Reviews

Excellent drama filmed in CORNWALL, based on the novel My Cousin Rachel by Daphne du Maurier. Well-acted with interesting supporting characters and lovely settings with a good build-up of tension and suspense. Rachel Weisz is pretty riveting to watch. It may seem a bit slow to some viewers not patient enough for a sophisticated period drama, but it's actually well-paced and rich in mystery as well as colorful and charming local details. Some of the panoramic scenes on horseback may remind a viewer of the recent Poldark with Aidan Turner, also set in CORNWALL.

My husband and I saw this so-called Bond film, and while we both appreciate Daniel Craig as an actor, we do not think he is James Bond in any way. We adore Judi Dench and thought she was great, and we are sorry to see her go. I for one was not so sure that the fine actor Ralph Fiennes is a good substitute for her. Javier Bardem was suitably menacing as the villain. In this film there were way too many echoes of The Bourne Identity and Jason Bourne, which is too bad because because that Bourne series is much more clever and innovative overall, but this film seemed like "The Boring Identity" to us. While the ending was somewhat spectacular, we felt that the whole Skyfall back story was not very well done. It looked like Wuthering Heights. We were amused at least to see Voldemort and Mrs. Malfoy on a political panel together!

My husband and I really enjoyed this quirky and charming film. We thought the acting was quite good all around, especially the lead kids. The locations are wonderful. The plot is wonderfully twisted and strangely fascinating. It has intriguing background "bits of business" that are fun to watch. It made us think of a dysfunctional American Harry Potter and Hermione Granger together in love at last on their own adventure, running away from their prescribed roles. Sam is even an orphan. Suzy's parents aren't both dentists, but they are both lawyers. All of the great adult actors in odd and amusing parts even seemed like the litany of British actors who filled up the Potter movies. We wondered about the books Susy read aloud (she seemed like Wendy with the lost boys) and who wrote them. We can hardly wait to see it again, and to see the DVD when it comes out, so we can slow it down and look at it like a storybook.

Although we had not read the book, we wanted to like this movie, but my husband and I spent a lot of time during it feeling bored and restless for some reason. He is a horseshoer and for one thing was not impressed with what the film said was wrong with that poor horse that was supposedly going to "founder." Then also the pacing of the film seemed a bit static, and so was Reese Witherspoon's acting. Pattison certainly has potential and a good strong screen presence. The ring master part was played with great intensity, so that character was compelling to watch. And many of the bit parts were very good. But mostly we thought the charming elephant was the real star and deserves an academy award.

My husband and I were intrigued by the title of this film because he knew that the concept of the "sin eater" was an old Welsh custom, and we were also interested in Appalachian stories. We did not know when we ordered the film that it was from "Fox Faith" and that it is basically evangelical Christian propaganda filmed in Utah. We found some of the acting to be earnest, but other than that the film was unconvincing, offensive, and trite. My husband teaches Welsh, and the film's "Welsh" accents were pathetic. And the idea that the Welsh settlers in 1830 to 1850 Appalachia were just superstitious Celts ignorant of the Bible and Christianity, and lacking any Christian values and virtues, is totally false, misleading and just plain bad history!

This was an enjoyable Western for both my husband and myself, but particularly for him as he especially likes the books of Robert Parker. He was impressed with the fidelity of the movie to the book and liked the scenery and acting. I thought it was a pretty good film, but was not as impressed with Ed Harris's acting for the most part as much as I expected to be. I kept "seeing" him step back into scenes after setting them up as director, or conferring with someone on the script. Jeremy Irons was surprising in a Western, and suitably villainous but complex as well. I thought Viggo Mortensen was perfect in his role, and quite low-key but strong. There were subtle undercurrents in his acting that made me think of "Brokeback Mountain." We both felt that Renee Zellweger did an adequate job, but was also a bit troubling in the role. Like was she really up to it? We both decided we were trying during the film to think of who else could have played this role? I thought of Diane Lane right off. We would see the film again.

I think this is an exceptional film, with some fine acting. The acting for the most part is underplayed and complicated by some more subtle nuances than many of us are used to seeing. The characters do not woodenly represent good or evil; they often give many mixed messages, and intentions might be good but are provocative to others as well as the audience in the actions shown. Some of the characters are very clear, and quietly and sensitively played. These are not the typical "noble savages" who crowd some Hollywood portrayals; they represent real and suffering people who, each in his or her own way, struggle with inner demons and addictions, like the rest of us, and for the most part try to do the right thing. The characters portrayed who don't seem to care about doing the "right" thing, or care about the rights of others, seem like they are possessed by hopelessness in their destructive actions. They feel trapped in a bleak and seemingly hopeless environment; this is a third-world cultural inside of our very materialistic, greedy American society. The unusual sense of humor, and enduring familial love, and attention to Native American spiritual practices, that come through despite every obstacle, violence, and frustration are the keys here. This film has a different, but intense, cultural point of view that we might be unfamiliar with, but that makes it stark and compelling. The director's commentary and extra features on the DVD are worth listening to/watching as well.

"Good Night and Good Luck" is a timely lesson about honest and brave journalism in the '50s, personified by Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly in a dark time in our history. The film is effectively shot in black and white for verisimilitude. The staging and pacing were also very effective in telling the story. I was especially impressed with David Strathairn's acting as Murrow, supported by George Clooney ( who co-wrote and directed) as Friendly. Other actors and actresses did well in their roles, also, such as Frank Langella and Jeff Daniels. A few parts seemed a little obscure to me, but did not detract from the essential story. The use of actual newsreels of the time was interesting and useful in setting the scene. While this movie may not be everyone's cup of tea as entertainment, I think it is well worth seeing on the big screen.

This is a weird and compelling film. The topic, about the atom bombs created at Los Alamos, NM in the USA and used on Japan during the latter part of World War II, is huge, and of course deeply disturbing. The film's plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. I had never seen the film, or was much interested in it I have to admit, until I read the book "Smoking in Bed: Conversations with Bruce Robinson." Robinson wrote the story and screenplay. I think the film was better than I expected from reading Robinson's point of view in the conversations about it, but I can see how he thought it got derailed. I think Paul Newman is pretty good, but is somehow at bottom, miscast. He's too Hollywood. At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. The other lead, who plays the head scientist, is also fairly good, but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part - the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. One of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality, played by John Cusack. He is oddly affecting throughout, and in the end, is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200,000 Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This film is a subtle charmer. The acting is wonderful and worth watching several times, especially the character of Pauline and how she interacts with all the other characters of the film. Watch her eyes. An amazing portrayal. While the plot may seem simplistic to some viewers, it is not without its own form of dramatic tension and compelling comedy. The colors of the sets are interesting in conjunction with the character development. The music chosen for each scene is interesting and idiosyncratic. I was reminded of the Norwegian film "Elling," as well as some elements of the Canadian film "Strangers in Good Company." All these films have a real breath of fresh air that is palpable.

Helen Mirren is always a joy to watch as she gets her chops around a part. I think she had fun here tramping skillfully through several cultures, costumes, and accents. It looks like she can sing, too. The Irish bit got lost along the way, however. The house and scenery are great wherever we are. And there are some pretty good supporting players on the trip. I think the writing on the initial screenplay sounds like it was good, from the featurette on the DVD, but somewhere along the road, either in the directing or the editing perhaps, something essential got lost. My willing suspension of disbelief went with it. Nice try, sort of fun to watch, except for Nero, who should burn with shame for his hamfisted acting. Why would Helen ever fall for him?!

This is a clever, interesting movie with great acting, but at the end of it all it seemed contrived and pretentious. It's trying too hard to be mind-boggling. Both my husband and I felt sort of jacked around when it was over. We didn't think there was any great spiritual depth given to any of the characters. The film doesn't have the integrity of films such as "Before the Rain" or "Memento" although it tries hard and certainly has some value. I am surprised at the intense reactions some people have to this film as though it's earthshakingly new in concept. It seemed to me like a young student's film, from someone who has just discovered existentialism. I wasn't as impressed with Benicio del Toro as I had expected to be. We thought he was better and more impressive in the film with Tommy Lee Jones.

Before seeing this film for the first time, I was already familiar with the brilliant CD of the music. I had some idea through the music of what the film portrayed, but was somewhat put off by the three hours devoted to a movie about the Balkans. I just wasn't ready for a drama about this violent and troubling history although I had adored the wonderful film "Before the Rain." Now after viewing the compelling and stunning "Ulysses' Gaze" I can highly recommend both the music and the film. The music and the movie are exquisite partners. The cinematography is truly breathtaking. I was taken with the intense yearning and empathy of Harvey Keitel as the Ulysses of the quest, but especially struck by Maia Morgenstern as the female focus of the film. She is brilliant. And the great Erland Josephson is wonderful to watch. Although the movie is quite long, its richness and unusual perspectives are impressive, thought-provoking, and profound. I think that by the end, as is the main character, the viewer can be wholly changed by this experience.

Fried Green Tomatoes might be considered a chick flick. Well, so be it and more power to it. Go ahead and be ready to laugh, and also to tear up over some of the scenes. This is a well-acted, well directed, and enjoyable film in the solid time-honored tradition of totally watchable Grade B movies. Some of the characters portrayed are people a viewer can get to know for a few hours and really sympathize with. Other's behavior you can get mad at. You might even want to express a little outrage at some behavior portrayed. Enjoy it. The film has its flaws, but for the most part is one the sensitive and discerning viewer can see more that once and be happier with than much of the real trivial tripe that passes for film these days. And to be perfectly honest, it's better than the book.

This is a beautiful film for those who can appreciate the odd light it casts. The camera work is fascinating and rich. The acting may seem arch to some and the plot obscure, but this film is certainly not boring. The focus on the intimate connection to the Vermeers in New York is a priceless exercise in the relationship between looking and seeing. Perhaps Jost's vision is rarified in some sense, or too slow and precise, but there is a wonderful and strange sort of redemptive illumination that permeates the whole movie. In many ways it is a better film for viewing at home where the intimacy of the mis en scene can be appreciated, and where one can look at certain scenes over and over. I think those who take the time to look carefully will savor this film.

Sandra Bullock does a pretty good job of playing Gwen the drunken party girl who gets herself into trouble. She is not gung ho for a treatment center, but her other option is jail. Actually, I was not sure how she avoided jail at all, and 28 days seemed too short a time for all the hilarity, action and breakthroughs in this film, but other than these things, I was really impressed with Bullock and the ensemble acting - the balance of comedy and drama. The one actor I thought over-acted was in the character of Gwen's boyfriend. He was too much, and it was a relief to see him off the screen. Viggo Mortensen is endearing as the other guy for Gwen. I would like to have seen more of them together. I think people will love the soap opera gags and the send-up of drug/alcohol treatment centers, but will also get the serious nature of the interactions in the "chemistry" among all the characters in treatment in the film.

Another interesting part for Viggo Mortensen. Tracking down his movies is an adventure. He does choose some unusual and fascinating characters to play. Although I don't think this one is exactly play for him; he goes for the gut. He is really in deep. I had to watch this film (DVD) twice to get some of the dialogue, and I wish I spoke Japanese, but it was worth it. (Viggo, with his laconic accent needs to be miked better.) The plot is complicated and there seems to be a plethora of doublecrossing, double dealing bad guys - even the so-called good guys.... but then you should watch this flick. There is some terrific acting all around. And plenty of action.