Reviews

Vincent Canby, the late Times (NY) film critic, listed this as one of his 50 favorites. I suppose it was ground-breaking at the time, but several elements are jarring today, starting with the "silent movie" opening, the overbearing narration, and the farcial set-pieces.

The technical quality of the HBO (US) distributed DVD is the worst I've seen.

Disclaimer: I was too lazy to read the six-volume original novel.

If literary adaptations are your thing, I daresay the BBC/Channel 4/Granada TV series are much better.

Likewise, if 60's European cinema is what you're after, try "Blow-up" for starters...

It's sharp to the point of discomfort. In the first two scenes, we have a song that's an extended Gay in-joke, (am I the ONLY reviewer here that's figured this out?), a commentary on how Children's TV shows in the USA are seamless commercial advertisements, the bribery scene that echoes a multitude of show-business scandals (Payola, Pee-Wee Herman, etc).

This movie has a cynical mindset found more in Britain (Pinewood?) than Hollywood. Perhaps that's the source of the widespread negativity among American audiences. Maybe they just don't get the references in `flyover country' – sort of like Jay Leno's joke about McDonalds being open for breakfast. I rented the DVD and found it engaging, especially the outtakes and commentary section.

Edward Norton is shaping up to be his generation's Dustin Hoffman – the man that can play anything, no matter what.

I saw this movie despite it's mixed reviews here. I found it's honesty, sharp dialogue and lack of sugar-coating refreshing. It's a telling document of what people SAY they want versus what they REALLY want. The most interesting parts of the film is are scenes where Campbell Scott's character (Rodger) astutely and quickly divines and articulates the essential truth about people's motivations and actions and is roundly shunned. Something almost approaching Moliere...

Given the rancor stirred in the viewers here, by the title character, the director hit a vein of essential truth himself.

The movie was shown in one of the revival houses recently. One of the best things about the movie is a glimpse into Britain's past (Industrial Newcastle, Swinging London, a time when British films had their own voice and language, not as trans-Atlantic Hollywood knock-offs). Many previous posters have mentioned dated elements in the film, but I look at them as virtues, not flaws.

Despite a slow start (spent establishing the characters and place), the film rushes towards a glorious, violent climax as Caine, as the title character, discovers how and why his brother was murdered, and exacts a chilling revenge on those responsible.

The story aside, I especially enjoyed the details and elements of the setting (fashions, cars, pubs, rituals, racing, social strata) that the director and photographer captures. (q.v. 'Kitchen Sink' realism)

Many people have mentioned the phone-sex scene that's worth the price of admission alone - my high point was the hilarious farce of Carter confronted by two enforcers while in bed with his landlady. This is one of the first times in many years where I've laughed out loud in the theater.

I think (disagreed by many) that Caine does a terrific job of portraying a hard man in a harsh world. He's the quintessential English lead - stylish, charming, unflappable, able to exude menace and make good on it. For those who compare the film unfavorably with Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, et al., I pity you.

Given the exhaustive and thoughtful review by the previous poster, I won't be redundant. This movie contains one of the best lines I've ever heard: As Nelly rides away with LouLou on his motorcycle, Andre poutfully spouts (rough english) "But you can't discuss books with him!"; Nelly replies "I don't discuss books, I read them!".

Priceless.

"2001" was a conceptual, technical and visual masterpiece. It's thought-provoking and unique. OK, a bit hard to follow the first viewing, but watch it a couple of times. It's worth it.

My opinion of "2010" is it's totally predictable Hollywood "product" that's a high-budget rip-off of a "Star Trek" episode - right down to the "quirky" characters, "exotic" crew members and bump-laden crises. I've had other people say, "Yeah, but it makes sense". Sci-fi is much of the time not *supposed* to make sense - you're trying to imagine the future, to stretch people's perception of the possible.

This is not to be negative or spiteful, just to save those who expect anything similar to 2001 from disappointment.