Reviews

I would just like to comment on uruguay's comment. I personally think that Ever After is not based on anything. Your idea about DIANE de POITIER (that's how it's spelled :)) is not bad, but I don't think that the lady in question would have been as good and idealistic as "Danielle". I think that Madame de Poitier was more ambitious than philosophic... Furthermore, a painting that is believed to be that of Diane de Poitier is seen hanging in the background in one scene of the film.

About your wondering if France had possessions in America back then, well, yes, Jacques Cartier, who is mentioned in the movie, had reached what is now Quebec in 1534. And back then, America was still the name of the entire continent... ;)

Historical details aside, I think that this movie is charming, if a bit sappy.

So far, American Beauty has had more good reviews than bad ones on this message board. But there is one constant negative reproach made to it, and it is the lack or originality of the story. And I agree that the Frustrated Man Going Through his Mid-life Crisis is not the freshest subject. But... to be realistic, one has to say that there isn't many truly original stories anymore, except maybe in sci-fi. And there is not two human stories alike.

As to the fact that Spacey and Suvari have a rather...risky scene together, I think that they are perfectly tasteful and relevant to the story.

Of course, this may not be the best movie of all times, maybe not even of the year, but it is a truly sensitive treatment of human despair and hope. And...beauty.

I read many of these reviews, and what is good is that nobody thought it was just plain (at least in the reviews I read). It shows that it elicited passionate responses. You have on one side the die-hard fans, those who adored it, and on the other side those who fear for those sacred family values. But that is exactly what this film is about. Working your *** off all your life, being recognized only by your outside appearance and enduring humiliations only to please your boss are not family values. What the screenwriter and the director wanted to show is that what is the most important in life is life itself. It may not be the most original subject for a film, but it's a perennial one.

To comment on the movie itself, I'd like to talk about my two favorite scenes. The first is when Col. Fitts goes to Lester thinking he (lester) is sleeping with his son (Ricky). That man is so miserable, when he tries to kiss Spacey's character and realizes he was wrong... It is so heartbreaking, that man trying to confide his gayness into someone. I almost cried at the poignancy of his despair. A lot of "closeted" homosexual persons will be deeply affected, I'm sure.

The second scene is when the young Angela goes to Lester to admire his new muscles. She visibly is in a flirtatious mood, and his very masculine, almost predatory reply frightens her. She was going to torment his middle-aged desire, and he responded like a man sure of himself, not like the pack of hormones of earlier in the film. I thought it was very accurate.

I just saw TPM, and I thought it was great cinema. And cinema it is: everything in there is so carefully imagined, you have to let yourself go with the flow to truly enjoy it. Which most people don't do. I think that this film suffers, up to now at least, from its own hype. People pretend to be so fed up by the merchandising that they go to the theater with unjust prejudice. I mean ,come on, stop examining every single scene comparing it to the others, and if you don't want to buy Queen Amidala sneakers at Wal-Mart, then don't.

As for the whole box office issue, I think that it is irrelevant. I just saw in IMDB that George Lucas does not think TPM will beat Titanic. You go, Mr Lucas, that's the spirit! People who were so hysterical about Titanic won't like it (Star Wars) for sure, because in their mind, J. Cameron's film is just the end of the world as we know it. But I think that we fans of George Lucas' exciting work should not worry about that.

I have one little reservation, in fact, and it's about the characters: somewhat, they are not as endearing as Luke, Leia, Han et. al. I think that Queen Amidala was curiously bland, but I don,t think it steals the movie's intrinsic interest. We have to remember that it is the BEGINNING of a trilogy. Maybe the characters will develop with time... As for dialogue, which some users found insipid, well, those of the first trilogy were not especially brilliant either, weren't they?

I just watched Elizabeth, for the second time and once again I was ...what would be the word...moved? Not in the teary-eyed sense, but in a way that makes you want to read more about Elizabeth I.

However, I have read other comments and two things occurred to me. First, that many people (brilliant scholars or erudite people whom I respect) pretend that "it did not look that way" or " it did not happen that way", such and such. Who are you to tell? History is not an exact science, it is a HUMAN way to try and keep in touch with the events that shaped the world we live in. Being interested in history and costume history myself, nothing STRIKE me as BLATANTLY anachronistic. I think that Mr. Kapur primarily wanted to illustrate Elizabeth's rise to power, not her entire reign, which would take several films. His film is an account of an episode of English history, not a chronic on life in Tudor England, hence the lack of filth and lice, as someone mentioned... The second element is a more personal one, that in fact came to my mind while watching the film: how could Cate Blanchett lose the Oscar to Gwyneth Paltrow, of all people?! Her performance in Shakespeare in Love was charming, no less but no more. I think that trying to catch the conscience of a queen, to make an illustrious historic figure come to life is far more difficult than playing William Shakespeare's (fictitious) love interest.

It was my humble opinion, and I wanted to share it with other IMDB users.