Reviews

Once Upon a Time in the West is one of my favorite movies, so I was looking very much forward to see this one. De Niro's acting is impeccable in this prohibition time film and there are some really beautiful pictures, especially in the episodes showing the youth of the gang. As usual, Leone moves forward slowly, concentrating on details. The movie, by jumping back and forth between past and present, develops a complicated story you wonder how it is going to end and tension is slowly building up. But then the riddle is solved, and you sit back, wondering how the director could ever have tolerated such an ending. It is incoherent, incredulous, even absurd. I was completely disappointed when the movie ended.

While I agree with other users that the story has its flaws, I wouldn't go so far to say it is dull. The filming, on the other hand, is stunning, and the acting impeccable. Paul Newman is just perfect (as always, I'm tempted to say), Hanks' acting is great, and I'm sure this isn't the last we've seen from Tyler Hoechlin. Excellent filming and acting have contributed to a great film.

This is one of the movies I would not want to have missed. With the movie telling a story rather modestly and calmly, it is difficult to tell why that is so. The most important of the reasons why this movie is important to me is that it bears a message behind the story, demanding from us to lead a meaningful life, and purveying this message to us very naturally and by no means imposingly. And then there are the beautiful landscapes and the great cast. Damon and Smith are an odd couple, but play their roles impeccably. And Charlize Theron, with her Southern brawl, is simply irresistible.

A couple of years ago I stopped reading the book because it is so boring. This is definitely not Mr. Le Carré's best. Now I was intrigued to find out whether the film was any better. Well: I don't think so. The plot remains dull, and the story is a laugh. If it weren't for the acting of Brosnan and Rush, this would be a complete failure. And good acting alone cannot save a bad movie.

I cannot understand why a movie with such a poor plot, so badly filmed (with long sequences dimly lit, for example) and acting that is everything else than outstanding can reach the top 250. This movie is grossly overrated.

It was late on Friday evening and I was tired, probably too tired to get up after 30 minutes of the film and turn the DVD player off. The story is not much, really, and neither is the acting. Wahlberg has none of the charisma necessary to play a hero. Finally, the ending of the movie is the worst one can think of, defying all logic.

Newman is acting just perfectly in this small town movie in his role as a 60 years old man who has not achieved much in his life, but begins to realize this when his son, whom he hasn't seen since he left his family, shows up with his kids, Newman's grandsons. The complicated (or maybe not so complicated) married life of Willis and Griffith add to the plot. Some quite witty scenes and lines make you laugh heartily, although the film's general tone is more on the serious side.

I cannot follow the praise of that movie by other viewers. Unlike his later works (such as The Circus, Modern Times, Citylights) the plot is thin and not well writen. The directing has many flaws, the scenes often ending abruptly with no clear link to the following. I love Chaplin films, but this one was disappointing.

"The Getaway" builds up tension from the very first pictures showing Doc in jail. Tension is, together with the psychology playing between Doc and his wife, an element as important as the action. This makes the film much denser than just any action movie. Add to that the artful shots, the care for detail and the witty scenes and you have a perfect movie.