastoral character about Carey. Carey lacks the presence or charisma one attributes to a strong female protagonist. Besides there is nothing country about Carey Mulligan even though her acting per se is nothing short of superlative.

Carey Mulligan's Bathsheba is as much a disappointment to me as Jean- Louis Coulloc'h's portrayal of the male lead in Lady Chatterley (2006), which was an excellent film marred by Jean-Louis Coulloc'h being miscast. The film's narrative is based on Lawrence's first draft of Lady Chatterley's Lover.

....a 10, yes TEN, for entertainment.. a great escape!!

Before I say anything else, I have to say I have NEVER been a fan of Tom Cruise, and I was never crazy about Cameron Diaz either. But wow!!! this film rocks solid. I am glad I saw it because outside of "Collateral" Tom Cruise has NEVER impressed me. I have a lot of respect for Tom if he can make films as entertaining as Knight and Day. I think Tom's strength as an actor lies in the suddenness of the change in his character and (in Knight and Day) Tom makes even the incongruence of his lines work brilliantly. For example Tom's lines bang in the thick of the highway chase are the coolest!! Knight and Day rocks solid because it never stops.

Knight and Day is a thriller and comedy-romance all rolled into one, and doesn't PRETEND to be either because it doesn't take itself too seriously. The chemistry between Cameron and Tom sparkles (or I am no judge of chemistry). In the first 15 minutes the pace of the film changes from ordinary to mind-blowing. I totally loved the split personality thing that happens when Cameron is in the toilet and out. And Cameron's reflections when she is in the toilet, esp. the line about the reflexes..so on message...because I was thinking the very same thing.

I don't know what it was about the dialogue but I thought it was sharp and funny :-), and Cameron and Tom made it fun. Tom has great and funny lines like "what number do you like?!!" (my quote may be a little off). They don't make entertainment like Knight and Day too often. So grab it while you can.

After the first hour or so the film loses steam a TAD but picks it right up as soon as Cameron starts to see things clearly beginning with the motor-bike ride.........

Great non-stop entertainment....the film unquestionably earns it's stripes...if you are ever looking for a fun film which has that special something going for it, including dialogue (...okay lines) then Knight and Day is for you.

I can't tell if I was disappointed by the film because of higher expectations of it or if the movie itself lacked the essential spark. A visual feast of a film, with excellent costumes. Despite this however, the movie was lacking in conviction and the characters all seemed to be floating on the surface. The lengthy scenes of chaos (since I want to avoid any spoilers) became tedious. The chaos could have been substantially edited because the point had already been made at the gate, and elaborated upon inside the gate. The lack of editing at various points distracted from the the narrative and compromised my interest in it as a viewer. I thought the film overall was lacklustre with Hypatia's character (Rachel Weisz) doing it's best to bravely hold up the film as well as the poorly depicted characters surrounding her.

Another aspect I thought that made for a disappointing film was the fact that given the high minded pursuit of knowledge on Hypatia's part the film's narrative deserved a different kind of treatment. In my opinion the central idea behind the film i.e. Hypatia's ponderings in the pursuit of knowledge called for for a tighter script which would have lent strength to Hypatia's character. Because her character lacked a basic vitality which made Hypatia's pursuit of knowledge seem like aimless inconsequential wanderings.

I do not think that such a mild portrayal of Hypatia's character, regardless of the reasons for it, is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance as some of the other reviewers have suggested.

Agora is an excellent film demonstrating that the visual appeal of a film cannot make up for it's poor portrayal of it's characters or for moving the story on in a manner that holds viewer attention.

In my opinion the IMDb review by Carl_Tait from New York, NY is about the best summation of the film. A great concept but lost in translation. And to think Mr. Nolan wrote the story for "Inception"!!! I include "Inception" among the film genre that have come to be known as "mind**ck" films. I don't agree with every list of films characterized thus on the web but this is an unmistakable genre. And "Inception" definitely belongs there.

I suspect there are a lot of viewers out there who see a complex but convoluted film and find it gripping because BAM!! it hits them so hard on the head that they dare not concede they don't understand it because they are afraid someone will find out that they didn't :-) But there are a number of IMDb reviewers who have given "Inception" 10/10 or close to that rating. The way these reviewers have articulated their reasoning is definitely more comprehensible and cogent than the film is in my opinion. I wish Mr. Nolan had consulted them before making the film as I am sure they could bring some clarity to the mix.

To my mind "Inception" has a convoluted and twisted narrative (if there is one) which *seems* multi-layered, but actually throws just about everything it can into the mix, never mind the sink, it throws in even the kitchen itself. I will say that the CGI effects are pretty amazing. But the film is overpopulated with characters and it was hard to figure out why more than half of them were there.

And as another reviewer commented, what the heck are the guns and explosions doing in a film based on a shared dream paradigm.

"Inception" gave me no reason to care for any of the characters, excepting to some degree Ellen Page's character Ariadne. I had no reason to care for Marion Cotillard's character Mal, and found her portrayal somewhat of a female stereotype playing the neurotic unhinged foil.

I am sure Mr. Nolan is an excellent film maker who has definitely come into his own as far as the box office is concerned. But so far the only films he has done that I have truly admired are "Insomnia" and "Batman Begins". Before "Batman Begins" I was never a fan of any of the Batman films.

While watching "Inception" there was many a time that I felt like stopping and watching something else but gave it the benefit of doubt that the film might pick-up. Sorry to say it never did.

I do hope Mr.Nolan gives a little more attention to maintaining a narrative and character development in his films rather than just bombarding us with complexity (or more accurately confusion!) and CGI effects.

All I can say is that "Inception" is exhausting viewing and represents complexity for the sake of complexity or something like that.....

Given my admiration for Max Von Sydow, Christopher Plummer, Susan Sarandon and Gabriel Byrne (in that order) I guess I expected too much. A good-looking film as landscapes go but any sustained emotional tone the film starts to develop is almost constantly compromised by explanatory flashbacks and repetitious detail, which don't really take the viewer anywhere. I kept thinking at various junctures that maybe the story will pick-up steam and hold my interest, but disappointingly this never happened. My sense of the characters was that they somehow lacked connectedness (or chemistry) with each performing independently. The emotional arithmetic was missing (sorry, couldn't help that!!), or perhaps this had to do with a poorly crafted screenplay. I also don't understand why the film is going by two different names i.e. Autumn Hearts and Emotional Arithmetic. And what was the kid doing in the film!! Most disappointing, and what a waste of a stellar cast, including Roy Dupuis (sp?).

It is unfortunate that many viewers responded over-simplistically to issues like anti-Semitism (I certainly don't condone anti-Semitism, I think we overdosed on it when you-know-who was around). But what I find baffling is that a majority (I didn't count them)of reviewers, many of them Christians I assume were shocked or disillusioned by what they saw, i.e. the brutality. But then Jesus's life was filled with his message, regardless of His suffering at the hands of the Romans (not the Jews).

Being a Christian himself I believe Mel Gibson wanted to create a historical document using a media that technologically represents our times, while letting viewers know what Jesus's life and what he endured. It would not surprise me if many of those who are disappointed by the film are devout Christians.

There is a reason Jesus is worshipped and is God's begotten son. If such viewers believe this then why is it that they don't have the stomach for the starkly brutal reality that was His life. This is not a portrayal of sadism as some reviewers said.

The language spoken in the film i.e. Aramaic in my opinion only serves to confirm that Mel Gibson's work is a work of historical/religious art. And those who condemn it or are unhappy with it, I think their issues don't really lie in their opinion of the film but elsewhere, closer to home (literally and metaphorically) in my opinion.

As for the accusation that it is an anti-semitic work, I don't buy it for one second. In fact to me such an accusation shows how much those who view it as such are reacting defensively, and conforming to what they have heard about the film, and thus concluded the same esp. after seeing the brutality Jesus was subjected to, as seen in the film.

When we go to church or read the Bible we are so sure of our faith and belief. But along comes a film such as this one, and our faith starts shaking at it's roots because we want to be entertained. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting to be entertained. All I can say such viewers not forget what is meant by the *passion* of the Christ. It is through his life/passion viewers get a deeper appreciation of what Jesus's life and message was in it's essence.

I will watch this interpretation of the film any day over a sanitized and over-produced version of Christ's life. For those viewers who wish that the film was either muted in it's brutality against Jesus, or wanted to watch a film that entertained them...they can watch something else or watch TV.

SkyeLight

Some reviewers have compared "Dirty" to "Training Day", but the similarity ends with the fact that the protagonists are police officers. In my opinion the treatment of "Dirty" is far too complex compared to "Training Day". It has been a long while that I have seen a film that cranked up the ante to a degree that you can't tell what is going to happen next (and most certainly not because the film was lacking in clarity). "Dirty" is a glimpse into the dark underworld of lawless police officers competing with hard core inner city gangsters of African-American and Hispanic origin. It also peripherally shows how teenagers get involved in this cesspool.

Clifton Collins Jr.'s playing the conscience plagued character of police officer Armando is deep and wrenching. His conflict was completely palpable to this viewer. And this conflict is the film's centrally redeeming aspect where a rash and irresponsible act is shown to have inner consequences for Armando's character, possessed as he is with "the better angels of our nature".

Cuba Gooding's character is impulsive, juvenile, rash and highly distracting both in demeanour and actions throughout the film. He is the psychopath of the piece. Despite this his character is quite straightforward. He enjoys throwing his weight around because HE wears the uniform, but can't handle his power even as a bad cop.

There are moments when the action gets confusing e.g. the "Nantucket" situation, but it was meant to be a chaotic scenario as none of the characters quite fully knows what has happened to others.

I truly enjoyed the ritualistic element of the Hispanic gangsters, the white coat, the symbolism of the death masks, philosophizing of the lead gangster at the end whose dialogue delivery was intelligently enunciated, with none of the stereotypical Hispanic accent. This simple device I thought brought credibility to the gang leader's character. And the strange version of Russian roulette was intriguing.

The coming together of the dark fantasy element (with commonplace everyday lives of the two officers) when Armando has flashbacks of his actions, as well right at the end when he is shown seated next to Cuba Gooding's character was I thought very nicely done.

Many reviewers here didn't like the film at all. I think it is just too raw a film, and its grittiness can become jarring for some viewers e.g. the constant profanity, which I think is an integral part of the lives of such characters. But to others it may distract them from following the film.

I thought it was an excellent film...it likely won't make good or entertaining viewing for those who are not into film noir. But for those who are, it is an excellent film.

This film made me care for the characters right from the start. It has a healthy dose of reality, in places perhaps too stark for some in the audience. It gives some interesting insights into aging, whether it is the parents in their 70s or the daughter and her friend (?) in their 30s. Despite each of the parents aging differently and the wife being discontented with her husband, their love for each other comes through. The ups and downs of their relationship are only too real. The daughter's insecurities about her body image (and desire to go under the knife) faithfully reflects the way many young women feel and think. For those who think that the film doesn't really amount to anything and was not worth their while don't want this kind of reality. Because the characters are playing themselves with all their flaws and somewhat fractured lives. Many viewers want to get away from it all, for them this movie likely has little to offer. As for the comments made by arassweiler on this film, I don't buy into his/her assumption (or accusation) that most of the reviews here are done by "shills" who are likely friends of the film maker and have padded up IMDb reviews simply because they want the film to succeed. Neither do I get the thing about using parents to deflect real criticism. That is about the most meaningless comment anyone could have made about this film. It is definitely worth seeing. But if you are into a lot of Hollywood's over-produced or even well made celebrity/star laden films then this film is certainly not for you. The film is funny at times, and at times has an underlying tragic tenor. But it is a film where characters are human enough to confront their demons and limitations, overcoming some and failing at some. And I was definitely entertained by the film.

Barring my cautions for certain types of film-goers whom I described above I think this film is pretty much "must-see". Especially if you are not put off by too much reality depicting characters who are imperfect in every way, but are perfectly human.