Reviews

Honestly, I'm too upset and exhausted after watching that to write a substantial review. As someone who's been put through this system and is waiting under the sword of Damocles to go through it again, this was a hard bloody watch. But I knew it was important so I made myself watch it. I was actually surprised how well they captured the process. So much resonated. It's very hard to put into words when you're going through it but there's this ubiquitous enmity from start to finish, regardless of the legitimacy of your claim, regardless of your circumstances. It's nothing less than psychological warfare aimed squarely at the working classes and the disabled who cannot win in this situation. I particularly like how they captured the disgusting Catch 22 aspect of this rigged process. Whereby all legitimate claims are cynically refused by default. Then they automatically switch you to jobseeker's allowance from which point they set the rottweilers on you to bully you into paid or unpaid work by a process of harassment and public humiliation. It's easily the most sinister process I've ever experienced. I was shocked and horrified by it. There have been many stories in the press about people who are patently unfit for work who have been deemed fit for work by these criminals. And they inevitably end up killing themselves. The UK took a sinister run when Thatcher took power. The country has never been the same since. It is no less than warfare on the working classes, the poor, the disabled, and the sick. It's about time we drove these crooked traitors out of their comfortable leather chairs in Westminster and gave them a taste of their own medicine. It's gone too far. Anyway that's more than I wanted to say. I can't fault the film. It crammed a lot in there to illustrate the problem start to finish and I salute Ken Loach for this very important piece of work. Great acting and cinematography. A special nod to the people who played the bad guys. That is hard to pull off. It sent shivers down my spine they did such a good job. Thank you Ken Loach.

I used to love Woody Allen movies. They made me laugh or think. They're so formulaic now though and always seem to pander to feminists. For instance, in this one, we're constantly getting it rammed down our throat that it's OK for women in marriages or relationships to have affairs with impunity. As we know though, when this is shown in reverse, the man gets crucified on screen. It goes without saying. Here though, it's all washed away like it's nothing and they're even somehow justified in doing so. So what exactly are we trying to say here, and why? What grated on me most though was that the perpetrator of the central crime is supposed to be an intelligent man yet goes out of his way to leave clue after clue after clue pointing to him doing it(including a book annotated with notes about said crime ON HIS DESK weeks after the crime was committed! hmmm likely!) so Stone's character can cunningly work it out and nail him. Then of course the predictable fight in which he loses and gets his come uppance. Man these stories really write themselves at this point. Yawn yawn yawn. As someone else pointed out the repetition of the "In Crowd" music dragged a little. Also there's a quality to the dialogue in these modern Allen films - just very unrealistic and hung off the plot points like so much bawdy tinsel. I find myself cringing at the forced exposition of it all. And why does there always seem to be some older guy having sex with some young woman in these films? Perhaps Woody living out a running fantasy on film, but does this happen much in real life? I don't think so, apart from exceptional situations of finance/power. So why keep flogging a dead horse? It's just creepy.

So all in all I wish Woody would stop trying to score points with feminists, and get back to good funny writing, cos that is what he did best. What he's been churning out since the 90s (at least) is safe cow dung aimed at affluent women and w#nkers.

I'll start by saying that I love Sam Shepard as an actor so I'm probably biased. Well obviously I am! So when I saw the trailer for this documentary I couldn't wait to see it. I was curious what brought together these two seemingly incongruous people, and why they kept up this correspondence like they did for so long. As Dark explains part way through, perhaps it's not their similarities but their differences that made it work. Or perhaps it's pure serendipity that threw them together into a living situation where they just had to get on and make the best of it, and then their bond was galvanised by tragedy before they went their separate ways. That's a pretty good set up for a lasting correspondence, especially when the two men involved are both prolific writers, one of which appears to have some form of either hypergraphia or at least obsessive traits. OK, spoilers imminent!... There's a painful irony in this documentary. On the one hand it's predicated on their friendship, or more particularly a publishing company requesting that they publish their letters, which means they have to get together for the first time in many years. On the other hand, when they do get together, after the initial "ah remember when's" wear off, they seem to get under each other's skin remarkably quickly, and it all goes downhill from there with fairly dismal results. So this raises questions about what friendship is, whether friendship can last, whether two people are really the same people any more given a long enough time apart, and whether people really present the real version of themselves in written correspondence, or a censored, sanitised safe version. And I suppose the tension makes for good viewing if you're into that kind of thing. I'm not, but fifty trillion Big Brother fans can't be wrong eh! Now I don't know the full story behind this. I don't know what either man is like in real life apart from the evidence on film here. And like I said, I'm biased. But I couldn't help feeling that this documentary was sympathetically skewed towards Dark's perspective. There seems to be a tacit assumption that the burden of blame lies with Shepard here. Yet that's not the story I saw between the lines. What I saw in Dark was a very particular man who was set in his ways and expected the world to fit in with that. On top of that he seems to have a bit of a loud old cough going on - sure not his fault, but annoying nonetheless especially when it cuts you off mid sentence. So all that could get old very quickly, but the documentary seems to frame it as Shepard snapping at poor old Dark non-stop, then giving Dark air time to complain about it in private afterwards. So I'm left wondering if Shepard had the opportunity to talk about it but declined for whatever reason, or if his comments ended up on the cutting room floor. It just doesn't feel very fair or objective to me and leaves Shepard looking like a monster. And like I say, that's just not the picture I saw between the lines so it bothers me. But of course, that could just be me projecting my expectations and bias onto the proceedings and the documentary could be presenting an accurate picture of what happened. I totally accept that could be the case. It's just not the feeling I ever got about the man and not the vibe I got from what I watched.

I think what bothered me most was Dark's comments to camera about Shepard after the fact, when he had nothing to say to his face. With friends like these ... And then he gets the last word, reading out his letter to Shepard, saying that he'll always be his friend despite these difficulties. Very touching but doesn't tally with what he said immediately before which implied the friendship was over. So if someone told me the editor of this documentary owed Johnny Dark money I wouldn't be surprised. Regardless of this thorn in my side, I did enjoy the documentary as it was an unusual insight into Shepard's life. I found him to be very open and up front about his failings and his negative emotions. and if his comments weren't censored, then fair play to him for keeping his criticisms to his friend's face instead of behind his back. In the absence of an answer to the above concerns I'm not going to mark the documentary down based on that, as I have to accept the bias here could be all mine. Overall, a must watch for Shepard fans, or those curious about the nature of friendships.

Main character didn't sit right. Just seemed a self centred brat who thought the world revolved around him. One minute a nasty little sh#thead, then all nicey nicey doting ont he housemaid. It didn't add up. Given the rest of his MO, I would've thought he'd be more likely to be the school bully than the touch feely housemaid empath. So I don't see the point of it. Just an unsympathetic main character who women seem to be unlikely magnetised towards and everything falls in place around. Some of the other characters were more interesting but it was all about this arsehole. And apparentley that is not enough lines so adding this padding. Wow that is poor IMDb.

Was pleasantly surprised with this. It's a simple one-on-one Q&A format, but cleverly cutting out the questions and the person asking them. You get to hear what comedians were like as kids, if people in their family were funny or if they were considered funny, how they first got into comedy, how their first gigs were, what their worst moments on stage were, and more; culminating in the eponymous question.

I started to list who I could remember being interviewed then realised it's a ridiculous number so please see the "cast" list for details. Needless to say it's a huge and varied list, and I think that's what makes this so good - so many soundbites from so many great comedians. And I wonder if anyone but Kevin Pollak with his connections could've pulled that off?

A couple of clips were taken from the Kevin Pollak Chatshow - e.g. Tom Hanks, Larry David - but that's just fine as they were talking about the same subject so it fits in perfectly well.

I truly think anyone who considers themselves a fan of comedy should watch this - it really offers some unique and intriguing insights into the minds behind the voices behind the mic stands.

This started out well, has some great elements. Michael C. Hall is great, , Rita is great, his nemesis is great, Doakes is great, his dad is great. But this whole thing quickly switches from being a stylish study of a serial killer living both sides of the coin into this weird feminist diatribe about grown women throwing temper tantrums to get their own way and men, including the serial killers mind, apologising to validate their bad behaviour. If you're gonna tell the serial killer story do that, if you want to make a series about women throwing tantrums and hating on men then make that, but why start out doing one then shoe-horn this silly nonsense into it and wreck it. You just end up with a ridiculous mess and it wastes people's time. The writer should be shot for this excuse for a story. Is anything in Hollywood immune from this disease? Can anyone just write a story without saturating it with some kind of agenda?

There's basically two ways to go when watching this film. You can abandon the real world and just watch it as a no brainer comedy, or not. I tried to do that, I really did, but they made it impossible in the end. The script wasn't great but admittedly there were a few funny absurd or vulgar gags that normally would've made this a half decent comedy. But what I ultimately found offensive about this was the ham fisted stealth propaganda I was having violently force fed down my throat throughout the film. What makes me laugh is the premise that the good ole USA, land of the free is taking out the evil leader of an evil totalitarian regime that brainwashes its people, yet this is exactly the kind of ridiculous propaganda you might expect from such a regime. And hell, maybe North Korea *is* all the bad things they make out; I can't say because I've never been there, and I rely on an objective media to give me an accurate picture of what that place and its government is like. Yet increasingly I'm getting the feeling I'm being fed a narrative via the western media that is hell-bent on delivering a clearly skewed and biased depiction of this place. Given the accuracy of the previous narratives we have had rammed down our throats about those other countries on the "axis of evil", forgive me for daring to step back and question if what I'm being fed is entirely accurate. And lets not forget the extremely delicate history of the region, similarly used like Vietnam as a proxy battleground between the US and the USSR/China in the cold war, as a result of which the place and people have been left horrifically traumatised and mutilated. Is it any wonder there is anti-western sentiment north of the border? But no, apparently we in the West are only capable of interpreting the situation as evil evil ridiculous evil people who are of course closet homosexuals and Katy Perry fans, being all evil and mean just for the hell of it, yknow, because they're all evil. If the history and current situation were not so flawed and grey and delicate, this might be a permissible throwaway giggle-fest, but given the real world we live in, it's a very ham-fisted stealth manifesto for a version of the world I am finding very difficult to believe in any more. And I don't appreciate the ploy of being slipped something disguised as just a silly comedy film that attempts to slyly ram such a message down my throat via the backdoor. I think the conception of this movie was incredibly ill-advised. It wants to be everything that Team America was, but lacks the intelligent writing that poked fun at all sides. I know this review won't win me any friends but I seriously don't give a toss - I found this so beyond laughably bad I had to write something.

Very interested and grateful to see the findings in Turkey, *but* really did not like the way they rushed to find answers as to what it all meant. Felt like they were blindly reaching for explanations as to the nature of these people, the reason for the constructions, their role in that group and even their role in the development of the human race. Perhaps there is supporting evidence for some of these theories, but without seeing/hearing it, it all smacks of fanciful ham-fisted conjecture For me, a documentary just showing/describing what they've found there with no attempt at neatly resolving it all would've been much more interesting.

Blown away how godawful this was after all the rave reviews and high rating. Sadly it's yet another Hollywood BS manifesto desperately trying to reverse sexual roles, making guys pathetic naive afraid little lapdogs having to request permission to breathe and women sexual predators of assumed greater worldly knowledge and maturity. They shout jump and the guy asks how high. Everything coming out of Hollywood that concerns relationships now is a slave to this toxic formula. I don't know if it's enjoyable/empowering for women but I don't see how it can be anything other than offensive and ridiculous to any straight guy. It's just transparent garbage that bears no reflection on the real world, though I'm sure it's how those churning out this garbage would just love to remould the real world. Shame cos clearly JGL and ZD are competent actors given a decent script and there was some real innovative ideas played out in this, and some great music to boot, but all just massively overshadowed beyond repair by this horrific story of this poor sad sap willingly being manipulated and treated like a piece of crap by this bizarre 2D controlling witch whose only driving force seemed to be to f#ck him up in the head for kicks. And anyone who's struggled out there trying to go from their plan B career to what they think they ought to be doing must've been mortified like I was at the 2 minute happy-dappy montage where he's turning himself out to job interviews. Yeah right like that's even gonna happen if you're saddled with a broken heart. I can only assume the screenwriter here has no actual real world experience of being a man, heterosexual relationships, or the 21st century job market. My god I thought movies like this were meant to entertain you, not leave you feeling like strangling kittens. This one should come with a health warning.

I'd heard some bad things about this but thought I'd check it out anyway cos sometimes hype is wrong.

First off it's well made, looks great, got some good people in it - Douglas, Wilson, Dillon, Hudson, Rogan, Hader. So it's not all bad - I think 1 star is a bit harsh.

I know it's "just a comedy" but even so ... I found myself feeling increasingly sorry for Dillon's character. In a staggering act of altruism he takes in his down-and-out friend right after he's just got married. He's not doing it for his benefit - it just complicates his new domestic situation and doesn't benefit him in the slightest. Does the wife support him in his charitable act? Hell no, she gets all judgy and stern about it.

His, presumably mentally ill, friend makes zero effort to keep a low profile or make it work but instead seems to go to great lengths to aggravate them both by pulling a succession of inconsiderate stunts. OK so you'd expect the wife to start having a problem somewhere along the line here and of course she kicks into higher gear rage and sternness - by the end of the film her husband is absolutely terrified of her. Hard to imagine how he could feel the same way about her after that.

Meanwhile, his father-in-law/boss starts to exploit the fact he's married to his daughter to manipulate and bully him in and out of work. This was all a tad hard to believe. The husband keeps it together remarkably well throughout all this but they just keep upping the ante, including his friends suddenly deciding to throw a party at his house when he's not at home and Dupree masturbating using his sock in their living room, while spending a conspicuous amount of time getting drunk with his wife.

By the end of this I just wanted to punch Dupree in the face, bury the father-in-law under his stupid housing development, beam Hudson back in time to an era when a guy wouldn't even ask before inviting his friend to stay, and take Dillon out for a hard-earned beer.

OK OK OK so I know I've gone and taken a comedy story out of context. I know that. I do. I'm not a total idiot. Regardless of that though, this was a very predictable weak comedy by any standards. The only bit that really raised a smile for me was the slapstick chase at the end. After the setup it was blindingly obvious Dupree was going to be a nightmare and the wife was going to get angry all the time. I guess the father-in-law thing could've been interesting, but it wasn't. Just not funny writing I'm afraid. Low hanging fruit, already been done to death better.

As usual in Hollywood movies, marriage is portrayed as men in indentured servitude to stern wives who they're afraid of and have to ask permission off for everything. What kind of a message is that? Fruthermore, there's just something altogether too perfect about the pretty people with their pretty house and boats. Unless the quality of the comedy is good, to me it just rubs my nose in an imaginary world I know is a lie and that I can never be a part of. The saccharin overdose only works if the script is well written. Otherwise it's just annoying.

As for all the Lance Armstrong references - well, that's just bad luck! So I think my three stars are rather generous but they're for the production values and some of the acting. The writer and Dupree's stupid face get a minus 10.

I'd heard some ripples about this and decided to check it out as I like DiCaprio. There was something a little off about it from the start - I've nothing against Toby McGuire as a human being and in some roles he seems a pretty decent actor, but I think he has that very distinctive kind of appearance that only really lends itself to very particular types of role - e.g. the jockey in Sea Biscuit. I don't think this was one of those roles though - he just didn't fit the character at all and some of the expressions he pulled were frankly a little embarrassing - maybe the director's fault, who knows. Simlarly I think Isla Fisher is a capable actress but she really didn't suit the part. Edgerton was better as Buchanan even though he too has an unorthodox appearance but I think he handled it well regardless. Clearly there was a bit of pro-Aussie casting going on here and it seemed a little unnecessary and misplaced given how many authentic American actors there are available.

What really murdered this film to the point where I had to turn it off was Baz Lurhman's self-indulgent attempt to remould an era he never lived in, but which the author did, in a dishonest way - an uber-flamboyant way, a way in which modern liberal values are rammed down our throats, and modern music grates against the action. I know some people will admire this artistic choice but I personally don't think that's what the author had in mind when he penned it and it made me nauseous watching it. Please don't mistake this for an anti-Luhrman rant - I absolutely loved his Romeo and Juliet and Strictly Ballroom. And yes the former was also a re-imagining but one which obviously replaced the entire context of the story with another, rather than splicing in hand-picked elements; a re-imagining which I believe the original author would've actually approved of, unlike this. No, I've absolutely nothing against Luhrman, but his judgement was way off here for me.

It's a shame - I was really looking forward to this, but Luhrman's choices made it a very esoteric affair that precluded me from watching it. As such I found myself stopping the movie at about the half hour mark, which is *staggeringly* rare for me to do. I wasn't going to leave a mark because I didn't finish it, but as I wrote this I realised the sole reason I didn't finish it was because it was so bad - in my humble opinion.

I'm going to keep this short.

I would normally steer clear of this kind of film as I find the saccharine formula hard to swallow. But this got such good reviews that I checked it out despite my better judgement.

I've got to say that up to about the halfway mark I was regretting my decision and I was getting a little tired of the perfect family, pleasantville, schmaltzy overdose. And while that still kind of grates on me on some level, it really just serves as a set up for the rest of the movie(the important part) so try not to be put off by that and hang in there, safe in the knowledge that the story only really gets interesting in the 2nd half.

I still don't entirely understand why this kind of thing is so touching but clearly it just is and I was crying like a baby by the end of it.

So if you've ever had a pet you love and need to evacuate your tear ducts then look no further.

Very sweet tribute to the bond twixt man and mutt.

For some reason I really wanted to dislike this movie. Exploiting a natural disaster to make a story with a happy ending. I'd heard good things about it though so I watched it.

Easy to be cynical or picky about something like this. If you're going to make a Hollywood movie about something so huge and sensitive that really happened, you're surely going to put a lot of noses out of joint and get a lot of flak whatever choices you make.

I too was slightly perplexed when I realised the family whose experience this story was based on was Spanish. I hate it when they mess with the details in true stories, yet I've come to accept that's how movies work. Besides, if the popular account is to be believed then it turns out the real Maria had a hand in choosing Naomi Watts for the part. The rest, I would imagine, is the studio trying to increase box office sales by appealing to a wider audience.

The only thing that bothered me slightly was how it focused on the tourists' plight while seemingly ignoring the plight of the indigenous population. Then I remembered I was watching a movie, not a documentary so they either make it about the one thing or the other. Lets face it if they did make a movie about the plight of the indigenous population, it would lose box office sales. Sad but true.

I do honestly think there's a danger of over-sentimentalising real life tragedies on the cinema screen. Great for making people weep en masse, but somehow surely missing the bigger picture. But if it rains you get wet, and if you go to the movies, you get sentimental half-truths with orchestral scores.

So all the factual hang-ups, moral implications and story choices aside, I think this was a very well acted film which makes you wonder what it would be like for you and your family to be caught in such a terrible event.

Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor were good as the parents. I guess Watts got the best screen time, but I thought McGregor put in one of his better performances of late. Particularly good when he was calling home.

The children were pretty good for children, especially the older boy.

It made me laugh when somebody complained about seeing a breast in this movie. My god - when you consider what it must have really been like there, and the horrific sights that would've littered the landscape, you get upset about a part of the human body being exposed? Really? What kind of reality do these people live in?

I don't know how they recreated some of the scenes but I thought they did an amazing job. Co-ordinating all those extras must've been hell. That was the best aspect of the movie for me - how convincing some of the settings were.

It all gets highly emotive surrounding the separated family, and there are some pretty gory scenes too so watch it with a box of Kleenex and a blindfold handy.

An all-round well-polished, annoyingly good(for some reason!), must-see movie. I wouldn't have thought you'd want to let kids less than 11 watch it, but barring that, good for the family - because that's what it's all about.

This film is a re-imagining of events surrounding The Treaty of Madrid in 1750 which formalised the transfer of Paraguayan territory from Spain to Portugal. Moreover, it focuses on the fate of the indigenous tribesmen who'd previously fled to Jesuit missions located within that territory to escape Portuguese slavers.

The film opens with a man dictating a letter. The man - Cardinal Altamirano, a papal emissary sent from Europe to meet with the Jesuits and slavers before deciding the fate of the disputed missions. The letter - a progress report to the Pope, recounting his visit and relaying his decision. As he begins to describe the events leading up to his visit, we are transported back in time to witness these events unfold.

Jesuit priests have established missions from which they strike out into the jungle to evangelise any indigenous tribesmen they encounter, risking martyrdom in the process. Meanwhile slavers, the antithesis of the Jesuits, prey on the same tribesmen in hope of capturing them and selling them into slavery.

We follow a priest and a slaver, Father Gabriel & Rodrigo Mendoza. At the outset these men are at odds with each other, but cruelest serendipity brings them together and eventually Rodrigo accompanies Gabriel to his mission to live among and serve the very people he once persecuted.

With the treaty already signed and the land transferred from Spain to Portugal, the Cardinal is sent to decide whether the missions are to remain under the Vatican's protection or simply be abandoned, effectively condemning the tribesmen living on the missions into slavery.

Caught in a "Hobson's choice" predicament, the cardinal quickly realises the right thing to do, yet it conflicts sharply with the church's precarious political dependencies. Protecting the missions will endanger the Jesuit order and betray the very church he serves. So the decision is all but made and his visit is nothing more than a perfunctory gesture.

This part is played well by Ray McAnally who for the most part conceals his true feelings and emotions, knowing they are unbefitting to his position.

The most interesting character is Rodrigo. His journey is a tragic one. Unbearable pain transforms him from monster to man of compassion but his new-found peace is short-lived. Threatened by the very forces he once served, he has to choose whether to stay true to the Jesuit way of love and allow the tribesmen to be slaughtered, or break his vows, and murder to defend them. A very cruel predicament to be put in after what he's just been through. One of DeNiro's best, and last great performances.

Then we have Father Gabriel. He embodies the love and compassion at the heart of his religion and people flock to him as a result - even Rodrigo and the otherwise hostile tribesmen are subdued. Jeremy Irons was very apt for this role, as if he believed the message behind the words.

The tribal chief was played well by Asuncion Ontiveros. On the face of it he could be just another tribesmen, but he exhibits this tacit authority, hard-earned dignity and an overt distrust of the outsiders that seems to befit a tribal leader in his position.

Chuck Low and Ronald Pickup have more one dimensional roles as the Protuguese slavers but they put in good performances nonetheless.

Liam Neeson, Cheri Lunghi and Aiden Quinn make brief appearances, but just not enough material to merit comment.

Personally, I would always rather see an accurate account of what happened rather than a crowd-pleasing or Oscar-winning fabrication. However screenwriters, directors and producers would probably argue that this is unrealistic because studios(and audiences to some degree) demand entertaining stories with heroes and villains, winners and losers, love interest, a moral or happy ending, and all within a very short period of time.

So maybe we need to learn that this is just how the movie industry works and stop expecting accurate history lessons from movies.

Long story short - we can take historical inaccuracies as a given in any historical film like this.

The direction and camera work is just superb throughout this film.

We have the signature scene of the film where a martyred priest is tied to a crucifix and sent over a waterfall. That one speaks for itself.

Some of the scenes where the cardinal visits the missions are absolutely captivating - the choir singing against the backdrop of virgin rainforest is unusual and breathtaking. At the same time it's somewhat disturbing that these tribesmen have been so far contorted from their natural way of life in such a short time. But then the movie is full of contrasts like this - love/hate, freedom/captivity, right/wrong, revenge/forgiveness, humanity/politics, violence/passivity.

The latter is played out beautifully in the scene where the mission is under attack and while Gabriel and his followers forsake violence in place of worship, Rodrigo and his band of men bravely attempt to thwart the imminent invasion.

One particular shot stood out for me - where Rodrigo just killed his brother. I'm not entirely sure how it's done but something to do with focusing on the main character and making the background loom up around him. It worked so well, evoking the terrible realisation of what he'd just done.

The film reminds me of Malick's Thin Red Line in as much as it doesn't just tell a historical story, but is also a fundamental examination of humanity, love and compassion in a brutal world. This duality works so well in these movies for me. What better purpose for a film than to make people think about this? It can be life changing to the viewer in a positive way if watched and understood with respect.

If it weren't for the historical inaccuracies I'd easily give this a 10. It's a brilliantly made and acted film that can be appreciated time and time again.

I wouldn't normally have left a review for this but stumbled on the shockingly low mark and was compelled to write something! What a sick joke this movie has such a low rating on IMDb. I have a sneaking suspicion it's down to the pathological Jim Carrey haters rather than based on the movie's merits. I'm giving it a star more than I would have otherwise as a protest vote.

I guess if a particular person in a movie annoys you that much then it's going to preclude it from being a good movie for you, *but surely* you can take a step back, and say something like "ah now wait a minute, that's just my personal dislike for an individual and it wouldn't really be fair to transfer that dislike onto any collective effort they happened to be a part of". What about the poor writer, director, other actors and the crew? I know I've made a big assumption there and it's possible people just didn't find it funny. I find that so hard to believe though - I've seen *a hell of a lot* of comedies over the last 40 years, and find the vast majority made from 1990 onwards to be safe, lazy and badly-written, or more recently trying to be zany or alternative and failing miserably. However I found this surprisingly well-written, well-made and brilliantly-acted(comedy acting, not Oliver/Gielgud!) and all-round compelling and bloody hilarious.

I think it's a great idea - the central character's minor misdemeanour at the start results in immediate payback in the form of a demented psychopath taking over his life. It gets pretty dark in a couple of places which somehow makes the humour work better.

Whatever you think of Jim Carrey, the range of stuff he pulls off on screen is incredible. Like a reanimated old Vaudevillian on PCP. I found him totally convincing as the lonely Walter Mitty/psycho who really just needs a friend and uses what he knows best to make it happen. Broderick is a born fall guy and effortlessly provides the anything-for-a-quiet-life victim, ill-equipped to halt the psycho's hostile takeover of his life.

There's also a micro-element of social comment on using people, friendship, the abuse of power, and the influence TV can have on a person's life. Tutt and scoff all you want at that, but can you honestly say there's even that much depth in any other comedies made now? So for anybody who doesn't hate Jim Carrey, please don't listen to all the negative reviews and give this one a chance.

A respectful and ambitious homage to a bygone era while simultaneously looking at how the advent of talking movies might have affected various people in the business.

We join the story when our silent movie star George Valentin is at the peak of his success. A chance accident throws a young unknown girl, Peppy Miller(a play on Penelope Ann Miller perhaps?), into the mix and before we know it she's in the movie business too.

The rest of the film charts how the new talking movies("talkies") thrust her into the limelight while simultaneously burying George.

Up until half an hour in I was thinking "OK very clever, but really what's the point of this silent movie approach?". Then it started to dawn on me why they may have gone this route, and it all becomes clear by the end. Sot the silent movie style not only pays tribute to the genre in question, but also provides a clever device/metaphor for describing George's trauma in the face of sudden marginalisation by the "talkies".

Jean Dujardin was excellent in the title role. He exuded star quality and charm throughout, while bearing a stunning resemblance to Gene Kelly. Bérénice Bejo was decent enough as his co star but somehow, and this is probably harsh, had a naive/showy aspect that didn't sit right with her character. I didn't care for John Goodman too much - he certainly looks the part but he seemed to lack the subtle range of mannerisms required to pull this off. Penelope Ann Miller and James Cromwell were good as the wife and driver respectively. I was sad Beth Grant didn't get a bigger part but only so many parts to go round here.

You have to admire the research, design, wardrobe, logistics that must've been required to make this. Hard to appreciate when it's all laid out in front of you for milliseconds at a time but I'd bet a hell of a lot of work went into this.

There's nothing too clever or original in terms of story - I suspect it was kept deliberately simple to provide a smooth, no-brainer build up to the denouement.

I avoided seeing this film for a long time because the silent movie angle really put me off - it looked like hard work. However it turned out to be a refreshing, clever story that was more charming and uplifting than hard work.

p.s. IMDb would not let me capitalise the title, displaying the warning "Please DO NOT SHOUT in your summary" - how petty and unnecessary?!

I remember my older brother calling me "Howard Hughes" when I was younger because I apparently washed my hands too much. I just wrote it off along with all the other name-calling you come to expect at that age. Hell, I didn't even know who Howard Hughes was anyway!

30 years later, I watched this film and it left a sour taste in my mouth. I noticed some similarities between some problems I'd been experiencing and what I was witnessing on the screen. I tried to find out what Hughes's affliction was, but couldn't find any correlation, so I left it at that.

Long story short, 6 months ago I discovered that I have OCD and have been coming to terms with it since then. The hysterical irony of it all is that a book I've been reading about treating OCD states that it is now widely believed Mr Hughes's affliction was OCD, a fact sadly absent from the previous research I'd done. So I guess everything comes full circle and I should've listened to my brother after all!

Living in a world where OCD didn't exist and you were either "normal" or "crazy", Hughes must have experienced a very special kind of private hell. Forget Melvin Udall in "As Good as it Gets" with his lovable quirks & snappy one liners; think more along the lines of a secret nightmare that constantly has you asking "why me?" and redefining the meaning of humiliation and loss. The cruelest aspect is that the harder you try to fight or control it, the more potent it becomes, until you find yourself trapped in inescapable cycles of abhorrent behaviour that you hate but cannot stop, which can consume whole days at a time, which can ultimately consume your life. So if you take a determined young tycoon circa early 20th century and gift him with OCD, well you'll probably end up with Howard Hughes's life.

Now I wouldn't expect any movie studio to fund a film that accurately depicted OCD. There would simply be too much strange & upsetting behaviour and it would be unwatchable for most. So I'm impressed Scorcese managed to include as much about it as he did here. Brave choice.

Quite possibly Dicaprio's best role to date, and I include J. Edgar, The Departed, Revolutionary Road and Shutter Island in that. Just the range of expression and emotion, much of it unspoken and under the surface. Assuming DiCaprio doesn't have OCD, it must have been hard to mimic with a total absence of the underlying mental processes that drive it. So he did a hell of a job. Incorporated into his performance was also the noticeable transition from youth into man, as well as a traumatised post accident Hughes. It wasn't all eccentric/OCD behaviour though, he allowed some of Hughes's non-OCD charm & personality to shine through which was a realistic touch. DiCaprio not getting best actor for this is as laughable as Cruise not getting it for "Born on the Fourth of July". A fine supporting cast including very believable scheming vipers from Baldwin and Alda.

The effects are absolutely stunning. Yes, I appreciate that the CGI is already dated but I personally don't get hung up on that stuff and I think it all still looks fantastic. The recreation of the aeroplanes and aerial sequences were exquisitely done. Likewise, the care that went into the set design and location scouting for the art deco clubs, offices, homes and washrooms gave this story the backdrop it deserved. In fact the work that went into wardrobe, makeup, furniture, and styling played a huge part in retelling this grand story properly. All this combined with the use of lavish colour breathed new life into a forgotten world, usually only viewed through a distorted monochrome or sepia lens.

My only dislike here was Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Katherine Hepburn. The Hepburn I remember from the movies was charming, vibrant and attractive. This Hepburn however was garish on the eye and awkwardly caricatured in speech. I suppose Kate Mulgrew(Star Trek Voyager) may have been a little too old to pull it off but she would have been an absolutely perfect choice otherwise. Now please don't get me wrong - Blanchett is clearly a very capable actress under normal circumstances and 11 out of 10 to her for effort. That's not the point though - what was required here wasn't acting, but an accurate impersonation and she was horribly miscast. This is a forgivable hiccup in a grand masterpiece though.

I thought it was testament to Scorcese's respect for Hughes that he made a point of showing how Pan Am and its political shills conspired to publicly destroy Hughes in an attempt to monopolise the airline game. This last portion of the film could *so easily* have been a freakshow about Hughes's descent into isolation or speculation about how he lived out his final years - it's the obvious crowd-pleasing move. We all know that in reality his life didn't end happily but this vindication and the flight of the Hercules reminds us that he did achieve some things he set out to do and wasn't quite the vilified freak they wanted us to believe he was. Classy touch that I thought.

All in all this is about as grand a picture as you'll get to see nowadays in terms of sets, resources, effects, acting, and recapturing a by gone age.

Seriously - the amount of research, work and attention to detail that must've gone into this masterpiece might have impressed even Hughes himself.

I have nothing but respect for Scorcese bringing this very difficult story to the screen with so much care, attention to detail and style. OK, so I guess I have a personal stake in this story but I still think it would be a disservice giving this anything less than 10 stars.

I will prefix this review with the fact that I'm not an expert on ancient Britain or the roman occupation thereof. That said, please forgive me if at any point in the following few paragraphs, I drift into talking as though I'm an expert on ancient Britain and the roman occupation thereof.

The Eagle follows the newly appointed commander of the 9th Legion occupying Britain in 120 AD. His father preceded him in this role but was lost, along with all 5000 men and the legion's golden eagle standard during an ill-fated trip north of Hadrian's wall. The shame of this haunts our hero and appears to be the driving force behind his following in his father's footsteps.

Now, as an expert on the Roman occupation of ancient Britain, I can tell you the accuracy of the fort and the roman militaria was spot on. OK well it all looked plausible. I know parts of the uniforms/weaponry were correct from old books/documentaries - e.g. the scutum shields, swords, the a unit moving forward using shields as a tortoise shell cover. I know there was indeed a tribe called the Brigantes in Northern Britain around that time. I know the basic shape/entrance of the roman fort was correct. The depiction of Hadrian's wall seemed to accurately match images from memory. All the Roman locations mentioned on the map were correct. So they'd obviously done some level of research. The rest seemed plausible ... well, up to a point anyway.

One thing that bothered me deeply, being an expert on ancient Britain, was The Seal People. Now I'm not saying that a tribe of Native Americans wearing grey fur coats and sporting mohawk haircuts *didn't* live in Scotland around that time, but I heartily doubt it somehow. This was a really odd choice and for me it immediately popped the believability balloon that had been inflating nicely up until that point.

Another thing that troubled me was accents. Now if you're making a movie in 2011 about people 2000 years ago who spoke Latin and god knows what language, and you're making the movie in English, the what does it matter what accent you use(as long as you decide on one definitive accent per race/tribe just to establish some distinction/commonality)? So I found myself at first impressed that Channing Tatum had gone to the trouble of learning an English accent, only to be perplexed soon after when Sutherland started reeling off his lines in his usual American accent. This gave way to discombobulation when Tatum's accent drifted back and forth between American/Bitish, finally landing somewhere in the Atlantic, and finally vexation when Mark Strong started talking in a mysterious mid-Atlantic accent. Do these guys not compare notes on that kind of thing before they start shooting? Maybe the director told them to do whatever accent they wanted and they just ran with it. Like I said, it really shouldn't matter, but it really didn't work for me.

The attack on the fort was well done. The story seemed plausible enough until the latter half of the film when our hero embarks on a personal mission to retrieve the golden eagle standard lost by his father, thus restoring family honour. No part of this was believable for me and it clashed with the first half of the film, almost as if written by two different writers. I think the set up was strong, as was the first half of the film, and it could've worked if he'd remained in his command and taken troops across the border, literally retracing his father's footsteps. And it couldn't have hurt if they'd tried to accurately depict the likely opposition North of the border. Does anyone really want to see something that's set in a real historical period, with half authenticity, and half wacky made up nonsense? OK so Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter suddenly springs to mind, but that's a particular deliberately crazy kind of genre where everyone knows it's made up nonsense from the outset and that;s the point. This definitely does not fall in the same category so if you're going to do it, aim to do it right or not at all in my opinion.

I know Channing Tatum has his detractors but I honestly thought he turned in a good performance here. Jamie Bell was decent too. Mark Strong and Donald Sutherland were wasted in uninteresting filler parts.

I do give this points for not shoe-horning in some tired sub-plot about romance between our hero and one of the Seal people, and also for not suddenly revealing his father North of the border. Those would have had me reaching for the off switch.

Unfortunately though, while filmed and acted well enough, the writing was what let this down for me. Decent foundations but just a weak follow through that I couldn't believe and didn't need to hear. I can't honestly say I'd recommend this to a friend.

Only mild/vague spoilers here...

I expected this to be a saccharine fairy tale following the usual Pixar/Disney formulas and exuding that Hollywood morality that can grind on adults. Nevertheless, I watched it anyway to see what all those good reviews were about.

OK so it did start out along those lines, but with the odd dark/adult curveball thrown in.

As the story unfolded though I found myself continually surprised as it touched on some very adult, tragic, and controversial themes, all the while maintaining a very tongue in cheek story book style. A hard balance, but they seemed to manage it well.

Towards the end of the film, it really starts to grab you by the scruff of the neck and slap you about. That's when you realise you've been suckered into thinking you're watching a children's story when really it was a pretty heavy adult dose all along.

The animation was extremely impressive. Like Wallace and Grommit on absinthe. While the lack of colour annoyed me a little, I understand why it was done that way given the ground it was covering.

Word to the wise: bearing in mind it has the look and feel of a children's animated film, personally I would most definitely not let children under the age of 14 watch this. Like I say it touches on some very adult/heavy themes and you could end up with some very upset, confused kids with some difficult questions for you afterwards!

All things considered, I was very pleasantly surprised with this surprisingly emotional wolf in sheep's clothing. I've got to confess that when I started watching this I was considering how bad a review I would give it, so hopefully that gives you some idea of the dramatic turnaround.