Reviews

Evie and Rick are trying "retirement" from their adventurous archaeological work, with a mixed bag of results, as their son Alex tries to forge ahead with his own career.

The premise of the movie was rather interesting, and it seemed like a fun idea to see the characters a decade later. Unfortunately, too much was changed in the process of filming. The first mistake is that it is not Rachel Weisz playing Evie – and she IS Evie. This is an entirely different character, without that passion for Egyptology and research as well as the ditsiness that made her so lovable. The wonderful chemistry between Rachel Weisz and Brendon Fraser does not exist with her replacement. If they are retiring from adventurous exploits, then why wouldn't she be a museum curator or lecturing on her field of study instead of writing romance novels? Since when would she be able to read ancient Chinese – she's an EGYPTOLOGIST. And where did the whole spy thing come from? Evie's brother Jonathan is finally doing something successfully. But there were a ridiculous amount of stupid lines that were supposed to be comedy. And why the Scottish accent? (I know the actor is Scottish, but the character is not!) We are also introduced to new supporting characters to get the job done. Unfortunately, they don't resonate with the charm and appeal that Bennie and Izzy did.

We are reintroduced to Alex, but instead of that quick and precocious young scholar we met and loved in "The Mummy Returns", we meet an annoying, arrogant, cocky, somewhat whiney young man – not someone you really want to care about. The latest historical dig introduces us to a strong and touching new subplot with wonderful characters, but not until AFTER the dig. The subplot is great and actually is what makes the movie worth viewing. Someone needs to remind the director that action and special effects are supposed to ENHANCE the story, not BE the story. In short, the main plot and characters should have been thrown away, and a new movie should have been made from the subplot alone, with a completely new title, and more focus on the story.

Watch it for the great subplot and great performances from those characters. But if you are looking for that "Mummy Magic", don't look here.

Its tough having a perfect, over-achiever as an older brother, especially you are an overachiever in debauchery. Of course being spoiled, self-centered and lazy doesn't help your image either. But if you want the accolades, you must make some changes.

The underlying premise of the movie was actually rather interesting, as well as the fact that there were some humoresque moments due to spoofs at established fairy tales, and the actors created memorable characters. But this cannot override the absolute crudeness and lack of true comedy. Unfortunately, the main focus of the film seemed to be to push vulgarity to its limits. And that is in the edited version, which should be rated X.

The world would be done a great favor if all copies of this film were lost forever.

Daltry Calhoun is a self-made man, riding to the top of the business world with his hybrid grass seed, and re-inventing himself along the way. But this "new man" will be put to the test when his old girlfriend shows up with his 14 year old daughter at the same time that his business is tottering on the edge of the abyss.

In actuality, this film is more about Daltry's daughter, who narrates much of the events in his life. It is an uncomplicated story line with LOTS of strange and complicated twists – just like life. This film is listed as a "Comedy", but would best be described as "Light Drama", marinated with comedy. It covers some very serious and dramatic events, but with a matter-of-fact lightness, rather than a flippant or ponderous or judgmental attitude. Another director would probably have attempted to wring out every drop of emotion out of the story, which would have made the film a cheap, melodramatic over-the-top waste. THIS director did NOT do that.

The entire cast gives very solid performances and creates real, lovable, endearing characters, with some truly moving and memorable moments. The biggest problem is that you want more when the movie ends. The script is a joy, leading you down some stereotypical paths then nimbly adding interesting tidbits of information to make you change direction. It has an honest look to it, compliments of filming in a real southern town. Add to this an amazing collection of music with some very new ways to interpret old songs, and you have a solid, well done movie.

It is not in the "Oscar" group. But if you are looking for some pleasant entertainment, go get your popcorn, kick back, and enjoy. Add another ½ star if you are a big country-western music fan.

It has often been said that all of our lives are interconnected. Nine people's lives are linked together at the same moment in time, all with life changing results.

This film actually has no plot, but rather details the actions of all of the nine people leading up to that fated moment and shortly after. Interestingly, it is all about the freak timing and some very stupid or cruel choices that people make. Sometimes those ill-thought out actions can have devastating results.

While this film does not fall under the heading of "enjoyable evening of entertainment" for me, it is a MUST see film for teenagers and their parents. It is not preachy, but very matter-of-fact blunt. Actions do have reactions, as well as consequences. There is also a difference between "harmless fun" and "stupidly dangerous".

One life touches another – but sometimes one life pushes another into change. A young, structured, yuppie book editor is sent to Tuscany to convince a reclusive, eccentric brilliant author to return to writing by signing a book deal with his publishing house. In the process of pressing for what his boss wants, he discovers more about the man behind the words, as well as himself. The question is who is going to help who win the battle of realizing ones dreams.

How this film escaped the attention of the Academy Awards Committee is beyond me. It starts with one of the most intelligently and beautifully crafted scripts that has ever been written, weaving a simple plot line with exquisite dialogue and very powerful human emotions. The cast is phenomenal. Every performance is so strong yet subtle, it is impossible to imagine anyone else in any of the roles, and leaves you wanting to know more about every character. The direction is exactly what it should be – a synthesis of all creative efforts from all of the diverse inputs. The movie is also sculpted with magnificent cinematography, and of course, topped off with an amazing sound track.

You will LOVE this movie if you enjoy any of these: artistic dialogue, great performances, breathtaking visuals, subtlety, honesty, dreamers, or romance.

When the greatest Samurai assassin will not kill the last enemy, a baby, he becomes the number one target of his clan. So he travels to the American old west to stay with his friend. But can he truly change his life? This is a fascinating intermixing of the oriental fighting movies and the old western shoot-'em-ups. It makes one realize that they really are not that different after all. Add in a simple story, a simple subplot and lots of personal choices that must be made and you have a very solid action film. Of course part of the fun is seeing bits and pieces of some classic American westerns incorporated into the script, as well as seeing them through another culture's eyes.

This is a must see for action fans.

This is the prequel to "The Scorpion King" that is supposed to explain the origins of the character. Unfortunately, it merely capitalized upon the character and the popularity.

The screen play would have been passable if we had not already been introduced to our hero and his brother in a previous movie. There were too many inconsistencies with an already established story line, such as overly and inappropriately pushing the scorpion concept, the Akkadians, and our hero's brother. Furthermore, the story tends to be rather choppy, pushing to get to the action and making the action and special effects the main focus. However, an impressive cast did a nice job with their performances. There were some great fight sequences, including a terrific "girls' fight", and well done special effects.

You will enjoy this film if you lower your expectations before pressing the play button.

What would happen if fairytale characters stepped into real life? Find out as they step into modern day Manhattan.

It starts with this incredibly funny premise, including some new animated characters that role all of the classic romantic tales into one. (Watch for the bits and pieces!) It then shifts to live actors interacting with ordinary New Yorkers, with some very fascinating results. Add in witty lyrics and dialogue, great performances and fantastic animation, then flavor it with of some old time movie musical magic. The end result is Enchanted.

This film is NOT for young children but for adults who know all the Disney classics, enjoy those old "feel good" movies, and are still children at heart. Have tissues handy to wipe away the tears of laughter.

A small group of upper middle class honor students use their squeaky clean image as camouflage to create alter-egos for themselves. Unfortunately, their arrogance grows with each additional step into the dark side, until they are in over their heads.

Every high school student of an affluent family knows that the goal is to get into an Ivy League university as well as the scholarships that go with it. This includes having the grades as well as all the extra-curricular activities that "look great" on the applications. But there is also the undercurrent of all high school life – peer pressure as well as trying to rise above the norm to be the social elite. It takes some very clever proactive actions to make the transformation from "brain" to "cool" in the eyes of one's fellow classmates, as well as the right random situations, while maintaining the "goodie" image to the adult world. Ben and his friends have figured it out and think they have everything under control. Unfortunately, their neat formula for maintaining their dual-lives does not factor in random acts of chance, or emotions.

This is a MUST SEE film, and hopefully a wakeup call, for every parent of "good students", of materially overindulged kids, or who really just does not pay attention. While it does take some actions to an extreme and even unrealistic proportion, it is so very possible that much of this COULD happen. Unfortunately, the film ends a little too soon. It never really addresses the consequences of walking away from certain illegal behaviors as well as the emotional and legal ramifications of others.

Yup, even though I am a Deanna Durbin fan, I'll still recommend that you to skip this one.

There were lovely sets, strange costume designs and good people in it, but the script dragged, there was no continuity between musical numbers, and very little creativity. And the songs looked like the director forgot about them and a studio head said, "Slap some in!" But the color was nice.

The sad part was that the premise could have made for a great film - a drama with a lot of comedy, just like life. After all, taking a spoiled rich girl and stick her in the harsh environs of a wagon train with rather unscrupulous individuals will cause some very interesting results. But this was soooo poorly executed that I found myself having to take multiple breaks just to get through it. (I know I should have just shut it off, but that's what happens when you are a fan.)

Add a star if you are a die-hard fan and plan to be bored. If you are not a fan or just starting, your time is better spent watching the grass grow.

This film has truly beautiful sets, magnificently choreographed and performed fight scenes, and exquisite photography. Too bad the rest is a pile of garbage. The young cast gave acceptable, but nothing spectacular, performances. I found myself watching it only to see how many idiotic mistakes the screenwriter and director had made.

When a film is based upon a preexisting piece of literature, particularly when the film bears the same title, I do expect it to be faithful to the original. Sometimes a screen play can actually improve upon it, or reflect more modern sentiments. This one did not. Jay Wolpert took a classic adventure of the heart, mind and soul of a person and attempted to turn it into a swashbuckling adventure. The result is a hideous mutilation that attempts to contrive a happy ending. Here is a hint: retribution is rarely neat; nor does it have a happy ending. (Dumas missed these two points as well, which the 1974 version did bring out very nicely.)

Dumsas's hero is a loyal,respectful but ambitious, intelligent but naive, working class fellow,who is willing to work hard and honorably earn his advancement, but is not a social climber. THIS version has him as plain stupid and immature, without any evidence of having earned a promotion. It also chose to focus on class struggle, which was a minimal point in the original novel, actually made our hero guilty, and missed the fact that everything our socially prominent adversaries have is based upon falsehoods and manipulation. All of these missed points are critical to the story, as well as the fact that there are fates worse than death.

This version also did a very poor job depicting the passage of time. They cast young actors, but forgot to age them physically, mentally and emotionally. For this, I call the director (Kevin Reynolds) to task. Perhaps they should not write or direct a film which they are also producing. It can blind oneself to the truth. And the truth is that this film is a waste of time. Skip it and either read the novel or stick to the 1974 version.

A collection of characters becomes interconnected with some interesting twists when they stay at the elegant title European hotel. Adapted from a successful European play to elevate the sophistication and dignity of films, and the first to utilize an all-star cast, this stands out as a severely over-rated film. Perhaps it was labeled as "great" because there were only a few years of talking films to base it on, and this probably was the best, at the time. But keep this statement from Plato's Republic in mind, "The best is the enemy of the good." I confess that my American psyche is probably tainting my view of some of the characters and events. I also confess that I like to have empathy, or at least sympathy, for the characters, even if they are somewhat loathsome. I felt pity for Greta Garbo's character – who wouldn't? But her performance is so over-the-top. Deep down, John Barrymore's character is a nice guy, but he has no problem stealing and utilizing his social position to exceed his income. Joan Crawford's character is little more than cheap gold digger, to put it politely. Lionel Barrymore is whiny, and his character is merely a scared little man looking to blame someone else for the misery he has created for himself. The only character I actually felt sympathy for was not supposed to evoke such a reaction – Wallace Berry's incompetent businessman, who is in a position he really is not capable of handling. I confess I much preferred the Americanized remake entitled "Weekend At The Waldorf".

I recently watched this film, and did not realize that I had seen it about 25 years ago until I was ¾ of the way through it. That's how little an impression it made on me – not what a "great" film should do.

A technical masterpiece, making it a must see at least once in one's life. Watch it as a film-study exercise, but not as the great film it is claimed to be.

We follow the life of Charles Foster Kane, a fictionalized character based on the life of William Randolph Hurst. There are strong performances in the film, magnificent use of shadows, angles, sets, as well as the fact that Orson Welles wrote, directed, starred in and had complete control over editing it. (This was unheard of at the time. But this was not really the first independent film production. Look to Howard Hughes and John Ford for this.)

Good or great film-making is ultimately about story telling. For me, a film that moves me emotionally and/or intellectually, employs subtlety rather than insulting my intelligence, has true-to-life characters, presents believable situations, can be enjoyed over and over again, and stands the test of time, earns such praise. I confess that I do prefer to have a strong reaction to the main character, be it empathy, hatred, love or disgust, and some understanding and sympathy of motives. I am well aware that there are people whom are extremely difficult to completely understand, (John Ford, for example), but they are not a complete mystery.

I originally saw this film about 25 years ago. As a college student, I was very quick to parrot traditional perceptions and said, "Great flick!" rather than form my own opinion. I recently re-watched it, and am quite content to wait another 25 or more years before doing so again. When the audience has to don deep-sea diving gear to attempt to understand something about the character via interpretation rather than subtlety, then the film missed the mark. The only character I found evoking any emotion, empathy or real comprehension was Kane's second wife. The film ended without any real understanding of Kane or his why his final words are what they are, nor do you care.

Study the cinematography once in you life. But that's quite sufficient.

This is a great Doris Day vehicle, showcasing all of her talents: singing, dancing, acting and comedic ability. It is also a perfect example of Hollywood's mutilation of truth, unfortunately. Watch this for pure entertainment, and completely disregard any historical accuracy about the people who are depicted.

Let us not forget that Calamity Jane and Wild Bill Hickok were REAL people. As legends of the old west, the folklore, tall tales and blatant lies blind us to facts. All the truth about them will probably never be known.

The script represents Wild Bill Hickok as an honest, honorable, gentlemanly fellow, and Calamity Jane as a buffoon, blow-hard, liar and farce. Hollywood mixed up the people. It is true that Wild Bill Hickok had been a scout, fought in Indian wars, … and had many accomplishments. But he was also a known for embellishing his feats as he retold them, fabricating exploits, was more of a buffalo hunter for the army than a scout, drank, brawled and got into shoot-outs too much, was habitually in trouble with the law – in short, a rather colorful, lawless, wild frontiersman who ran out of frontier. (He was shot in the back of the head during a card game.) Martha Jane Canary, a.k.a. Calamity Jane, was no polished or dainty lady, but was generous to the needy and sick. In reality, she could out-do most men at their own activities in an even more male-dominated world. As a result, many simply denied her accomplishments. Others embellished stories as they were retold, and she did as the men of the time – told some lies about herself. Please be aware of some actual facts. She did work for the U.S. Army as a scout for 6 years. This was an extremely dangerous job requiring great knowledge of the territory, Indians, wilderness survival skills, and the ability to kill to stay alive. Do not forget that survival alone was insufficient; accurate and useful reports were required to maintain one's position, as well as joining the fighting. Calamity Jane did save passengers of the Deadwood Stagecoach, by grabbing the reins after the driver was killed. (Some reports state she drove for another line for a while.) Most men did not have the skill to drive a stagecoach. She nursed miners through a smallpox epidemic. She was a very good shot. She could hold her own at the bar and in a bar brawl, as well as work the women's side. She originally joined Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show as a western legend, sharp shooter and trick rider, but eventually became a sideshow attraction and was fired after too much drinking and fighting. (And let us not forget that William F. Cody was adept at gaining the public's interest by having dime store novels published about tales of the west. Many of them were extreme exaggerations and blatant lies.) She did eventually marry, but not Wild Bill Hickok. (She claimed she did, but there is no sufficient substantiating evidence.) Numerous reports corroborate that she was infatuated with Hickok, but he was not interested in her. Calamity Jane was a unique collection of diverse talents, obsessed with adventure and danger, but also caring, who never seemed to find peace. (She died of pneumonia in a drunken stupor.)

If you flash back to the old "A" and "B" movie classifications, this is Definitely a B movie, made better than the script by the cast.

This is a sad attempted farce about idealic upper-class suburban life. Just look at the opening: Augie and Isolda live in a barn and have never-ending mice, and other, problems. Unfortunately, the concept of a couple having difficulty having or adopting a baby is not good comedic material. Gene Kelly made the right choice in NOT going for guffaws. However, it does have it's moments.

The cast gave everything they could, making it difficult to picture anyone else in the parts. Doris Day adds her usual upbeat, energetic presence and believability of a woman who is silly-in-love with her husband. Poor Richard Widmark was saddled with the weak, failure, straight-man role. (He does have the second funniest line when reviewing the real estate listings!) Elisabeth Fraser does a magnificent job balancing the sweet but wiser wife and friend. Gig Young brings his characteristic charm, with out which this womanizing, horrible father would inspire absolute revulsion. (He has the best line in the film, when his wife asks him if he misses the kids, who are away at camp. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would have THOUGHT that, but would dare not say it!) Buried under too much subtlety is the reasons for Gia Scala's actions. (She's actually using her job with the adoption agency to do research for her doctorate. Think about it - what was she doing in New Guinea?!)

Unfortunately, that time romanticized drinking. (Remember the 3 martini business lunches?) Sadly, both Gig Young and Gia Scala lost their contracts with studios for undependability because of drinking and drug problems. But this time in history will probably be known for lack of accurate information and tastelessness. (Gia Scala did commit suicide, but not until 1972 - not something to make a cheap joke about, as in the "OH my my" review.)

If you want some light entertainment, give this film a try. But bear in mind that it started life as a low-end B film farce with a weak script, was shot in less than 10 weeks, but had big stars for much needed shine. And Doris Day fans, remember that this is NOT her typical vehicle.

You know you were sort of a bad guy, who now just wants to be a regular guy. But can you make the transition and put the pieces together - and will "they" let you?

This is the best of the three movies for drama. It's intense and gritty. The hand held cameras add so much to the visual effect. Jason Bourne is a flawed hero, which is much easier to empathize with. But the action is overdone. He has undergone severe behavior modification, but he's NOT superman! It would have been more powerful with less extravagant chases, explosions and the like.

We also get to revisit with some old characters in new ways, and meet a few new ones too. (And contrary to listings Julia Stiles does NOT play Bourne's girlfriend!)

Your a good guy programmed to be a controlled bad guy, turned good guy, who has to do bad-guy things. And you still don't really know who you are! The problem is, why is everyone else doing what they're doing?

This movies is pretty good - except for the story catalysts! The story all hinges on the actions of 3 characters. Pam Landy's actions make perfect sense, and are the saving grace of this film. But why does Neal Daniels, a man who is deeply entrenched with these covert operations, and has been from the beginning, suddenly start leaking information to the press? And don't you think this man would find a better way to get away with it?

And what are these lines supposed to mean? Nicky, "It was really, hard for me, with you." Bourne, "What do you mean?" Nicky, "You really don't remember?" Don't you think it would have been nice if the audience and Bourne find out what this means? Without this left-out explanation, Nicky's actions make absolutely no sense at all! I hate cheated scripts. I watched until the end to find out and never did. And who walks away from that many car wrecks! Please!

If you don't want to be aggravated, then don't watch this one

"Sweet" Bianca can not date until her tempestuous older sister Kat does. So who can face her wrath? Why the guy with the worst reputation in school of course, with some monetary incentive. Only time will reveal what all of them are really like.

This is a truly brilliant adaptation of "The Taming of the Shrew", because it makes sense in the modern setting, is timeless, and adds even more than the Bard put into the original. This is a must-see for any parent to remind them of high school days and current pressures, and a must-see for teenagers to prevent some pitfalls of high school. Even though it is now 10 years old, everything still rings true, in an exaggerated way. But sometimes, that's the only way one can recognize things.

The direction just added to the already great script by allowing for the over-exaggerations in a realistic way, and by telling parts of the story WITHOUT dialogue. The sound track is critical to this film. (John Ford would have been proud!) This was the first film I saw both Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger in. I knew quite a few years ago that they would both be huge stars because of their brilliant subtlety. (She is an Acedemy Award winning actress who just hasn't found the right vehicle yet.) It's years later, and I still love this movie and laugh even harder. (P.S. For me, high school was over 20 years ago.) Add another star if you are a Shakespeare nut.

If you were fished out of the water with bullets in your back and a Swiss bank account number in you hip, and no memory of anything about your life, what would you think and do? As a drama, this is quite good. The audience is along for the ride as our main character is trying to find out who he is, and we are trying to decide whether we are supposed to like him or hate him. As a matter of fact, this story has the audience guessing about ALL of the characters! The cat-and mouse game is the real tension creator.

The action was kept more personal, and I was very impressed to learn that Matt Damon had no prior martial arts training. Unfortunately for me, most of the action scenes were so predictable that they were boring.

This is a prerequisite for the "Borne Supremacy", the best of the trilogy. (Oh and Julia Stiles is NOT the girlfriend!)

A great cast does what it can with ludicrous details.

The most intriguing aspect of this story is that the audience is constantly in search of a hero or victim, but all of the characters are villains, to varying degrees.

The real problem is the basic premise. It would have been nice if the writers would have actually done some research instead of making up ridiculous lies about the insurance industry.

For starters, attempting to deny or reduce legitimate claim payments is a practice called Unfair Claims Practices, and is prohibited in all states. Secondly, no insurance company would issue a life insurance policy to a known con man, especially for $1 million. (And you can not blame it on a particular office - all policies go through a central underwriting department at the main office.) Thirdly, once a life insurance policy has been in force for 2 years, it becomes incontestable. The only thing that would cause an investigation is if there is a question of the deceased's identity, or there is an accidental death benefit that might not be an accident. Furthermore, insurance fraudsters are notorious for NOT self-inflicting real damage to themselves. Lastly, a claims investigator, agent... can NOT do what James Whitaker's character does near the end of the movie, or even throughout the movie.

The ending was rather unusual. Afterward, it does make sense, in a strange way. But this is a strange film. Give it a try if you have nothing better to do and like strange plot twists.

What a novelty - a remake that actually surpassed the original! This film pulls no tricks with the audience and builds a genuine ominous tension from the opening scenes. It also utilizes some magnificent imagery, and a stellar cast. Unfortunately, it is not without mistakes.

Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) does not seem to be upset for himself that his infant son dies. So when he cries over his grave, I have very little sympathy for him. So shame on the director for accepting it! The character undertakes a truly extra-ordinary act by switching the infants. But the only reason we are given is that, "This child meant everything..." to his wife. WHY? In the original, we did not have to be told. It was a much older couple and the biological clock was ticking. The original also clearly pointed out that the Thorns had discussed adoption, and the wife was adamant against it. This was also left out of the remake, so we also do not understand why he can never tell his wife, or even ask her in the first place. I blame the screenwriter for this one. And it should not have been that difficult since at least 85% of the script is the original script.

What IS a vast improvement is the very short but powerful additional scenes helping the audience understand why Kathy Thorn is becoming unhinged. (Mia Farrow as the second nanny is much more intriguing!) But both versions drop the ball by NOT depicting anything unusual before Damien's fifth birthday.

What a shame these mistakes were made. Without them, this would have been the definitive version.

It was very exciting to FINALLY have someone more age appropriate portraying Hamlet. The modernized setting intrigued me. But there are just some things that do not transcend to the modern world - avenging a father's death, a prince getting away with multiple murders and "Get thee to a nunnery...", for starters.

This is a strong cast that was hampered by the direction, screenplay and editing. Ophelia was too childish, Polonius too silly, and Hamlet too unimpassioned.

If you're a Shakespeare freak, give it a whirl. But this is NOT the one to show in English class!

It IS worth watching, just to find all the family relationships and the John Ford company regulars who pop up in unexpected places.

But Leonard Malton must have taken all his information from John Ford's version,which is not necessarily accurate. (Maureen O'Hara stated it best in her memoirs: "John Ford was a liar. If someone said there had been a lot of rain in Ireland, he would say it had been sunny. If someone said it had been sunny, he would say that it rained all the time.")

It is interesting to hear about the challenges it took to make the "Irish picture", as many studios referred to it.

The interviews with John Wayne's children are also very insightful to the set life, and to the importance of John Ford in their and their father's lives.

However, the story could have been a bit more insightful, rather that the general information that is rather well known. (For example, what EXACTLY was Maureen O'Hara mad at John Wayne about when she was supposed to slap his face, but slapped his hand and fractured her own fingers?!)

YUCK!!!!! Just shoot the screen writer and the director! But give awards to the cinematographer!!! What a misuse of the entire female cast.

I wanted to love this version, as I am a big Austen fan. But before the opening credits were finished rolling, I knew I would hate it. Why? Because there were so many errors with the direction, costumes and scene set ups, that I know Austen would be appalled! This film could have been good if it did not bear the same name as the novel, and said it was loosely based on it.

For starters, the Bennet family was not a bunch of frumps, they had a much better house and furniture, and there certainly would not be pigs in the house. The only women of the time who were seen in public with their hair down and loose were of the seedier kind. (Hence the expression, "To let one's hair down.") Elizabeth Bennet would NEVER have been that fresh to her mother, or some others. She needed a few good slaps in the face. Mr. Bennet was no longer on love with his wife; as a matter of fact he almost had contempt for her! Matthew Macfadden did NOT look proud at all-he looked like he was on Quaaludes the entire film. I hope to NEVER see him on the screen again. He's pathetic! (Colin Firth in the previous version was alive, but looked constipated.) And what was with that STUPID closing scene with the shirt open?!! Definitely NOT appropriate for the character or the time period!

Again, Aunt Gardner's role is practically eliminated, which is a fatal error. This character is the third tip of Austen's typical triangle of comparison.

I do agree that Keira Knightly, and all of the women in the cast gave excellent performances with the material they had to work from. Hats off to Rosamund Pike who has sent the standard of excellence for the portrayal of Jane Bennet. I believe that Jena Malone would have also taken the same title for her portrayal of Lydia, but her part was reduced too much.

Suffer through the total production, if only to watch the ladies do excellent work with inappropriate and bad lines.

Definitely NOT a great movie, but very enjoyable, especially if one is a Stanwyck fan. Cinematography bounced back and forth from lush, to "quick, get it done" shots.

Ray Milland did not quite cut it as the hardened trail boss and buffalo hunter. But maybe that's because his character really is not-he deserted from the army for getting involved with a married woman. Stanwyck shines as the self-reliant lady gambler and flirt who has been tossed around her whole life, with a few exceptions.

Yes the movie is rather corny, but let's face it the movie industry was right in the middle of the Macarthy era and needed safe material to work with. It DID give a rather honest perspective of how many lost sight of what they really had set out for, and how others took advantage, at any cost.