Reviews

If you're a fan of old movies, or even if you've been afraid of being put off by them, "The Artist" is a great way to ease yourself into the medium. The size of the screen, the typefaces, the quality of film, the gestures, all the graphic design, the sweeping score, the dazzling acting -- all of it is pure vintage Hollywood.

The lead's smile is pure Gene Kelly but his style is absolute Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Tremendous style and panache. Poppy isn't nearly so true to the art form (I was disappointed to see that no woman bit the back of her hand, the standard indication of horror, surprise, or shock in the silents!) but is still winning as George's true love.

The picture is primarily delightfully comic, with even a terrier-like dog reminiscent of Asta from the "Thin Man" movies, but has elements of pathos borrowed from "A Star is Born." The story bogged down a bit about two-thirds of the way through, but quickly got back on track with driving energy reaching a wonderful finale.

My last point is merely a comment on what a treat it was to go to the movies and not be jolted in my seat by the sound of explosions or experience sensory overload with special effects. This picture is easy on the senses and sweet on the heart. Give it a try.

While this documentary meets the minimum requirements for technical prowess, the film itself is difficult to watch. I couldn't finish it -- made it through about the first hour.

The action starts with Ms Pearl opening up her backyard to victims of Katrina. This generous and positive beginning quickly devolves into sordid episodes of alcoholism and abuse. The cruelty and degradation shown on-screen is understandable given the situation, but it was very difficult to watch. I couldn't help but feel I was intruding on very personal life stories.

Were the documentarians exploiting people's suffering in the name of journalism? I tend to lean that way. Of course, they couldn't know how it would turn out, but I think there comes a time when human decency calls for the camera to be shut off and the crew to go home.

I've seen many documentaries but few have gripped me as this one did. The combination of live action, computer graphics, and scholarly voice-over made it a compelling picture. Unlike many feature films, I didn't even look at the clock to see when it would be over.

The only drawback for me was that some of the science went by a little too quickly. I got the general idea of "the column collapses" but would have liked it to be explored a little more in order to have a more comprehensive view.

The inclusion of artifacts was especially moving, particularly when paired with imagined scenes. Overall this is a great documentary -- we could use more like it!

First, this film is not a "thriller." Neither is it "gripping, taut." It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.

The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and "cunning vixen" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.

I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end.

If the reviews on IMDb are any indication, this is one of the more controversial films of the year. I didn't find it to be confusing, partly because I kept track of time by tracking which pajamas Linda was wearing at the moment!

The most compelling aspect of the picture is any time a "Memento"-like piece falls into or out of the puzzle. We're carried along on a mystery ride and are only brought back to a traditional Hollywood film at the end.

The final quarter of the film is slower and weaker, perhaps because more pieces have fallen into place, but this is definitely a picture to see once. After that first time, it may not be as compelling because you already know how the pieces fit together.

This picture couldn't seem to find the right bits to adapt from Neil Gaiman's original story. Gaiman's version is much more adult-oriented (showing the sex between two characters, for instance).

Overall the film is "family friendly" but it has some graphic elements and bad characterizations that I don't think are appropriate for kids.

The male lead is an Orlando Bloom stand-in but does an adequate job of playing the earnest and unlikely "hero on a quest." Claire Danes is, well, Claire Danes. Robert De Niro does the worst acting of his career in his completely unbelievable ship captain's role.

There are a few poignant moments in the picture but overall I found it oddly jumpy and unable to settle into a coherent storyline. Not one to see again.

This picture is billed as a romantic comedy but it's really more about family and how that can affect romances. While this is definitely a fluff piece, Shirley MacLaine's character and acting knock it out of the ballpark.

Julia Stiles, by contrast, is wooden and unsympathetic in her role as the female romantic lead. I kept wanting to see her in some 1970's BBC drama where emotionless, physically dull acting was more the rage.

Azura Skye does a nice turn in the predictable role of "the trashy sister" who gets pregnant after a one-night stand. Randy Quaid and the rest of the cast practically disappear except to act as foils to MacLaine's outrageous "tough love/live life my own way" Grandma.

This is not great art or even great romantic comedy. You won't need to see it more than once. Watch it for MacLaine's performance and be ready to fluff your way through the rest!

This was a fabulous picture with some slow-moving spots (hence the 7 out of 10). I wish the description of it had been more accurate. I was expecting more fantasy sequences, not so much focus on the Spanish war.

What makes me not want to see it again was the brutality depicted. It was very realistically done, not sensationalized, which made it all the more difficult to watch. I had to close my eyes in parts, not due to squeamishness, but because I didn't want the images of barbarity seared into my brain.

I had some difficulty relating to the movie entirely because of the subtitles, but that often happens with "foreign" films. Overall, this is an extremely well-made picture. Not for children!

...not-so-fascinating movie. I agree with others that this is likely the finest film of Hepburn's career. It's an endlessly fascinating glimpse into religious life that doesn't sensationalize or mock or glorify the institutions. It simply tells what the sisters do.

As such, it's utterly compelling. As a film, though, the pace is extremely slow and the dialogue very restricted (due to the vows of silence!).

My aunt was a nun for over 50 years at around the same time the story is set, so I found the exploration of religious life completely compelling. But, unless I need a quick factoid on celluloid, I don't think I need to see this picture again. It simply doesn't have enough else going on it to hold my interest over the entire length of the film. I'm far more likely now to explore the topic in non-fiction books.

While dated and heavy-handed, this picture remained compelling. Peck's character experiences just about every form of anti-Semitism except for its most extreme forms, which is true-to-life.

I was astonished at how deeply the movie delved into privileged WASP prejudice. I don't know of any other picture that takes on this "angle" in this way.

The constant references to anti-Semitism's being un-American were too ham-handed to stomach, even though I agree with the sentiment behind it. But overall the film continued to surprise me with its many layers. It must have really gotten people talking in 1947, because it still does today!

This might be a good film to watch with tweens or teens as a basis for discussion about prejudice and bigotry. Not just in related to anti-Semitism, but as a broader base for the many prejudices we all bear.

Other than that, I suspect I'll think about this film for a long time, though I won't need to see it again. Well done.

It's rare that I don't fast-forward through a film these days. This was one film that had me riveted, though, at least for the first 3/4s of the picture. The quiet, tense thriller unfolded with perfect timing and ambiguous characters. The acting was top-notch and the characters multi- dimensional.

Then suddenly the film takes a severe detour into "typical action movie." All subtlety is lost, characters become flat, pacing devolves and the whole thing becomes increasingly ridiculous. Enter the fast-forward!

It was such a disappointment after that sustained great beginning. Who knows what happened. The end result leaves an unpleasant taste.

Great acting, great production values, good direction.

But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.

The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.

This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.

The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.

Good bits: The acting is great, particularly Dakota Blue Fanning and the perfectly cast Nicole Kidman.

Well, I guess that takes care of the good bits.

The bad bits are extensive, culminating in a perfectly average Hollywood movie: plot, plot, plot. No character development, none of the tension of the book, none of the mystery, and special effects over everything else.

I expected the sets and costuming to be much better than they were, turning our world 90 degrees so we could see the difference. I've always imagined Asriel in a kick-butt cloak, for instance.

It was very irritating that the creators kow-towed to Christian groups and substituted the Magisterium throughout. It's a more compelling story with the Church as the dominant force, and another example of how this world differs from ours. The Church's obsession with intercision also makes more sense.

I would've rated this a 2 or 3 but the acting brought it up a couple notches. Regardless, I don't need to see it again.

After all the years of hype, I finally decided to see this film, even though it's a Western (I generally hate Westerns). Ang Lee did indeed create some gorgeous cinematography, and the acting is out of this world, particularly Heath Ledger's phenomenal characterization.

Regrettably, I found the movie as a whole totally boring and ultimately frustrating. It's supposed to be some fabulous love story -- where's the love? I get the passion and the strong, undying physical attraction, but that's a small piece of what love is.

Love isn't about periodic idyllic getaways with a lover -- that's a vacation. It's easy. Love is the everyday slog. Every day, re-forging your commitment and somehow making it play out. Both men were complete failures in that regard, perhaps because they were with the wrong spouses, perhaps because they weren't with each other. The fundamental problem with the picture is that it doesn't make that clear.

The men lead two completely separate lives -- one where they're with their families, and one where they're together. Perhaps if Lee had shown some overlap, the love aspect would've been more believable. Perhaps if there had been more conflict and more tenderness in the men's time together rather than just companionable silence or awkward sex, it would've demonstrated what a real love relationship was like.

Ennis' terror of discovery was completely believable and real. Yet that terror doesn't excuse the lack of love demonstrated on screen. His affection for his eldest daughter was more apparent than his love for Jack, even when he and Jack were sharing private moments.

I was greatly disappointed in the film. It was lovely but too slow, and ultimately torpedoed by its glaring omission of real love.

It's amazing that Brad Pitt, even at this young age, could hold his own with Anthony Hopkins. The fact that they make a great team is even more impressive.

While Hopkins plays a pretty standard "60-something businessman," Pitt plays death itself. This film presents a more intimate view of Death's trying to understand Life than the old flick "Death Takes a Holiday," so we see Death try to understand things at a very personal level. Pitt is perfect in the role, showing a charming innocence along with the necessary amount of gravitas.

But the picture is severely hampered by its pace, which borders on the Jurassic (the epoch, not the epic, Jurassic). If this had been edited much more tightly, we'd move briskly through a beguiling and thought-provoking story. Instead we're treated to affected dialogue (which the actors valiantly try to overcome) and tediously long takes that give us plenty of time to lose interest.

Kudos to Hopkins and Pitt; onions to the director.

Or at least, that's what I took away from this movie.

It has all the elements of the "spy" "thriller" "action" movie: the guy who can't remember his past, The Girlfriend, the inexplicable relationship between them, the rest of the cast almost exclusively white males, The Car Chase, The Heist, the use of gadgetry, the oh-so-cynical political manipulations, the relative lack of dialogue, and killing after killing after killing.

We've seen it all before. All of it.

Except...*how* people are killed. This picture is particularly inventive in its use of violence. I can't account for this picture's popularity aside from this one difference.

Most of the time, Matt Damon looks like he's playing a Jedi -- he goes through his "action" sequences without even seeming to breathe. He practically looks bored. Perhaps he feels the Force. I never thought I'd say this, but Tom Cruise actually looks like a talented actor in comparison. His "Mission Impossible" was much the same flick as "Bourne" but had far greater intensity and emotional involvement.

Which brings us back to the creative use of violence. I found it ineffective, ultimately, as it seemed to wrench the viewer out of what little realism is going on. Perhaps real-world assassins are just that cool (how much black leather can you fit in one movie?) -- going out to "do the job" and never feeling emotional or psychological consequences. Never using all their creative skills to *avoid* violence rather than revert to it as a first step.

Didn't much care for this picture. Don't need to see it again.

There are some truly funny bits in this video, but not enough.

The humor is gloriously Python, complete with "pepperpot" ladies with their outrageous voices. Each actor does very well, with Graham Chapman a real standout.

Unfortunately the material is very uneven and goes too long without laugh lines. When the lines do come, it's harder to get into the swing of things because you've gone so long without anything to build up to them.

This isn't helped by lack of audience reaction. They would've been far better served by using fake applause à la Python than by using the live audience, which (especially at the start) seemed befuddled by what was going on.

I made it through an hour but then felt I'd had enough. It was just taking too much time to get to anything funny. A severely edited version might be more successful, but that certainly won't be happening!

What more can I say?

This quiet, intimate, fast-paced film explores the lives of two people who are made for each other yet whose lives keep them apart.

Both characters are forced to grow as they face stereotypes and their own false expectations.

And then, when the bombshell hits, get ready to reach for the Kleenex!

Unlike many other films that deal with relationships, this one continues the exploration of the questions posed, even after it would seem physically possible. Both characters continue to grow to the very last frame of the film.

Jennifer Connelly and Billy Crudup are both excellent in their roles. Connelly has less screen time but plays her "Jiminy Cricket" role perfectly. Crudup is note-perfect in his slide towards psychosis.

This is the ultimate "what if?" film, realistically portraying the agony of loss and unanswered questions. Definitely *not* one to watch when you're in the mood for a fluffy Hugh Grant flick! But for intelligent, thought-provoking movie-making, this is the one to see.

I really wanted to like this film. I've seen so many bad Audrey Hepburn movies that I was aching for this "classic" to come through. Regrettably, it failed.

The picture is very dated. The party scene alone is one long eye-roller, as the script tries to depict the swingin' sixties.

Hepburn is, of course, stunningly gorgeous throughout the film, but, as in every other picture I've seen with her in it, the picture relies on her outer qualities to carry an otherwise mediocre (& even bad) film. There are moments of charm, pathos, and fun, but the overall effect is one where we're supposed to just like the movie because it's in love with itself.

I can't help but wonder what would've happened if Hepburn had been born early enough to have been in pictures in the 30s and 40s, where women's roles were much stronger and complex. The 1960s and 70s were real wastelands as far as women's roles go. Many of the great stars of an earlier generation turned to the "legitimate" theatre for engaging roles worthy of their talents.

I'd also love to see Hepburn destroy her own myth by appearing as torn-up as possible -- a little grunge monster like Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe?".

The other actors in the film are barely worth mentioning. Mickey Rooney's turn is simply embarrassing. Patricia Neal plays her part well but George Peppard is barely tolerable. The extreme close-ups of Buddy Ebsen seem inserted only to contrast with Hepburn's beauty -- again, detracting from the story.

Note to self: don't bother seeing this one again unless you need a quick fix of Givenchy gowns.

Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.

When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home.

The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.

The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity.

This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.

I've done some work in prisons, so I had an intellectual understanding that prisons are a world unto themselves, with their own rules and consequences. This documentary went far beyond that, showing instead the women inside the prison sentences.

While IMDb lists Hollywood "names" as the stars of this picture, the real stars are the inmates themselves, who respond to every request that Eve Ensler makes that they go deeper or look more closely at what they've done -- but more importantly, *who they are.*

The greatest thing I gained from seeing this was a glimpse of the women who live inside and around the crimes. While only a starting point, it's the beginning of understanding that any of us is capable of criminal acts. But more than that, this film asks, "Then what??" As is said several times by one of the women prisoners, "life goes on." *How* does life go on? How do you live with it 6 months down the road, 6 years, 15 years? How does your perception of life and self change as you fill the hours to pass one more day, then another?

This was a fascinating, poignant, moving film. The biggest drawback was the camera's/editor's love affair with Glenn Close. I agree with other reviewers that the scenes with the actresses doing beginning read-throughs were somewhat distracting, but the incessant focus on Close was downright irritating.

I also thought the contrast between the inmates' readings and the actresses' readings of the same words was highly intriguing. Most of the inmates are monotone, like most people are when reading. The actresses seem almost over the top in comparison, but I'll bet it made a powerhouse performance when experienced live. If nothing else, this would be a good documentary for actors to see in order to witness the transformation of script -- plus to find some incredibly moving monologues!

This is one I'll think about for a long time. I'm glad I saw it. In some small way, it has changed me.

Oddly enough, it's Fred MacMurray who plays the more "screwy" part in this screwball comedy. Carole Lombard shows a fine performance combining lighter moments with and undercurrent of drama and seriousness.

As usual, Fred MacMurray remains a mystery to me. The camera is no fan of his, he's not that attractive, and he doesn't have the style and panache to pull off this very Cary Grant-like role.

Ralph Bellamy is excellent as the kind friend coming back to life through his relationship with Lombard's character. One can only wonder why her character wouldn't want his gentle, reassuring love instead of the almost certain doom of MacMurray's ineptness. But that's Hollywood!

The picture almost works but misses the mark, primarily due to MacMurray's performance. It would've been lovely to see Grant or even Clark Gable in his role. Lombard and Bellamy are largely believable and likable; MacMurray is stiff and makes you want to keep him at arm's length.

He Knew What He Wanted starts out interestingly enough, with varying love stories surrounding interconnected characters. The stories range from melodrama to comedy. The main one is sort of a reverse Othello, as the effects of jealousy take their toll on the main character.

As the stories unfold over four episodes, however, they begin to fall apart. Some scenes are repeated again and again, simply in different settings, until one wonders if the actors even got confused. The interconnections of families is broken almost from the start, so the stories become ever more separate.

This is exacerbated by some very poor directorial and editorial choices. From a slow- moving, deeply "tortured" scene we jump to a brightly lit comedic farce. The jumps are jolting and remove the emotional punch. Some character arcs are never fully explained (one suspects they ended up on the cutting room floor), so some of the characters make choices that don't make much sense.

The casting was excellent and the lavish sets and costumes up to the usual BBC standards. It's unfortunate that a potentially compelling story ends up trivializing itself and ultimately looking silly.

Great cast, great costumes, nice sets. Now if only the story were interesting!

Julie Marsden is a headstrong Southern belle played as only Bette David could play her. She seems forever on the verge of bursting; she never comes to rest. Henry Fonda stumbles along as the love of her life, but it's a mystery as to why.

The plot of the picture is extremely thin. It telegraphs its punches so that there are never any surprises. Not much actually *happens.* Julie's character is the only one with a real arc to it, but it all happens so quickly that we're not sure if she's even sincere.

Unfortunately, the picture falls into slow melodrama about people we don't know, whose characters and histories are barely delineated, and whose fate we don't care about by the end. Unfortunate.