Reviews

The two main characters are good, interesting, capable policewomen. But Bailey is a train wreck in her personal life, to the point that she wouldnt have been allowed to continue in the job without serious psychiatric therapy. Shes exactly like her drunken whoring mother, except shes good at her job. I believe almost all of her problems, and bad decisions, were made while she was drunk. In real life, when her relationship with the lawyer was discovered by her boss, she wouldnt have been able to come back to work without some therapy to discover what the real roots of her problems were, and what changes she needed to rectify her problems. Putting up with her becomes tedious, and she needs to realize that she cant handle her liquor. This makes the show unbelievably unrealistic. I know the writers just wanted to make it dramatically interesting, but its ridiculous.

Along with writer/director Adrienne Shelly, Andrew Hollander co-wrote "Baby Don't You Cry (The Pie Song)." for the original movie. Which in my opinion is a better song than any of the songs by Sara Bareilles in this Broadway musical version of the story. I was really surprised, and disappointed, that they didn't include it. The songs by Bareilles, like "Sugar,flour,butter" were fine as far as moving the story along, but most of them werent something that you would go home humming, much less singing. Like most musicals, if you took out the songs you would have a 30 minute drama or comedy. A lot of songs in musicals, no matter how well done, are mainly there to pad out a thin story. This story is entertaining and touching, but at nearly 2 and 1 half hours long, its stretched a little too thin by the music. If youre thrilled by repeatedly having people belting out songs at the top of their voices, maybe its not long enough. I enjoyed the original film more than this version. To me, without really great songs, musicals are redundant. I recognize the talent involved in the performances, but you need great songs to make a great musical.

I liked this film. It wasn't great, but it was mildly interesting, and I watched it in 30 minute segments, so I wasn't bored by it being too slow. There are a lot of books that are basically crime procedurals, showing how criminals and police work and thinks. Movies like "The Day of the Jackal" come to mind. This film isn't that good but worth watching once or twice. I especially liked that each time He changed his ID or credit card, the names He used were TV character names like Sam Malone, from Cheers, or Robert Hartley, from the Bob Newhart show. I didn't count how many He used, but I would guess it was over 10 different TV character names, and no one in the show ever noticed or mentioned the detail. Clever, and humorous. I didn't see any other reviewers mention this, Were they not aware?

Oh Hubris, hoisted by your own petard. Violence begets violence, Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The first thing Michael says to Kay is Thats not me, thats my family. Oh self denial and delusion, of course thats Him too. Michael commits double murder to protect His father and His family. This leads indirectly to the murder of His brother Sonny, and His first wifes assasination, that was meant for Michael. This was the last straw in Michael's decent from innocence to degradation. His acceptance of violence to solve His problems is directly due to His fathers acceptance of violence, and ultimately His deception and lies lead Him to lose His second wife, Kay, the estrangement of His children, and to even killing his own brother, Fredo, the final decent into megalomania. This is what it all comes to. He loses everything that He loved, and wanted to save. This is one of the greatest films, a story very well told, and it's so sad! You cant turn away.

I remember when not wearing a Bra was a political statement, Ah, the good old days! I really feel like the lack of much story led to the main characters running in every other scene to pad out the running time. With a Harvey Milk type politician,Lucy Ball, William Holden, and Jon Peters I kept waiting for a story to involve them with the lead characters. But it didn't develop, so they just ran around some more. The age difference wasn't believable, and it was distracting. Mostly boring.

The snake is where this series jumped the shark, just ridiculous! Walt is much more funny in the books, here He's just grim, and unrealistic. So determined, but closed minded. No wonder it was cancelled.

The interesting relationship in this film isn't between Randolph Scott and Maureen O'Sullivan, but instead is between Scott and Richard Boone. The plot is fairly ludicrous, but it's entertaining to watch these two butting heads. I mean Boone is ruthless enough to kill a child that would be no threat to Him, but leaves Scott alive, when He is the only character who might be a danger to Him. Boone decides He wants the money for Himself, but comes back to face an unnecessary challenge, when He has the money. Plot holes be damned! It's fun anyway.

I like Sandra Bullock better in dramas. The word of mouth on this film made me want to see it, even though it didn't look that good from the advertising. I wanted the fun and cleverness of Romancing the Stone, and the archeology of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I was greatly disappointed. I've never thought Sandra Bullock was very funny. She's not funny here at all. She's nearly twenty years older than Channing Tatum, and I thought there was no sexual chemistry between them. The unexpected appearance of Brad Pitt suddenly made the film much better, unfortunately it was only a cameo, that just as quickly ended. Over all just lame and boring.

I came across this, and had never heard of it before, but was interested because both Teri Garr and Sam Elliott are pretty good in anything, and have been for years. Also Garr was supposedly the main character of the story, which was highly unusual for her. Even in some of her biggest roles, like in Tootsie and Young Frankenstein, she was nowhere near the main role of the film. So that piqued my curiosity. So I was somewhat surprised when the biggest part of the story was Sam Elliott's' character. They play charming and humorous criminal investigators, and are appealing, but I didn't think there was very much sexual appeal between them, which they needed to be successful like on Moonlighting. It's kind of fun to imagine what might have been, if it had been picked up as a regular series, but oh well. It's appealing enough to watch maybe once every few years, especially to remember Ms Garr when she was younger and not ill.

The first person narrative of the killer, about His thoughts and motivations to kill, is very much the same as Joe in You. Chilling and fascinating. James Bolam is quite eerie as the old pro serial killer. Not a great film, but worth seeing once.

This film was fairly entertaining. I enjoyed the relationship with the teenage girl as pseudo father and daughter. I was glad that the young girl was never threatened. Often, in these type of stories, if there is a character in the film, they must end up being part of the suspenseful plot. Here it was just part of coloring the main characters personality, and it works. I do wonder about the title of the film. Other than a mention that the 2 protagonist grew up in Virginia, the story and location had nothing to do with Virginia. In fact the exterior shots of the small town were shot in Canada. It was very scenic, and Its' location was never pinpointed in the film, but it certainly didn't have anything to do with Virginia. So it makes you wonder if they came up with the title, and tacked it onto the story, regardless of where it was taking place.

I really like this film. Just as I like "The Remains of the Day", and "Downton Abbey". But... to me this film is nearly ruined by the bumbling police inspector, who I guess is supposed to be humorous, but who sticks out as a character from some other story. Until this ludicrous inspector starts stinking up the scenery this had a been a serious class conscious period piece. The actors had been doing a very good job of playing these stunted English people with their stiff upper lips firmly in place. Then Stephen Fry (it's not his fault) comes in playing a policeman to stupid to be believable. To me it just marred the story, that had been highly entertaining in it's Upstairs Downstairs vibe. Julian Fellows got it right next time without Altmans' buffoonery.

John Ford regularly had humor in His films, even though most were action stories, like westerns. Many of these had John Wayne in them, and He could be funny. But this is a straight up Romantic Comedy, set in Fords' love letter to an Ireland that no longer existed, but is fun to watch. Wayne made very few films that were considered Comedies, "Without Reservations", with Claudette Colbert, being one of the few exceptions. But this film is a sentimental, pleasant, Funny Romance with the beautiful Maureen O'Hara. Enjoy! Don't get too wound up by the casual misogyny. In the historical period of this story Women were often treated like possessions. This is only historically accurate, not a endorsement of the behavior, which Waynes' character found ridiculous.

I enjoyed the performances in this film, and it had a interesting story that kept my attention, with likeable characters. This tension of the story was built around whether the family could make a success financially of a small farm, and with learning to fit into the local culture. However, I didn't like the way that the Mother seemed to change her attitude at the end of the film, for seemingly no reason. It seemed that they were going to squeak by and sell their produce, after finding out that their son was improving physically, when there produce was ironically burnt up in a fire, just as they arrived back home to see their plans go up in smoke. The mother had been pessimistic through the whole film about their ability to be a success, and had even told the father that she was going to leave. So why then, at the end when all was lost, was she out in the field holding hands with her husband, while they were divining for water? This seemed like an out of character, feel good, tacked on ending. It didn't seem to fit with her attitude in the rest of the film , and left me with a unsatisfied feeling.

Why would you take the killer to his house, before taking him to town, when you know a posse is coming after him? Why would you allow the killers' daughter to tag along, someone who obviously would try to help him? Why would you decide to go the long way, through killing desert, instead of making a dash for town before the posse could catch up with you? Why would you hole up in the rocks but leave your horses, and water exposed to gun fire? If the father may be innocent, wouldn't you suspect the brother sooner? It's hard to enjoy a movie, even with actors you like, when you're repeatedly saying to yourself, "That would never happen"! Not very well plotted, the script needed a serious rewrite.

I enjoyed this film. The growing relationship between the man and the girl is sweet and interesting. The film is somewhat episodic as they experience difficulties on their trip. My big gripe is that the part of Texas they are traveling through looks nothing like this. Many films are made in New Mexico because of financial benefits that Texas doesn't provide. "No Country for old Men", "Hell or High Water", and this film all look great, but "News of the World" was supposed to be in North Texas down through Central East Texas. The Dallas area is rolling black soil grassland with numerous rivers and creeks surrounded by large woods. It's farmland famous for cotton production. It's not desert. The Eastern half of Texas is Wooded with streams. Before cotton, cattle, or oil the first major cash crop to new settlers was lumber. San Antonio is on the Eastern edge of the Hill country, where there are hills separated by valleys with rock bottom, clear running streams, the most scenic part of the state. West Texas is dry desert, but that isn't where this film is supposed to be taking place. From John Ford filming in Monument valley, to Lonesome Dove, Texas is too often depicted unrealistically, geographically. It's annoying.

I really enjoyed this film. Pleasant is the word I would use to describe it. It has some action, but mainly it's a character study of a cowman who is getting a little old to be called a cowboy. This film is full of a lot of character actors doing a good job of being realistic to the time and place of the story. Even the bad guys just seem like men who aren't necessarily evil, they've just made some wrong choices and are having to see where their trail will lead. I do wish there had been a few more scenes between Conagher and Evie, developing their relationship more a bit. The kids especially impress with their ability to portray grief for their father, in a realistic and believable manner. This story is very like Louis L'Amours' "Hondo", which was a more entertaining film, but not quite as realistic in many ways as this one. So, I was glad to stumble across this, and expect to enjoy watching it every so often, and recommend it to you.

This film probably won't be enjoyed much unless you're a baby boomer. It's not hilarious, but is gently humorous, and brings back memories of what it was like in the 50s, and early 60s, before so many of the great cultural changes of the late 60s. A lot like "Father of the bride", but not as much. For one thing it reminds me of family vacations that we went on every summer, that I wasn't able to take my own family on in the 80s and 90s. Whoever had time off from work at the same time that you had enough money to actually go and do anything? A big regret, those family vacations are some of the most treasured memories of my childhood. Also, I first saw this film in a local theater. My family usually only went to 1 movie a year, to celebrate my mothers' birthday. Usually it was a Disney film. I'm sure my parents thought this was a family friendly film. I'm sure they were a little surprised when this movie had 1 "Damn, 1 Hell, 1 Oh God!, and 1 "Sun on the beach". My mother had been scandalized by Rhett Butlers' "I don't give a damn". But those words didn't register with me back then, and I was a little too young to get the adult humor of the story. But now I enjoy seeing this film every once in a while, just to be reminded of the way things used to be.

In this film a woman who is bored with her life finds unexpected currents leading her in new directions. Problem is she doesn't know where she wants to go, or if the new direction is leading to something better. This reminds me of the movie "Fried Green Tomatoes", where a bored housewife changes her life by being inspired by the stories told by an old lady, in a nursing home that she is visiting. She changes her life and drags her husband along to a better life. So it seems that Agnes in Puzzle just needed a lady to guide her into making changes that might include her husband, instead of abandoning him. Her aunt fell down on the job, if only Agnes had lived in the South. Oh well, maybe things will work out in Montreal. We feel for Agnes and her dilemma, and the story is interesting, and well acted. But some one should have told her that things can get better, without tearing your life apart. Where's marriage counseling when you need it?

I really liked this film, and I have come to look for films with Irrfan Khan, whose face is so effortlessly expressive. My only gripe is that the story seems to bypass so much that could have been told in detail. It seems like a stone skipping across the water, only hitting the high spots. From other reviewers I understand that the novel is much more detailed,as would be expected,and I plan to read it soon. Also the films advertisement, at least in America, focuses on Kal Penns' character, Gogol, while the film is really about the whole family, especially the mother, Ashmira. This isn't surprising, but is somewhat misleading. Overall a very enjoyable touching story, well done.