Reviews

Booth troy made note of all the shows starring Jewish guys and Gentile chicks. I thought I was the only one who noticed this. He forgot "Ed." I'm guessing the reason is because this the fantasy for many Jewish director/producers in Hollywood.

There is some funny dialogue in this movie. But I can't overlook its flaws:

*Suzanne Pleshette as Fuerstein's GRANDMOTHER?

*The caricature of a Hispanic woman. I hear they are firing her, but it would be ridiculous to have a show based in Miami with only WASPs and one Jewish guy. I hope they at least replace her with a less stereotypical character.

*The male lead is not someone you WANT Dylan to fall in love with. He's pretty boring and not as good looking as her.

*There isn't a lot of chemistry between Dylan and the male lead.

If they're not canceling this show I hope they at least improve or revamp these aspects. Of course, these complaints go to the heart of what the show is all about.

This movie was so slow and repetitive. How many times do we see the swimming pool, the red pen, and the typos.

I don't understand how people find this movie original just because it features S&M. If this were a big budget Hollywood film depicting a woman falling in love with a man who gives her a black eye, people would call it sexist trash. But since it's an indie flick and the bruises are on her bum and not her face, it's oh-so-hip and trendy and kinky and wow, so r-o-m-a-n-t-i-c.

What a refreshing change to see such a witty comedy. The cast was excellent, especially Helena Bonham Carter who was outrageously wicked. But my only complaint is that it was too short. I wanted to see Helena's character work out the rest of her revenge plot.

I loved Levinson's Liberty Heights and was looking forward to Diner. But after 30 minutes of hearing obnoxious unlikeable guys talk about the most inane things, I had to turn it off. While Liberty Heights had drama, complex interactions, good humor and likeable characters, Diner had none of this.

Drugs are bad, but there's nothing you can do to stop people from using them. That's the message of the movie.

This is one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen

The only good thing I can say about this film is that it takes some courage to attack the government's drug policy. But otherwise I had a lot of problems with this film.

-The director tries to hit you over the head with his message. He has an agenda and uses the film to push it. I never like this even if I agree with the agenda. Art should take precedence over any message.

-This story is told from such a white upper middle class perspective. The government corruption is on the Mexican side NOT the U.S. side. The young couple in the beginning of course get ripped off by those sneaky Mexicans, a prelude of all the trickery to come. Those dirty b***ards. Young rich white girls are sleeping with black - YES BLACK! -men to score drugs. Oh the horror!

• Michael Douglas/drug czar has a daughter who gets hooked on drugs. Can we say contrived irony?

Is this really the same director behind The Limey and Daytrippers?

I give this movie a five, and that's being generous.

Doug Atchinson deserves much more notice than indie filmmakers like Kevin Smith, Ed Burns, and Tarantino. Here he has created a film with great casting, acting, dialogue, plot, and pacing.

What really makes this film gripping is DeGood's incredibly believable portrayal of a lonely, awkward, yet likeable young man.

I guess any show that depicts minorities runs the risk of stereotyping, but I think compared to other portrayal of minorities in the media, Leap Years is leap years ahead. I mean, consider wildly popular The Sopranos and Will & Grace and their respective portrayal of Italian Americans and gays. Or the portrayal of minorities on Sex in the City. Oh wait - they're all white because we know what a white town New York is.

I for one am glad that the black and hispanic characters are NOT portrayed as poor or lazy, but rather middle class, hard working and well educated. And the gay guy is not THAT arty. He writes screenplays, but he also becomes a therapist, and has a policeman boyfriend. It's not like he's an effeminate sounding interior decorator. And Athena is a diva performer, but she's also likable (at least I think so).

In fact, I find all of the characters intensely more likable and the format more original than the insipid characters and constant babble about vaginas/orgasms/breasts on Sex in the City. (No one is as annoying as Sarah Jessica Parker!). Or yet another mafia/lawyer/hospital show.

The characters are intellectual - I like that. The women don't act like they found their personal philosophies watching Maybelline commercials and Cosmo articles, and the guys aren't the product of NFL promos and Playboy.

How on earth did Sarah Jessica Parker get to be famous? She's hideous, uncharismatic, has little acting ability plus her character wears unflattering clothes and is intensely unlikable. (But of course bc SJP has a 12-year old boy's body and dyes her hair blonde she's considered a beauty. ) In fact all the characters. They're superficial yuppies who found their guide for living by reading Cosmo articles.

Now, I wouldn't mind a fluffy show about four women in Manhattan if the writing were better, but it's unbelievable that lines like "my vagina is depressed" is considered good writing. And why is it so unbelievably white? I mean is it that hard to find friends or co-workers who are not Caucasian in New York?

I caught this on HBO last night knowing next to nothing about the movie, I didn't even know that the main character is gay.

This is the great thing about having movie channels. While 80% of the films they show are utter crap, typical Hollywood fare, once in a while they show gems like this one that makes the price worthwhile.

This film impressed me in a number of ways- (****S p o i l e r A l e r t******)

1) First as a love story. The protagonist and his lover in the flashback scenes are so touching and romantic, making the main character's ache for his former lover that much more sad. 2)As a thriller. I had no idea where this film was heading, at first I thought the main character was a decent guy, than an @sshole, then just someone with a painful past. 3)It's portrayal of violence, and how violence can affect your life. I'm not gay, but I've always thought that losing someone because of a violent crime is the worst thing that could possibly happen. It's something that would drive me insane, I don't think I could ever cope with it. I disagree with the comment from someone who said that gays and minorities can only relate to this. Well, maybe straight white people like to think they're immune, but violence can affect anyone. A stright white male could have his girlfriend raped and murdered in front of him. 4) Last but not least I appreciated Matt Keeslar in those white shorts! Wow is he hot!

My only problem with this film is this major plot hole: would that homophobic murderer really not remember the guy whose lover he'd slain. Also, it's hard to believe that he could just walk about freely like that when someone knows what he looks like. Wouldn't he have been caught? Or wouldn't they have killed him too, as the only witness?

Natalie Portman and Susan Sarandon are both terrific actresses and deliver fine performances. But the script and directing are weak. Plot can be summarized as "Immature single mom moves with daughter to L.A. They fight sometimes. Mom likes glamour, daughter is studious. Daughter eventually leaves to go to Brown." Where is the character development? Sure, Portman realizes that her hometown isn't quite as idyllic as she once imagined, but I would think that moving to L.A. would result in interesting, visible transformations in these women, and it really doesn't. And what about teaching in L.A.? Shouldn't we have seen Sarandon in the classroom? How does she control a classroom that is much rowdier that in some small town in Wisconsin? And what's the point of having the cousin back home die anyway? Out of frustration with the tedious plot, I wound up fast-forwarding bits of the last hour of this film.

Some of the cinematography is good, but that's it.

Both Tom and Nicole gave awful performances. And WHY does it take her so long to complete a sentence? I think a movie about jealousy and the politics of sex in marriage is a superb idea, but in order for it to work we need to care about the characters, they need to be well developed. They are nothing but mannequins here. And there's almost nothing believable here, from Cruise flashing his medical license everywhere (how many MDs carry their license card? and is there even such a thing that fits neatly into your wallet) to his getting so wound up over Nicole's THINKING about cheating on him. And I agree with all of the posts on the hypocrisy of the nudity: WHY do we only see nude women??? I know the director is a man, but please, have SOME compassion for the female viewers. And seeing Cruise shirtless isn't enough, for me anyway, since I don't think he's very good looking.

As the violin spans several generations and continents, you witness how various people's lives are transformed by it, the sacrifices they make to hold onto it. It wields enormous power over its owners, or people who would like to own it. It's a clever idea, but by getting fleeting glimpses of various lives and time periods, you don't get to know any of the characters very well. The music and cinematography are beautiful but I need a strong plot and good character development to like a movie.

This is the kind of movie that I would have ordinarily RUSHED to the movie theaters to see. It's got all the right elements: it's dark comedy, a great female lead, a bizarre storyline...Yet I read reviews that the movie disappoints so I was in no rush to see it. But I finally saw it last night and wow was it great! What terrific performances, esp. from Genevieve Bujold. Posey was as delightful as ever, and even Spelling was able to do a complete 180 in contrast to her usual Bev. Hills type. The dialogue was so witty yet dark. It's a two night rental so for the first time I think I'll see a movie twice in two days! I give this movie a 9 - I would give it a 10 if it weren't for the very predictable ending.