Reviews

'Agnes of God' is simply one of the best acted films made. Based on a Broadway play, it stars Jane Fonda, Anne Bancroft, and Meg Tilly in roles that are their career best in my opinion.

The story is that a young novitiate (she is not yet a nun) has had a baby that is found in the waste paper basket with the umbilical cord wrapped around it's neck and the novitiate unconscious, seemingly having no recollection of the pregnancy or birth. Dr. Martha Livingstone is chosen by the court to interview the Mother Superior and Agnes to find out what has happened. Agnes is seemingly an innocent, having no knowledge of sex or childbirth, having been raised by an alcoholic mother who had migraines and visions of angels. She kept Agnes innocent so she wouldn't end up like her. The Mother Superior is her Aunt, which adds complexity to the back story. Dr. Livingstone is a lapsed Catholic who believes in science and has no belief in miracles and knows that Agnes must have been with a mortal man to get pregnant. Mother Miriam is so steadfast in her belief in Agnes as touched by God, that she is willing to suspend belief in the hope of a miracle. The interactions of the three main characters in seemingly a battle for Agnes' immortal soul and the belief by Dr. Livingstone that Agnes may not be as innocent as she seems, makes for compelling and fascinating drama. The fact that you are never sure how the child was conceived is beyond the point. It doesn't need to be answered. The point of this film is that a woman became pregnant and the child is dead. Who did it and how much does Agnes know.

My only complaint with the film is I read the play before I ever saw the film. A miracle happens, the play makes clear what it is. The final speech by Dr. Livingstone and indeed the trial is very different and should have been used in the film. It makes more sense. Still, a brilliantly acted and directed film that never got the credit it deserved.

I have watched and enjoyed this film many times since it premiered in 1980. The story of a family who has been wracked by tragedy and would give anything to be "Ordinary People" was a controversial choice for Best picture in 1980. Many people believed Raging Bull to be the better choice. I can understand people's feeling about that, but to me it is the argument that invariable comes at Oscar time that a more "audience friendly" I. E. escapist or "Popcorn" film should win over the movie that, however well made, can seem too difficult to watch and absorb.

Maybe my feelings about the movie come from an empathy I have for Conrad, brilliantly played in his screen debut by Timothy Hutton. Having lost the brother he idolized in a boating accident that happened due to carelessness, he now tries to struggle with his feelings of a responsibility that is misplaced, and a mother who has seeming buried all her feelings and maternal instincts with a first born who was her whole world. His father is concerned and possibly over protective of the boy and gradually comes to understand what is happening in his family. The final scene between the mother and father, where the Father realizes that the woman he married and the woman he is now talking to is not, in fact, the same woman emotionally, is as terrifying as any horror film.

The entire cast deserved awards. Donald Sutherland was not even nominated for what I believe was his finest performance. Mary Tyler Moore used the lessons of her own life to play a woman who rigidly holds herself and her family to an impossible standard. Judd Hirsch was a revelation to me at the time this film was released as I was only familiar with his TV sitcom work. All four of these people usually get glowing reviews for this film. I also would call out Elizabeth McGovern, as the pretty yet sensitive student whom Conrad is rapidly developing a friendship with. To me, she was never better.

This is a film that needs to be seen. All families are really like this in some ways, striving to be "Ordinary People", but knowing they may never make it.

I have watched this series for many years, and was so glad to see it again on the INSP Network, who is running all nine seasons, as well as the fact that they produced a new "looking back" special, co-written by Mary McDonough (Erin).

This series was never as corny or sappy as many reviewers would have you believe. The children were refreshingly normal, and all the parts were extremely well acted. The story of a family in rural America, in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, it showed how the family coped with the Depression of the 1930's and how the world changed with the advent of WWII, mainly as seen through the eyes of the oldest child, the son John Walton Jr. (In my opinion, the ONLY problem was his nickname John-boy. Couldn't they have called him Jack, or Junior or some other nickname that in a big city in the real world, would have gotten him beat up in school?) John wanted to be a writer, and he showed a depth and maturity far beyond his years. He depicted his family as real people with real problems, but with much love and faith. I love the series, but I must admit that I like the later seasons, as I do with any series where children start on the show. To me the children become more interesting as they grow and start to interact with the world around them. All of the children were talented and were truly actors, not just children trained to react, as so many children are today. If you enjoy this show, I also recommend what I consider the Canadian version, a series called Wind At My Back, which tells of a family in small town Canada during the depression, also on the INSP network.

I so wanted to like this film but I felt like I was watching two different movies, or I should say two different types of comedy. You have Alexis Bledel on one hand, who in my opinion, is better suited to a more sophisticated comedy (I mean, just watch any episode of Gilmore Girls and see how great she is) then you have Michael Keaton, Jane Lynch and Carol Burnett who are far more slapstick in their approach. Michael Keaton's acting and facial expressions tell me he still wishes he were doing Mr. Mom, not in itself a bad film, just wrong for this one. The only thing I liked was the fact that the script did not take the easy way out and she ended up with the right man. I watched this for Alexis, and will someone please write her a sophisticated screwball comedy so she can show what she can do?

I have just started watching this series on the INSP Network, which I get through DISH Network. I actually started watching it because it followed "the Waltons" a series I have always enjoyed. Except for the era (1930's Depression" The two series would seem to have little in common. Wind At My Back is the story of the Bailey family, Honey and her husband had moved back to New Bedford, Ontario to open a hardware store and to be near Mrs. Bailey, the matriarch of the family. When Mr. Bailey dies, Honey's world is thrown into turmoil when Mrs. Bailey refuses to allow Honey to take Honey's two sons, Hub and Fat away from their grandmother. Honey takes a menial job in a laundry to save money to try to make a home for the boys. Fortunately, the family comes to a truce, and Honey is able to open a beauty parlor and move her and the boys to the hotel nearby. Love also comes to Honey in the guise of Max Sutton, a teacher. They get married and have a daughter of their own, and Mrs. Bailey comes to respect Honey for her honesty and hard work ethic and they become a loving family. This series shows a family and town in their struggle with the Depression, but handles it with warmth, love and laughter. An excellent series for the whole family to enjoy.

All About Eve is perhaps the most perceptive film ever made and the American theater. Wickedly funny, yet with the foresight of it's era, perhaps the most grounded film of it's day. We are introduced to the characters as they sit through a knowing, yet curiously boring speech at the Sarah Siddons Awards (today, it would be the Tony's). Addison DeWitt, that creature of the theater, introduces us to the majority of the cast in a voice over effect. Surprisingly, most of the cast reacts as if they can hear every word Addison is saying (if you don't believe me, watch Bette Davis' and Celest Holmes' reactions especially). As Addison comes to end of his recitation, he introduces us to the character who the film is ostensibly about, Eve Harrington, the actress being honored by the old actor's speech. She also seems to react to Addison, believing the attention being paid to her is only her due. At that point, just is Eve is about to accept the award, the narration shifts to Karen Richards, the playwright's wife, the "lowest form of celebrity" as she herself says. It is important at that juncture that Karen continues, as she is the woman who has unwisely unleashed Eve on the theater, and it's greatest star, Margo Channing. One never not believes that Margo is the greatest star. Even the fact that the young upstart has momentarily diverted the spotlight, it will always return to Margo. We then see most of the cast backstage in Margo's dressing room the night Karen introduces Eve to Margo. Even at that early moment, Eve knows just exactly how to worm her way in, to use her affected guilelessness to her advantage. Eve continues to work her scheme, unaware that she has been noticed by someone who understands her all too well, Addison DeWitt. Their teaming will cause the havoc that this film wrought. But Eve will find herself trapped by her unholy alliance, and by a young woman who knows that Eve is every bit as gullible as her rival, Margo Channing.

Is this the Best film of 1950. The Academy thought so in 1950, though now, most critics prefer Sunset Boulevard. The central performance in All About Eve, though, is more realistic and therefore to me the better performance. But there was no way Hollywood would ever have give the Academy Award to Bette, or to Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard. Their performances hit too close to home for the Academy and they would never have rewarded those performances.

The most jarring scene for me in the film is when Karen and Margo are sitting in Karen and Lloyd's car, out of gas on a deserted New England road. Margo give a speech that was EXACTly the speech Hollywood (and to be fair American society) expected in 1950. When a great actress tells Karen (and the women in the audience) that none of it is worth while without a man. Remember that this was 1950. A woman as bright and strong as Margo Channing couldn't do all this without a man in her life and be the little homemaker. While it provides the catalyst for Margo to return to her fiancée director, Bill Sampson (played by the man who would become Bette Davis' fourth husband), to me it is unnecessary. Margo did NOT need a man to be complete, however, Eve could never have survived without a man as an audience for her conniving.

The performances in this film are as brilliant as the dialog, with one minor flaw in my opinion. Bette Davis is simply glorious, possibly not the best performance in her career, but the one she NEEDED to give at that point in her career. George Sanders is splendidly oily as Addison. Thelma Ritter as Birdie Coonan, Margo's assistant and confidant, is a wonder. The one off kilter performance is unfortunately Anne Baxter as Eve Harrington. She is fine in the earliest scenes, as the nervous fan, but too obviously smug as the woman who uses her friends to get what she wants. The performance is still better than most of the performances in films at that time, though Bette Davis herself could have played the part of Eve better.

Probably the best comedy Hollywood ever made at the end of it's Golden Era, it is a film that requires multiple views to truly understand.

I just saw the premier episode of this show last night, and for someone who never watches network television, I must say I was pleasantly surprised. Of course, I will watch Sally Field in anything. She definitely did not disappoint. I thought it was cool her husband was played by Tom Skerritt, who played her husband in Steel Magnolias. I was sorry that the show ended as it did, but it does open up story lines for future episodes. Calista Flockheart played the central role well, in that, being a Liberal, I already hate her character. When she told her gay brother that he should join the Log Cabin Republicans, I wanted to hurl. I do enjoy the back stabbing that appears to be going on in the family business, and I think I will continue to enjoy this show as it unfolds.

Like other reviewers have said, this film is in my personal collection and I love it. This story of a group of women and their relationships with each other and the others in their lives as portrayed through the seasons of Nachitoches, Louisiana is like chicken soup - familiar, nourishing, and always there when you want to reconnect.

It starts with getting ready for a wedding at Easter. Actually, it starts with a newcomer to town (Anelle, brilliantly played by Darryl Hannah) getting a new job at the most successful beauty shop in town. Truvy's (played by Dolly Parton, giving her best performance) has become the gathering place for the group of women this movie will focus on. Meanwhile, at the Eatenton household, M'Lynn (Sally Field) is preparing for her daughter Shelby's (Julia Roberts) wedding. We meet this family and then get to see the next door neighbor, Ouiser (Shirley MacLaine) crossing swords with M'Lynn's husband, Drum. Back at Truvy's we also get to meet the former First Lady of Chinquipin Parish, Claree (Olympia Dukaukis). The story unfolds through Shelby's wedding and our discovery that she is a diabetic which will create problems later on, to the Christmas Festival, to a summer Independence day where we learn Shelby has had a baby boy, and see what having that baby has done to Shelby's health, to a Hallowwe'en that starts well but ends in a tragedy, to Eater again and the rebirth of the circle of life. The stories range from hysterical to touching and the interplay and dialog of the actresses are wonderful. My personal favorite funny part is Ouiser unknowingly walking into Truvy's during a discussion of how to tell if a man is gay (I still laugh till I cry during that scene). How are the performances? Sally Field as the matriarch of the Eatenton family is a tower of strength, and then shows her strength through tragedy. This is Julia Roberts' finest performance ever, the most natural and genuine part she has played. (If you were wondering, I hate Pretty Woman) Just watch the scene at Christmastime between Sally and Julia and you will understand. Dolly Parton gives a performance instead of playing Dolly, and she may be my favorite character. I have read people say they felt Shirley MacLaine overplayed Ouiser, but I understand it. Ouiser is a larger than life character and is well served by Shirley. I have never been much of a fan of Darryl Hannah until I saw this movie. I thought she brought life to what could have been a cardboard character. Olympia Dukaukis is great as Claree, showing that life needn't end because you are a widow. I think of these women as friends and regularly enjoy seeing them when I watch this wonderful film.

I love this game show. I have always been a game show fan, but when I discovered this show on the Discovery channel, I was in heaven. I love trivia games so this is a show I play along with every time. Ben the host is great and just what this show needs. His expressions and voices are so funny and you just know he wants the contestants to do well. New York has always been a favorite city of mine, and while watching this show, I get homesick for a town I have never been to! This is just so much fun. Watch this show! What I want to know though, does Ben memorize these questions or does he have a screen he reads in the cab?If he's reading them, isn't that dangerous? I don't care, I just laugh and play along everyday with this show.

When the three plays that make up this film were first combined and opened on Broadway, it was well received and had a long run. Why the movie didn't do better, I will never understand. The story of a man who is looking for love in a world that doesn't understand him is universal, it doesn't matter if he is gay or straight.

Arnold Beckoff is a female illusionist in a successful club in New York. In the opening, as we watch him assume his stage persona (Virginia Hamm, we hear him expound on his views of relationships as a gay man who can be self assured and still not like himself much. We watch a typical performance with admiration for the work involved. After the performance we see Arnold and his friend Murray headed out for a nightcap and see Arnold's insecurities up close. While Murray appears to have a more hedonistic approach to the gay bar scene, Aronld clearly appears out of his element. As he bumps into Ed, we see a classic film meet-cute. They are both awkward and shy, but clearly attracted to one another. As the relation ship develops, we see that Arnold has almost a need to be in love, while Ed feels he needs to be in love-with a woman. Ed believes that he has to project an image, not just for his family and friends, but for himself. That is the one thing we learn that Arnold has no problem with, he wants people to know he's gay, and that is something he accepts in himself, whether or not his family does. We see a family dinner with his brother and parents, and that scene broke my heart. When his father offers him money until he "gets back on his feet", I was uncomfortable and didn't understand why until a minute later when Arnold and his brother are out on the patio having a smoke, and Arnold reveals he makes more money than his father, and I realized just how uncomfortable his parents were with his life and the choices he has made, his mother especially. Soon Arnold does find love with Alan, a young model who came to one of Arnold's shows. Alan, like Arnold, is comfortable with who he is, and he and Arnold become a couple. Ed comes back briefly into their lives at this point, as he and his wife invite them to visit the rural home that Ed has rebuilt. This central part of the film is taken from the second play in the Trilogy-Fugue in a Nursery. This was the part that I felt the film did a disservice to by opening up. In the play, this takes place with the four characters in the same bed, with a wonderful lighting effect that highlights the actors as they interact with each other. The film does not ruin it by any means, but you do not get the urgency that the play brings out and the quick cuts become jarring, in my opinion. This section brings tension to both couples, but Arnold and Alan overcome it, and look forward to adopting a child, and moving to a new apartment. However, the night they move in, Alan makes a choice that while heroic, changes the course of Arnold's life. The change is what we see in the final part of the film. We learn that there have been changes with Ed as well. The section of the film becomes ultimately a healing. How family relationships change, how romantic relations change and mature, and how the first generation (Arnold's mother) comes to understand the third (David, Arnold's adopted son) as well as deriving a better understand of her son and the life he has made for himself. This is ultimately an uplifting and emotional film, with dream performances. I urge everyone to see it, but I think it may hold the most meaning to those people who have a friend or family member who is gay, but just doesn't understand. Watch this film and get some answers.

I have loved this movie since I saw it in the theater in 1978. I was a 17 year old guy who felt this film had something to say to me too. Jill Clayburgh is magnificent in this film. I have always been drawn to films with strong female characters and I believe this is one of the finest. Jill should have won the Oscar. Even Jane Fonda in a preOscar interview said, when asked on her chances of winning, "No, I think Jill Clayburgh will win, she gave the best performance." But all of the acting is of a uniformly high caliber. Michael Murphy, as the husband, gave a realistic portrayal of a man who struggles with his feelings of a man who is trapped by his feelings for his new love, even though he would never want to hurt is wife. Cliff Gorman and Alan Bates also brings wonderful readings to their characters as well.

I have read several comments here that make it appear to me that people don't like the ending. Yes, it would have been nice if the painting had been delivered to her apartment, but I see her carrying the painting, and especially as she whirls with it at first, as Erika's dance of liberation. That she is by herself, and she is okay with herself. It's only my opinion, but that's how I see it. A wonderful film, that to me has not dated.

I have seen this movie several times, as I am a fan of Neil Simon. In my opinion, this is half a good movie. When Jane Fonda, Alan Alda, Maggie Smith, or Michael Caine are on the screen, the film is magical for me. Jane gives a really good performance as an Ice Queen, and I understand Alan more and more as their scenes progress. Maggie Smith and Michael Caine are the real stars in this movie. If the producers thought they had a better chance of getting Maggie an Oscar by making her a supporting actress, they got what they wanted, but I really believe it was a leading performance. I did my first spit take ever when Maggie and Michael were discussing the guacamole he was eating. When she asked what the disgusting green slime he was eating I started drinking a soda and when he answered, "I'm not sure, but it tastes like they ran the front lawn through a blender" I lost it. And yet, at the end of their story, when Maggie Smith asks Michael to not close his eyes, to "let it be me", I was truly touched. I found out several years later that that line was the inspiration for one of my favorite Country songs, "Don't Close Your Eyes" sung by Keith Whitley. The other two stories in the film I didn't care for, The Walter Matthau story, was too much like a Sixties leering sex farce, and the Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby story was actually embarrassing to me. I really felt like I was watching an scene out of a film from the 1930's where African-Americans took roles beneath them as it was a way to make a living. That is just one man's opinion and I am not trying to offend anyone. So the title of this review is the was I really feel.

Sidney Poitier had three films released in 1967, in my opinion this was the best of them. In the Heat of the Night might have been more socially relevant when seen today, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner might have been more conventionally entertaining, but To Sir, With Love was to me more intelligent, sensitive and emotional that the other two. I am amazed that Sidney was not nominated for the Oscar in 1967, but given his performances in all three films, it's obvious the voters were torn. Sidney Poitier had a year in 1967 that, due to the length of time it takes to make a film these days, may not be repeated now, that is 3 starring roles in three extremely profitable films. This did not happen that often then, so think how may films Tom Cruise, or Nicole Kidman or even Meryl Streep make in a year now. Please rent this film and watch it with an open mind and heart. A genuinely touching, sincere, and ultimately truthful film.

I have watched this show from the beginning, and I am a 45 year old man. To me, this is so much more that a show that appeals to women. This is the story of a family, possibly an unusual one, but a family none the less. It centers around a mother and daughter, Lorelei and Rory Gilmore, two bright, attractive, and in their own ways successful women. Lorelei makes her home in fictional Stars Hollow, CT, a small New England town with a sense of history, and a population of people that may be unusual, but acts as a dysfunctional family. The show also throws in the relationship between Lorelei and her parents, Richard and Emily Gilmore, old money DAR WASP people who do not approve of Lorelei's choices in life, though Lorelei doesn't care. The relationships story and through line are what makes this show, in my opinion the finest on the WB network (soon to be the CW). Watch this show!

One of the better made for TV biopics, I just wish it had told us more. I have read many biographies and seen other things about the Carpenters, and this movie did what it could, based on the constraints placed on it by the family. Cynthis Gibb did a wonderful job trying to bring Karen to life. One of my disappointments is that there was not more insight into Karen's anorexia. In the reading I have done about the disease (especially Cherry Boone O'Neill's wonderful book, Starving for Attention) anorexia appears to be a disease of control. Karen saw her weight as one thing in her life that she could control. She felt that she was being controlled in every other aspect of her life. Don't get me wrong, I believed she truly loved the music, but she felt she had little control over her career. She truly loved her family, but they did not express it well, and she didn't know how to make her family understand her. The film could have touched so much more on that. I treasure the music I have of the Carpenters and wish she was still alive to contribute more to music today.

This movie was released when I was nine. Though many people would think it was not appropriate for a child that young, I was an extremely precocious child and understood it. i have seen it many times since and understand it more as the decades have passed. In many ways, this movie shows the bridging of the 1930's with the youth movement of the 1960's. In both eras, ideas flourished that may have been against the status quo, but brought forth a new understanding of life and the choices youths and others made in those eras. As others have already stated more eloquently than I, Maggie Smith gives one of the most brilliant performances I have ever seen. But the movie is not just about her, though she plays the title role. Pamela Franklin as sandy, the student who "betrays" her, is magnificent, showing all the emotions of a girl who is going through adolescence being driving by a whirlwind she cannot control and ultimately, cannot accept. Why she was not even nominated for an Academy Award as supporting actress, I will never know. The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent. I have read reviews stating that Robert Stephens, as the art master, was somewhat wooden. I totally disagree. His character was also driven by the force of Jean Brodie, and while he could stop her himself, knew what had to be done. The story of a teacher in a school for girls who molds those minds to the things in life she finds important-beauty, art, truth? (Maybe her truth, but isn't all truth subjective?) she comes up against the student who ultimately cannot believe in everything Miss Brodie has taught. And yet, even in destroying that teachers' career, she still feels sympathy and even admiration for this woman ("What will you do? Now...?" This is a film that will make you think, which in my opinion, is what the best movies do.

Sissy Spacek and Anne Bancroft have really immersed themselves in the characters in this movie, to the point where I really suspended disbelief. I empathize with both of the characters so much in this film. I know this sound so cliché, but this movie touches me on a personal level like few films ever do. I am a smoker, and I have never heard a better description in a movie of why someone smokes. There are so many lines from both characters that touch me so deeply. When i first saw this movie, it reminded me of the MacDonald's scene in the movie Ordinary People as to why someone would be driven to suicide. This movie i will watch again and again, despite how it turns out, to enjoy the powerhouse acting and the great dialog.

As a gay man who has lived a very sheltered life, I wanted to see this movie to get some kind of an idea about life in an area with a lot of gay men. I think I am happy where I am. I think the movie started okay, but as the main character gets drawn into the web of circuit parties and drugs, I really watched as if it were my summary. I knew this was getting worse as it went on, but I just couldn't tear my eyes away. I felt like the woman the main character lived with, out of my depth and unable to understand the fascination with the circuit. I also couldn't understand in the final party, how people can ingest that many drugs before they die. And what a death! I felt like I was watching a remake of "All That Jazz" with a gay cast. All in all, a fascinating, god-awful mess.

What a refreshing movie this is! What I mean by that is here is a movie about gay men that contains people I want to meet, that I would want to be friends with. Eli and Tom are two men that are thrown together due to the fact that their respective (straight) best friends would like to build on their "meet cute". And how cute are these best friends? They are also portrayed as refreshingly normal, unlike other gay themed movies I have seen that shoehorn straight people into the movie in order to try to get mass appeal but only end up embarrassing those straight people who would want to see the movie. But I digress, The movie starts with the audience meeting two men. Eli, who is off to the AIDS test clinic, and Tom, who is off to an AA meeting. As each are at there respective appointments, the past is presented to show their relationship. The men don't get a meet cute, but their respective best friends do, in a furniture store where they bond over a "buttercup" love seat. The two then decide to use their respective gay best friends, supposedly to get them together, but actually to further their own budding romance. What an awkward first date the men have! Eli hopes his date doesn't smoke, so of course when we see them together that's what Tom does best. That and drink Absolute martinis. From there it is one awkward meeting for them after the other, both fighting an attraction they both will admit only to themselves. The families of each man are dysfunctional. I actually was far more embarrassed by Eli's, a couple of doctors who subject their small children to uncomfortable games about their feelings and only use dolls to get the kids comfortable with using correct medical terms for sexual organs. Christina Ricci gives a wonderful performance as Eli's seeming normal sister. Our meeting of Tom's parents is uncomfortable for completely different reasons, though probably much more common to many of us. The parents who suffocate themselves over what their dysfunctional lives have foisted on their children. At the wedding of the straight friends, the men finally realize what they mean to each other. I have probably left out a lot, but I think I am a little too emotionally attracted to this movie to be objective. By the time the men are dancing together and the closing song, "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me" by the Jayhawks started playing, I was actually cheering through my tears. No, this may not be a great movie, but it is one I will turn to again and again, to meet and spend time with comfortable old friends.

It's hard for me to comment on this film as so many others have done so. But there is one thing I feel I can add. In the movie you see two of Hollywood's best known names in films. Here is the difference between them. This is only MY opinion. Bette Davis was a great actress, Joan Crawford was a great star. That is shown without a doubt in this film. Bette acts with the fearlessness of a great actor, taking chances with the role of Baby Jane Hudson and coming up trumps. Joan Crawford gives an excellent performance, but it is the performance of a star. She does not take the chances in her acting choices in the role that would make it truly bravura. The final scenes in the movie could have been that much better if Joan had been willing to open up and really act the part. Bette went for some excellent choices in the final scenes and made me feel so sympathetic for her. I felt very detached watching Joan. All in all, though, a superb film with a great cast.

I really believe this film has never been appreciated as it should have been. Bette gives one of her most thoughtful, honest performances in this film. Jim Davis was definitely not the correct leading man for the role, but who would have been with such an awkwardly written role? The Hollywood of 1948 would never have allowed the filmmakers to approach the movie with the frank honesty it deserves. The love story needed to actually go further than it did in showing Bette's frigidity and James' struggles between religion and sex. The wonderful John Hoyt's role needed to be written more specifically as a gay man so that the relationship between he and Bette would have more depth. All in all, an awkwardly written film with some miraculous performances in the circumstances

This is one of Bette Davis' greatest performances. It completely runs the gamut of all emotions. I also mention this movie to people who tell me that Bette Davis was the ugliest woman in Hollywood (!) With this move and Now, Voyager (1942) I make the claim that she was one of the most attractive women in Hollywood. Judith Traherne (Davis), a 23 yr old orphan socialite (Davis was 30 at the time!) lives a life of horses, parties and the social whirl of the New England horsey set. Sge has been suffering from severe headaches, so her friend and secretary, Anne (a marvelous performance by Geraldine Fitzgerald) works behind her back to get her to be seen by a eminent brain surgeon, Dr. Steele (George Brent). Doctor Steele determines that she has a brain tumor and operates to remove it. Afterwards, he discovers that the tumor will return and take her life. Meanwhile, Judith's feelings for Dr Steele have turned to love and he returns those feelings. However, Judith happens to come upon her chart in Dr Steele's office and discovers her prognosis is negative, which leads to a wonderfully written scene in a restaurant where Judith acts up and tells Dr Steele what she thinks of him and walks out. Gradually Dr Steele makes her realize that her death is just another stage in her life and that she can have a happy life with Steele and meet her death "beautifully and finally". The death scene is well acted, but the wonderful Max Steiner score does intrude somewhat. A beautifully acted and well written movie.

I first saw this movie before I read the book it is based on. I usually see films based on books in this way, but this time, I wish I had read the book first. There are letters in the book that should have appeared in the movie to flesh it out a bit more. Even so, it is one of the most affecting movies I have ever seen. It starts with a middle aged woman in a plane flying to London (Anne Bancroft). When she gets to the place she has been seeking, it is an abandoned storefront. She looks around wistfully as the first letter is read in her voice in the background. Magically, the film transports us back to the late 40's in New York, and to the correspondence between a woman living there and the man who is the manager of a bookshop at the title address in London (Sir Anthony Hopkins). The letters are read with great warmth and style, and the opening up in the film is well done and appropriate to the story. As the years advance, we are caught up in both of these people's lives and their correspondence. Due to events that look contrived in the movie (but make more sense in the book), Helene Hanff leads a life of the lower middle class and much as she would like to, there is no chance for her to afford the trip to London. So London is brought to her in both the great books she buys from the bookshop and by reading about the lives of Frand Doel and his family, and the other people who work at the bookstore. One of the most affecting scenes deals with the letters she receives from the other employees thanking her for the food parcels she sends to the employees for holidays. I look something like Bill Humphries, the cataloger, and his scene with his Great Aunt brought me to tears. As the years pass, there are some changes but the relationships endure. Many people have called this a love story, but the movie gives more evidence of this than the book ever does. I don't believe in that angle. Frank Doel was just part of Helene's feelings of London, and not a romance on her or his part. My only real criticism has to do with the end of the film. The book does not lead you to the same ending, and it is very helpful to read the sequel to 84 Charing Cross Road, called The Duchess of Bloomsbury Street. She did not call a few days after Frank died to find the cost of a trip to London to go there. If they had filmed it from the book it would have been just as compelling. She decided to publish the letters as Frank had died, and the reprint of the book by Reader's Digest and the fact that a London publisher decided to publish the book over a year later gave her the impetus and the finances to go to London. Having said all that, it is a great film, with amazing performances all around. This is just about the only time I have ever said, the book is better. If fact, I would encourage people to read all of Helene Hanff's works. She was an astonishing writer, and someone I wish I could have known.

Could this possibly be Russell Crowe's best movie ever? He gives the most completely natural believable performance of a young gay man I have ever seen in movies. I have read many comments that the trick that appears throughout the movie of the characters talking to the camera weakens the film. I completely disagree. From the first scene when Russell Crowe's character talks about what his visits to his Grandmother and her lover means to him, to the scenes when his father talks to the camera after his stroke, made me feel as if I were a friend of these people and they were drawing me into their lives. Watching Russell Crowe's attempts to seduce a man who he hopes will become his boyfriend were completely natural and I believe many people who do not care to see homosexual themed movies would warm to this as it comes from a place of love and shows that a family doesn't have to be nuclear to be complete and loving. You never for one moment not believe that this father and son truly love and, what is more important, respect each other. The romance between the father and his new lady is also believable and well written. Middle aged people really do act this way when they are dealing with a new romance, especially when they believe that romance has passed them by. This wonderful family drama deserves a much wider audience that it received when first released. Enjoy this film and let it change your ideas on what a family can be.