Reviews

I'm loving "You", and find Season 3, quite funny (in a dark way). The first season was really good, and I found Season Two opened up the story line in n interesting way. But I find myself in disagreement with a reviewer - Season 3 (and I'm only now on Ep 5) has an, almost Dexter meets Deperate Housewives feel, and I confess I really like this - and the potential. But, yes, a good find indeed. The acting is good, the story line engaging, and the creation of a stifling suburban town, where (as in American Beauty) you must look deeper is engaging . Kudos to the cast. Maybe a bit uneven at times, but fun...

Similar to goldilocks-78, I watched Maurice again - I saw it when I was in my 20s, when it was first released. There is some very good acting, and a very good sociological recreation of the Edwardian period. Maurice, the novel, might well not be considered as EM Forster's finest work. But similar to Lady Chatterley's Lover (not considered among Lawrence's best), the work raises issues of class, gender, and sexuality. The three leads are good - Hugh Grant gives a plausible portrayal of a more refined, upper-class man, who denies his homosexual urgings and marries. He clearly shows (after this conversion of sorts) his ambivalence and almost forced denial. Hugh Grant, almost effortlessly, shows the two sides to this character. James Wilby,as Maurice, moves from self-disgust, despair and guilt, to self-acceptance. Rupert Graves as Scudder (similar to Mellors) is really good. The scenes he shares with James Wilby are not forced. The supporting cast are good - the women, Simon Callow (who introduces us to the Edwardian conformist ideology) are equally good. And Ben Kingsley, as the hypnotherapist nicely shows the push-pull in the then-British psyche. My favourite Merchant-Ivory film is Room with a view. Maurice is darker, but just as well filmed, with enough humour to balance the seriousness of the film. The naive, happily-ever-after ending (EM Forster's) doesn't quite work, but leads to good discussion. Of all the DVD-shown deleted scenes, the final 'confrontation' between Maurice and Durham should be, in my opinion, restored. It's a fine film, both engaging and unsettling. Sensitively adapted, directed, acted and shot. Kudos

Animated films aimed at younger children seem to have a dual audience, the kids and the adults. This film succeeds on both levels. (I currently use Up! as part of my media course, but Despicable Me is a close 3rd - The Lion King, a 2nd) I am biased, unashamedly so, but the stand- out for me in this dizzying film, ending with a sense of belonging, and acceptance / redemption, dotted with wit, throw-away lines, aha moments, and emotional connectedness, is Julie Andrews, who voices the terrible mother, with aplomb and a good accent. She, in an essentially supporting role, is excellent. And the main voices are equally as good!! See the film: it is well worth it.

I think the review by GayFilmViewer says it all, except that I disagree on one point, I would add, abysmal acting. Seen with the rest of the cast, I would grudgingly agree that the lead gives a decent performance. Comparing his acting to that in similar films, it is tepid. Story line, nil; acting, one (for the lead); photography and editing - at times, bizarre colouring and sound, nil; this film is fake, unengaging and unpleasant. This is gay cinema at a total low. (Review refers to DVD version; just seen.) A pity this was dragged out to over an hour; 15 minutes is long enough. In Afrikaans, there is a lovely expression: ".. vol strond"; Shakespeare's line from Macbeth more than suffices: "Full of (unpleasant, bizarre, inept scenes), signifying NOTHING.

I managed to see most of the shows via an American contact - copies of the VHS tapes (on DVD) - I would love for the Studio to recapture these. The shows are excellent - professional in terms of the sketches, the interviews and the singing. The pilot episode, consisting of Julie Andrews and the "regulars" is excellent, but then again I am biased (being a Julie Andrews fan). The show extends her range - and shows with some of the Big Band stars and rock stars of the time (Sammy Davis, Henry Belafonte, Mamma Cass Eliot, to name some) are excellent. Brilliant singing, choreography and acting - Julie Andrews herself is on record of saying that TV was hard work, and the hard work is evident in the series - although she makes it look so easy. It's a brilliant series, which must be made available....

This is a well-crafted film, and the DVD documentaries reveal cast and crew that are intelligent, non-sensationalist and committed, both to the filming process and storyline.

The film is a mixture of two genres - one is the horror genre, in which Jennifer Carpenter gives a very good (and chilling) performance as Emily Rose. The colours, the musical score, and (surprisingly) muted and in-obvious special effects work very well indeed.

The other genre is the courtroom drama. Based on actual happenings, the writer does not waste time trying to look at which side is right. The perennial problem of faith and doubt is examined. Examined in a way where "evidence" is presented. The audience, like the jury, must weigh up the matter.

Laura Linney as the defendant is well-cast. She gives her character the right blend of authority contrasted with confusion. The dignity she brings to Erin is excellent. Likewise Tom Wilkinson, as the accused neglectful priest. Campbell Scott, as a church-going "believer" is impressive as the prosecution. At no time does the film approach the TV courtroom drama genre. That this film works is thanks to these actors, as well as to Mary Beth Hurt, who imbues the judge with the right touch of authority and humanity.

This is an intelligent, thought-provoking film, which should engender animated, lively and thoughtful discussion. Don't miss it.

This sequel is thoroughly uneven, incoherent and rambling in "plot" (if there really is one)and tries too damned hard to be modern (ridiculous, out of period and character 21 st century style songs predominate) and cute (yawn: there are too many manufactured, belaboured jokes with animals.) The actors in his film are secondary to the juvenile plot. Even Glenn Close (and she is normally very good) sweeps through this film, parodying herself as the original De Ville and the lead from Sunset Boulevard! It's a film that isn't even good to look at. This is a very good example of a bad and pointless sequel. Even Basic Instinct 2 had a plot, characterisation and acceptable acting. This doesn't. It is bad.

This is a dazzling film - the only thing similar to other Woody Allen movies were in the musical choices and credits portrayal. This is a gem of a film, with top-notch performances from all the actors, good scripting and fine directing by Woody Allen.

Maybe paranoia overtakes neuroses, and Jonathan Rhys Myers replaces the older, nebbische Woody Allen, and all that's good. It was so refreshing to have a darker film, and less indulgence than in some of Allen's previous movies.

SPOILERS BELOW In what is clearly an interesting move, in this movie, crime does pay. The ball which bounces off the net can cause a match to be won or lost, as says the narrator at the beginning of the film. There was a barely concealed gasp when the ring did not go into the Thames, and most of us assumed that that would lead to Chris Wilton's arrest. It doesn't. The ring, being picked up by a tramp, and found by the police "proves" Chris's innocence.

The moral ambivalence is what makes the film; it had me thinking and talking for long after. Intensely satisfying.

Game, Set and Match!

What a good film this could have been - if not for the painfully drawn-out ending! Both women give good performances - and Jennifer Jason Lee, who steals Alison's (Alison, played by Bridget Fonda) "identity" is eerily good.

The film's strength lies i its beginning and middle, where understatement is the key, and Jennife Jason Leigh's transformation into her "heroine" or "idol" is well done.

However, the film spoils all this by leaning towards silly melodrama and drawn out "fighting scenes" (badly put together at that) which are reminiscent of B-grade movies; it's a pity because what could have been a good psychological thriller compromises itself as it appeals to the LCD at the end.

This is a predictable film, but gripping and saved by some very fine acting and plenty of over-the-top moments, from both adults and kids, "good" and "bad".

The story-line is similar to the Disney staple Mary Poppins: a family (here, a recently widowed, single father played by Colin Firth) has 7 children (shades of Sound of Music). No nanny can tame the children; the agency cannot and will not supply anybody. Enteer Nannny McPhee who has 5 lessons to teach the kids, and whose maxim is "When you need me but don't want me, I'll stay; when you want me, but don't need me, I'll go." A lot like the premise of Mary Poppins.

It's a good-natured film, with some good performances by Anela Lanbury, Imelda Stauten (as the 'cook'), Celia Imrie (as the potential (not so good) stepmother; Kelly Macdonald (as the housemaid-cum-lady), and Thomas Sangster, as a precocious, intelligent child, Simon.

The children learn their five lessons; Nanny McPhee teaches them how to be a more functional family. She can then leave.

This is a kid's movie, and this kid (40-plus) enjoyed it. It's not as magical as Mary Poppins, but it has good moments.

What a nice film! The premise is simple: Actress Reese Holden (played by Zooey Deschanel) is offered a lot of money if she can get hold of letters written to and by her late mother and father, novelist Don Holdin (played be Ed Harris). Reese hasn't seen her father for a long time; she hadn't gone to her mother's funeral. Ed Harris, performing with sensitivity and rigour (as in Pollock and The Hours)gives a fine performance as the socially maladaptive, reclusive "genius" counterpointed by s dazed, bewildered, but protective Corbit (Will Ferrell, who gives a fine performance. I've just seen him in The Producers, and physically/vocally he is *completely* different. It's a good role.) Like Pieces of April, the film works with silences, visual cues, and verbal cues intertwined. It is a film which is worth concentrating in - and Zooey Deschanel's performance as Reese Holdin is excellent. She doesn't go over the top, rather it is through a subdued range that she succeeds in winning over the audience. Don't miss this film, or let it pass you by.

This has to be one of the best foreign films ever! With brilliant acting by Audrey Tautou as Amelie Poulain, and Mathieu Kassovitz as Nico Quincampois (the love interest), this film soars. Audrey Tautou plays Amelie with dignity, and Amelie's eccentricities do not detach the audience from her, rather they endear the audience to her.

The script is intelligent, witty and engaging. I found that the audience were taken up by both character and situation: this is a film about love, about self-discovery, about life.

Like the title, it's fabulous! The film does not fall into cheap clichés; it maintains a humour throughout. It's a superb slice of life, and Amelie (the character) is so well-meaning, so scatterbrained, so ... well, human, it's a treat! Well deserving of its place in the top 250!

This is a good film, sprung out of Hollywood's "Golden Era" (mucch like Sunset Boulevard). Bette Davis plays a former vaudeville star, who is no longer the starlet she was; Joan Crawford is the crippled former adult star.

In many ways, one has to suspend disbelief here -- the script, the story line teeter on the melodramatic, on being over the top. Be willing to believe that Joan Crawford (Blanche) cannot escape Bette Davis (Baby Jane). This is central to being caught up in the film!

Both actresses give excellent performances. Bette Davis, in Oscar-nominated turn, plays Jane as a bitchy, insecure former star, whose costumes replicate her childhood image. It's a brilliant performance! But it is offset by Joan Crawford, who contrasts so well with the Bette Davis character. Her performance, in my opinion, is gold! It's not over the top (or as appealing ?) as that given by Bette davis, but it works!

Her Blanche is long-suffering and understated, and generates audience sympathy. The two women create a chemistry which sparks and sparkles on the screen. It's a classic, which deserves to be seen.

A good film.

This film has some good moments when exploring relationships. Meryl Streep's comedic timing as a Jewish therapist is excellent; Uma Thurman (as the older woman, Rafi) is self-assured, vulnerable and sexy. Bryan Greenberg as the younger man (Streep's son; Thurman's love interest) is also good, alternating between maturity (the man) and immaturity (the boy).

The story is good and has potential, but I feel that there are just too many irrelevant and extraneous scenes which make the film drag out and too long. It's a pity, because the end scene is great-- it's destined to be a classic - but it comes too late, at a point where the film should have ended 15 minutes previously.

The acting is good, but th film sags too much and is not the soufflé it could and should have been.

It's a bit like Prime steak being served too overdone for comfort!

This is a good film, reminding me of Lost in Translation. Claire Danes, in an excellent understated role, plays a shop assistant, who has moved to the big city and is lonely. She meets wealthy older man, also an impressive performance, played by Steve Martin. And a bohemian type, initially egocentric, played by Jason Schwartzman.

The question posed (and answered, in part) is what is true love? There are moments of brilliant cinematography, perceptive scripting, and a good chemistry among the leads.

Shopgirl might not drive in the audiences, but it is a good film, made better by its understatement, wit and some elements of laughter. It's well worth the "wait" (the film is languid) and it does raise interesting issues.

Like the shop of the film, this is an elegant film. See it.

Kudos to the two leads! Kristin Dunst plays an ambitionless, drug- and drink ridden rich white girl, Nicole Oakley, and Jay Hernandez plays Carlos Nunez, a poor boy, Mexican, who is the opposite of Nicole.

Yet the two "fall in love" and the film explores attraction amidst different cultures, values and personalities. The acting throughout is natural, the script is perceptive, and the film manages to avoid the stupid excesses and crass laughs of many "teenage" films.

It's a film that makes no demands on the viewer, is watchable and "sweet". Certainly not to be avoided! There are some good moments, and (despite a predictable end). The music is good, and the film keeps one watching, translating well to TV.

This film is as good as it gets! It lost to the bloated Titanic at the Oscar ceremonies, but Helen Hunt and jack Nicholson deservedly won Oscars for their performances. The two leads generate a lot of chemistry; both give naturalistic performances.

jack Nicolson plays Melvyn Udall, a man with OCD, and Helen Hunt,Carol Connelly, the waitress who encounters Melvyn, first as abrasive and humorless, second as obsessive, unempathic and egocentric, third as a love interest. Add in a sparkling Greg Kinnear as a gay neighbor whose relationship with Melvyn changes through the film.

The movie hasn't dated since I saw it on main circuit, nearly 10 years ago. It manages to avoid a lot of sentimentality (wich typifies Terms of Endearment, James Brooks' "other" famous movie, for which Jack Nicholson won his Best Supporting Actor Oscar! Cuba Gooding Jr. gives excellent support to Greg Kinnear's turn as Simon Bishop.

The script is witty, the dialog pert... in short, this film sparkles.

I must admit I love musicals; Rent has not (yet) been staged in South Africa, so it was fresh to me. I'm also aware that Chris Columbus is not an exciting, innovative director, and that certainly shows in the film: had Rob Marshall or Baz Luhrman would certainly have made a more pulsating film.

And that is the problem with the film: it has a tired feel to it; the performances are "safe", rather than good or sparkling. Although many 'goofs' are listed on the site, these didn't detract from the staging of the film... it was a film that engaged me in a limited way, but not a film I would trash.

It's no Moulin Rouge, Chicago, Cabaret or West Side Story but it is a film worth seeing, particularly for those in countries where it has not been staged.

The setting is gritty: a pimp and hustler (well-played by Terrence Howard) finds the rapper in himself, and writes a song that will, hopefully, make him famous.

This film isn't like most music films- it is heavily realistic, both in terms of speech (dialect, pacing, accent, vocabulary) and subject matter; at times the movie alienated me (maybe because, deep down inside, the movie was offensive to me). But that is not the fault of the film - I found that it grated me slightly.

The film is explosive and realistic: but to have a dream and live it is universal. I think that's what the movie's trying to say.

This is a satisfying thriller, which takes the audience along with it. The story begins with Dalton Russel - a brilliant Clive Owen. He is in a cell of sorts, and and as soon as you feel that the narrative is predictable, along comes a twist and a turn.

Denzel Washington as Detective Frazier gives an impeccable performance as a cop with integrity, well supported by Chiwetel Ejiofor as his side-kick, Bill Mitchell. The cast is good - a very svelte Jody Foster as Madeline White, enigmatic, and a good Christopher Plummer, as the bank's owner.

This film is intelligent and thought-provoking and the acting is very realistic. It's a good film, which will keep you thinking for ages.

I'm beginning to wonder if my critical faculties aren't forever lost! This film has been savaged by our local (South African) and foreign critics, but this is one sequel I think is on a par with the original, if not better.

Sharon Stone is mesmerising in the title role. She looks good, acts well as the sociopathic Catherine, and is always interesting. The script is good... and you never really have the "complete" truth, even at the end of the film.

Supporting cast is good, too, with a good Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Rampling and David Morrissey. It's a good film, at times like a film noir, at others like a good psychological mystery.

Don't let adverse publicity affect you badly. See this film.

Forget that the Pink Panther is actually a jewel. The Pink Panther has become synonymous with Jacques Clousseau, and he is the brilliant, ineffectual and highly amusing Peter Sellers. Add in an equally zany Herbert Lom (as Dreyfuss)and you have an excellent mix.

The story line isn't complicated. A stressed-out Inspector Dreyfuss tries to kill Clousseau, with amusing results. Blake Edwards is master of this type of comedy, where actions,noises and bizarre situations are primary.

There is a spoof of the 007 films in evident here, and the slap-bang unsubtle comic elements work. The film hasn't really dated (apart from hair styles an clothing!) in 30 years,and is as good a laugh now as it was then.

Make rheum and see it...

What should have been a light-hearted, witty comedy has few laughs and becomes dull, stodgy, lame and predictable.

Despite an appealing cast (Jesse Bradford is good to watch) the film is let down by a script that starts off promisingly and then fades out, becoming infantile, unfocused and rather boringly under- and undeveloped.

I hate not watching films to their completion. And I watched this till the end, where the film became limply predictable. Even the end credits feature jokes and situations which raise eyebrows rather than laughs.

One of the film's dreary subplots involves the (poor) making of a (poor) "art" or pornographic film. Like *that* film, *this* film feels an experimental, in-house drag. It should never have been made.

This is a gripping film, multi-layered, with a good script and good performances from its cast.

The story is interesting: a woman (plagued by a recurring nightmare) lands up, unable to speak, with amnesia, at a local convent. Mike Church (Branagh) must find out who she is. (We 'know', owing to black and white footage (featuring the same actors, but different characters, about 40 years ago, shortly after WW II) Through hypnotherapy, questions of reincarnation and past lives emerge.The film creates, rather than answers, questions. There are a number of twists and turns in the plot to make this film gripping.

I was not totally convinced that the ending of the film serves its purpose, but the film is gripping. Do see it.