Reviews

I took my 5 year old son to a festival screening of EYE OF THE DOLPHIN expecting a "family film", but it actually turned out to have a lot more substance than I expected. My son was captivated by the beauty and the dolphins, but I think (especially since now I know the MPAA rating is PG13) the film aims for a slightly more mature audience. I could see this film being great for teens and tweens.

Performances in the film were pretty good. I mean how can you go wrong with an Oscar nominee (Katherine Ross) teaming with veteran actors like Jane Lynch, George Harris, and Adrian Dunbar. On top of that the young actress that played Alyssa did an excellent job as the troubled teen turned good and I'm sure that she is going to be very successful.

Overall my family enjoyed the film. I'd mostly recommend the film for parents to take their tweens and teens to (it might go over the heads of little kids).

"Remember, remember, the fifth of November, gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot."

I've never read the graphic novel, but I don't think you need to read it to appreciate the movie. I saw the film last night at it's World Premiere at the Berlin International Film festival. Though it became a little weighty in the middle (one part seemed to drag a little) other than that it was a great experience. The story was so topical that I got seriously emotional during a lot of parts. Weaving did an excellent job with the mysterious title character "V", creating a poetic, intelligent, and compassionate yet ruthless character. Portman always seems to surprise me, except with her Star Wars character. She portrays tremendous emotional range and transforms completely throughout the movie. This is one of those movies that really sticks in your head long after you watch it though... and it continues to stir and grow.

I watch movies for a living, picking out which ones are good enough to distribute... Tossing aside those that don't make the cut. I'm not saying that I know more than anyone else based on this, I'm just leading you to how I came to watch "The Gospel of Lou"... Anyways... So many bad movies land on my desk and I actually sit through all of them. I don't actually "watch" everything, usually I just look over at the TV occasionally while I'm working the scan for production value, performance, and how well the story is being presented. If something catches my eye I'll take the time to watch it. "Lou" drew me in during the first few minutes where I closed my laptop and wheeled my chair over to the TV so I could completely tune in. Needless to say I was enthralled throughout the whole movie. The story is told well, the characters are either endearing or repulsive (depending of course on the actor and directors intention for the character) and all very well played. At times I caught occasional amateur mistakes in the camera work and editing, but the emotional nature of the story make these faults easy to dismiss. I've heard other people's comments say that at times the film brought tears to their eyes, other time extreme elation... I was laughing one minute and crying the next and was incredibly touched by this movie. Sadly I was unable to acquire it because I was - as the saying goes - a week late and a dollar short. That's the way it goes sometimes... but at least I had the pleasure of seeing this one and I can't wait to see what kind of response it gets. Good luck and great fortune to you Bret Carr (if you read this), you are without a doubt a talent to watch for.

I'd like to make a few points to einherjer9. First of all, it's obvious by his "review" that he didn't see the movie, but instead read the synopsis and made a judgment... Second, this is a fun movie to watch that does delve quite a bit into the historical "Vlad Tepes", more so than any other fantasy/horror film ever has. If he wants to see a historical film about the actual "Impaler" then he should check out "Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula (2000)", which I'm sure he would trash too. Last... This is NOT a "Hollywood" film in my opinion. "Hollywood" films are the big studio movies that are cranked out without care for much more the making money. "Vlad" was made by an independent production company, in the vein of when independent meant something, not in the sense of independent like Miramax and Dreamworks. "Vlad" was made for what studios pay one actor to appear for five minutes in a "Friends" episode... Yet it looks better than most $50 million dollar movies. So all I can say to our friend "einherjer9" is that before he trashes "the independent film maker" he should at least have the courtesy to see the movie.

I've read other people's comments and I'm surprised that a couple had so many problems with this movie. Vlad is the perfect mixture of historical fact and Romanian myth. It takes the whole vampire myth and returns it to it's rightful owner. Vlad Tepes was the basis of Stoker's Dracula and the vampire myth started in Romania and it's surrounding countries. I really liked how this movie didn't have the cinematic bloodsucker that we are all too used to, but instead had a tortured spirit that was doomed to wander the earth. The photography and locations are impressive (shot in the Carpathians) and the characters are believable. I'd definitely recommend this intelligent vampire story to anyone who is a genre fan, into historical pieces, or even just needs something to watch on a Friday night. I think that anyone who comes into this movie looking to see it for what it is, not some hack and slash horror film but a look into the historical Vlad mixed with a modern day adventure element, will enjoy the movie.