AgedInWood

This movie is obviously dated by today's standards and it's ultra-soapy in terms of plot. It is from the same director of A Summer Place, the other big hit of this era that takes on promiscuity and premarital sex.

A young, pretty Connie Stevens plays the naive title character Susan Slade. The Slade parents have sheltered their daughter while living in a foreign country and during their return to the U.S., Susan has a shipboard romance with a charming, worldly man who is off to Alaska to climb a mountain. She soon finds herself pregnant and tries in vain to reach her lover to give him the news. The movie makes it abundantly clear that they are very much in love otherwise this sex business would not be tolerated. Sadly, she is not able to reach him and he perishes on the mountain without ever knowing of her predicament. The rest of the movie is about the family leaving the country again for the birth of a son who is passed off as Susan's mother's child, and then finding Susan a good husband who can never know that she has fallen from grace.

In the U.S., she has two suitors Troy Donahue who knows something about life being unfair and Bert Convy, a wealthy young man looking for the right kind of girl. Do soap operas get better than this? The names of all the men in her life are perfect; the rugged and apparently hard to resist alpinist Conn White, the artistic and sensitive Hoyt Brecker, and the privileged dream choice of any mother, Wells Corbett.

Susan finally fesses up when the pressure of living a lie that her mother insists upon becomes too much for her. Director Delmer Daves shines a light on a situation that has happened throughout history and of course, gives it a Hollywood happy ending. Luckily for Susan Slade, she comes from money and has devoted parents so doesn't have to worry about how to get by which was not the case for most unwed, pregnant teenagers back then. And I doubt this movie did much to prevent girls from "ruining" their reputations since Susan gets not one but two handsome guys who adore her. Ah, the stuff of fairy tales. All in all, a good movie with nice performances across the board.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. A ten? No, but fun nonetheless. Loved the clothes, loved the location, loved seeing the gals again. As usual it was over the top in parts and some of the one-liners fell flat. I have read that people are upset that Samantha was disrespectful and to me the only clear disrespect was wearing shorts and dropping the f-bomb in the market but that was part of the plot albeit a little too Keystone Kops for my taste. To counter it, Miranda served up cultural tidbits throughout the movie and they all tried to keep Samantha in check.

The Big, Carrie dilemma of the two of them being enough for each other for the rest of their lives is a great question. As is the acknowledgment that even with marriage and children (Charlotte and Miranda), how do you make time for yourself without feeling guilty? All in all, the movie was entertaining. Not as good as the series, but how will they ever be able to top that work?

On a side note, what I find interesting about some of the men's reviews here is how they use the word kill so freely. "The actors, producer, director, and whomever OK'd and bankrolled this movie should be shot in the stomach and then killed!" "Who green-lights these types of decisions...and is there any way to have those people rounded up and savagely killed in a public setting?!" Are you kidding me? Even tongue in cheek, who makes cruel remarks like these?

That is far more offensive than four pairs of breasts, Samantha in shorts, and the mention of the word labia.

I am a huge fan of the original series so no one was rooting for the movie more than I. Maybe I had my hopes up too high. Maybe the show's successful style didn't translate from small screen to big. Whatever the case, I was disappointed. The plot seemed completely contrived and with the exception of Charlotte, the writing went against everything these women portrayed for six years.

Miranda and Steve had a great thing going at the end of the show – why make Steve have a fling to create conflict in their relationship? Why make Miranda colder than she's ever been by taking sex out of her life and then casting her as the bad wife for causing him to stray? Yuck, how very 1950s of the writers. More topical would have been a storyline about the stress of taking care of his mother with Ahlzheimer's and the toll it takes on a marriage.

Samantha was shipped off the island, hardly to be seen again. If I never believed that SJP doesn't like Kim Cattrall, I believe it now. Not only did she trash the character by giving her nothing to do and having her put on weight, she had her dressed like Joan Collins circa 1982.

As for Carrie Bradshaw, I thought Sarah Jessica Parker looked great (not a wrinkle to be found) and performed beautifully. But and it's a big but, why was the Carrie plot driven by Jennifer Hudson instead of by the cast regulars? Nothing against Jennifer Hudson, but the whole story line felt forced and completely unbelievable.

Where was Stanford? Did he have any lines? How do you take the most adorable character seen on the very first episode of the series and give him nothing? Wouldn't it have been great to have a little sub-plot still showing him with Marcus after all the years? And where were Anthony, Harry, Smith and Steve? All were relegated to inconsequential parts that were poorly written, edited or both.

What did I like? Big - Chris Noth continues to inhabit this role in the same cool albeit less prickish manner he always has. I liked the girls in Mexico – the old chemistry shined through. I loved the big closet instead of an engagement ring – how very Carrie. And the Vogue photo shoot was to die for – only SJP could pull off those beautiful gowns.

I hear there's a trilogy planned. Let us hope they get back to the fabulous-ness that was the original show.

I am compelled to write this as a Bond fan but from a female perspective. My husband (Mr. Action) and I went Saturday night super excited to see this movie. We both loved Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. The five best things about that movie were Daniel Craig portraying a handsome, cold blooded, multi-layered Bond, a great plot taken from the book, gorgeous scenery, well written supporting characters and edge of your seat action.

So what happened? None of it happened --- that's what happened. Quantum of Solace missed on every count. Daniel Craig was given little to do but action scenes, the plot and the action didn't mix (like oil and water if you will), the scenery was awful, the characters poorly written and the editing was choppy and hard to watch.

I had hoped this latest franchise would continue with the development of Bond. In Casino Bond has his first kill and it eats at him. So what happens to a man when he kills repeatedly as he did in QOC? When you lose the love of your life and stop caring, is this why women become objects? You saw glimpses of this character development in QOC and why they didn't push it escapes me. And I'll be totally sexist here, as a woman I wanted to see hot Bond. Beyond a token bed scene, there was too little of Bond in a tux, towel or trunks let alone a romp with a woman.

As for the action, it made my head hurt. I felt like I was watching a Pierce Brosnan version all over again. If they intend to go back to action for action's sake, then they should bring back all of the Bond gadgets and Q. At least then, it's more fun.

They actually had a path they could have taken the plot and that is Mr.White's comment that members of his organization are everywhere. Now that would've given Bond something worthwhile to do – protect Queen and country, unearth and destroy the villains, solve the Vesper mystery and establish Bond as the go to guy who gets things done.

Alas, we were left with a mostly one dimensional, blow 'em up Bond. My popcorn was good though.

I watched My Boy Jack last night on U.S. Masterpiece Theatre. I appreciated not only the timeliness of the subject, but the tender story of the short life of John "Jack" Kipling, the son of poet Rudyard Kipling. Jack is played by Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame and it is a role perfectly suited to his age. Jack is a young man seeking his independence. Caught up in the patriotic fervor of his friends and neighbors going off to the war known as The Great War, Jack also wants to serve. His problem is that he has terrible eyesight and cannot get into any branch of the service until his renown father steps in to assist.

David Haig wrote My Boy Jack as a play in 1997 and portrayed Rudyard Kipling on stage and again in this television film. He did an outstanding job on both fronts and it is uncanny how much he resembles Kipling. His depiction of Kipling is in keeping with a well to do man of the early 20th century - stoic in matters of war, interested in his family but detached emotionally. Rudyard encourages Jack to get into the war and finds him a commissioned position in the Army leaving Rudyard's wife and daughter at a loss to understand why.

Jack overcomes his vision problems and succeeds at a boot camp that hastily prepares the next crop of men for war. His social status grants him the position of Lieutenant and as an officer he commands a troop that is sent to France. Ironically, as Jack struggles to become his own man, he must get his father's written permission to ship out to France as he is just shy of the legal age of 18.

I am astounded by the chaos and devastation that is relayed during war briefings that Rudyard attends. Casualty statistics are given and they are unbelievable – literally thousands die in one battle, often in one day. World War I was a gruesome war in so many ways but especially so because these soldiers were at a crossroads, fighting with traditional tactics in the face of modern weaponry that cut them to ribbons.

There is no doubt that in order to have war you need to have three types of people in your service, those who make a career of it, those who romanticize the cause and their obligation, and those who seek to escape. Jack, as with many young men, comprises both the second and third types. He has left his boyhood and his family to become a man. He is aware of the long odds of surviving the war despite his father assuring him that he would come through it. He is honor bound to serve his King and country.

And so young Jack, celebrates his eighteenth birthday in France, bravely leads his troop into battle and tragically dies. Declared to be missing in action, his family searches for him to no avail and at last, piece together Jack's final hours through the stories of surviving soldiers who were there. His parents are devastated and Rudyard, looking for comfort, says that Jack would not have felt pain and so he was lucky. In response, Jack's mother movingly encapsulates Jack's death saying that there is nothing lucky about dying alone in the rain.

My heart goes out to all families who have endured such loss. The story of Jack Kipling tells of one of the millions of sons who have died at war, all equally important to those who loved them and far less important to those who view them as expendable.

Jack's body was not recovered by his family. His father died nearly twenty years later as his beloved country was on the brink of World War II.

The first 45 minutes of this movie were quite good and after that it went downhill fast. I loved the premise of a young girl's lie bringing people to ruin. So our movie starts with a young, precocious girl named Briony Tallis spying on and envying her sister, Cecelia. When Cecelia takes up with the housekeeper's son, Robbie, Briony catches them in the act which fuels her jealousy and sets the scene for Briony to later accuse Robbie of raping a young house guest. What a web is spun driving these two lovers apart! But you could see the cracks early on. I did not altogether buy that these two love each other. The only testimony to it was their speaking the words as they copulate against a bookcase. Not exactly the stuff of love. No mention was ever made about the young girl who was raped until much later in the film. She was an interesting character, wise beyond her years but still just a girl. I found her rape disturbing and it was completely swept under the rug. Our hero, Robbie, is quickly carted off to jail and from there, the story turns into a mess.

Once Robbie trades jail for war and the sisters Tallis become nurses, the whole plot is fantastical. The Dunkirk scene for me was a token war scene that allowed the director to paint a surreal portrait of war that makes no sense. I couldn't decide what the hell I was watching...was it the director's love for his way-too-long money shot or was it Robbie's hallucinations from his septicemia? Shooting horses, soldiers riding a ferris wheel, singing in a gazebo - utter nonsense. And where on earth did the black British soldier come from?

At the end we learn through an elderly Briony, who has finished writing her novel Atonement, that she has put her own spin on events because her sister and Robbie both died during the war. I realized the last hour and a half was a complete waste of time save the performance of Vanessa Redgrave, which was superb.

Did Robbie and Cecilia really meet at the café after he was released from jail? Who knows? Was there a house by the sea? Who knows? Did the lovers really keep in touch? Who knows? Did Robbie wander the war torn French countryside with a cockney and a black man? Who knows? How much of it was Briony's version of events and how much of it happened? Who knows? The pseudo-artsy plot hopping was distracting and the lack of character development made it impossible to care what happened to any of these people. The director opted for gruesome imagery to symbolize the potential outcome of lying - murdered school girls, burned bodies, shell shocked soldiers, missing limbs and most interesting of all, a two room flat next to a pig sty (the ultimate depiction of how far an upper middle class girl has fallen).

The director spends a good deal of time on the war when it would have been far more interesting to see how Briony's lie changed her through the years. Did she testify against Robbie at trial? What were the parting words between her and her sister? What did she do before she became a nurse? How did she learn of her sister's death? Did she ever confront Lola and Paul? The finest scene in the movie was Briony sitting with the dying French soldier and this alone is why we should have seen more of Briony's personal atonement. I hope the book is better.

My husband dragged me to this movie…the big ape. He loves anything CGI and I actually do like the original King Kong so thought it would be fun to see this version plus the critics' positive reviews sparked my curiosity. So off we went to the 8:10 show.

Most people have posted here that the first hour of character development was too long and not necessary. I agree it could have been scaled back, but it was probably my favorite part because we understood what made Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) go on this "film shoot" to Skull Island in the first place. Having said that, she was the only person developed. Director, Peter Jackson, did not do a good job with Carl Denham (Jack Black) other than to paint him as greedy or writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody) who ended up being a miscast action hero.

Overall, I was entertained by the movie, but it was easily an hour too long and there were so many holes in the plot that either Jackson didn't have a clear vision or there were some real editing problems. My guess is that when it comes to DVD he will add the extra two hours so things become a bit clearer, but I won't be buying it so I will never know.

What I liked - Kyle Chandler as actor Bruce Baxter was terrific and funny. This character was not in the original movie so was a nice addition. The special effects were amazing especially Kong (kudos also to Andy Serkis who played him). And I thought Naomi Watts was wonderful. She was not drop dead gorgeous (neither was Fay Wray) but she was captivating. Considering she spent her days getting emotional with a blue screen, she was entirely believable to me. I loved the Central Park scene…sure Kong was big enough to break the ice but it was very sweet.

What I didn't like - Adrian Brody (Driscoll) just didn't work for me. He was a weak leading man and a sad sack when it came to the action. When it came down to choosing between man and beast, I think Ann Darrow made the right choice to go with Kong. Kong had more personality. I also didn't like the many, long dinosaur/insect/bat fight scenes. They were too drawn out and quickly became boring even to my CGI addicted husband.

And lastly, I think Jackson missed in his portrayal of Kong. He is supposed to be frightening; at least the dirty Skull Island natives think so as they hide in crevices to avoid bumping into him. However, our boat full of seafaring men and Carl Denham film crew don't really seem intimidated or afraid. That's probably because Kong pales in comparison to the crazy, carnage loving aboriginals, and the stampeding brontosauruses and raptors that they've already encountered.

Jackson touches on Kong being misunderstood but no matter how you slice it, he is supposed to be a terrifying giant gorilla. Nobody seems particularly scared and when he runs through Manhattan, most people are not too fazed by it other than to get out of his way. Okay, the passengers in the streetcar are upset but I think more because they are being turned upside down and less because a 25 foot ape is doing it.

The movie almost redeemed itself at the end which lived up to my expectations. I did get teary eyed when Kong died so at least that much worked. It was beauty killed the beast, but it was Peter Jackson killed the film. I give it a 5.

A friend bought this DVD and loaned it to me with the proviso that if I understood the movie, I had to explain it to her because she was so bored she fell asleep while watching it. Not exactly a glowing recommendation. I watched the entire thing wanting very much to like it and to be able to explain it to my friend. I love Joan Allen and while not a Kevin Costner fan, I do think when he gets it right, he does so in a big way. I settled in determined that this would be a great film.

Boy was I wrong. The movie was dull, the plot lame, and the characters entirely unlikeable. The movie kicks off with a funeral and leads us back in time to wonder who died and why. Joan Allen plays an angry, rich, drunk Detroit hausfrau with four angry, rich daughters. Why so angry? Dad disappears one day and mom believes he took off with his Swedish secretary who has moved back to Sweden. Mom takes up with drunk next door neighbor/former baseball player, Denny played by Kevin Costner. The rest of the flick centers around mom being angry at dad, daughters being angry at mom, mom being angry at Denny, Denny being angry at his radio producer. Oy vey…so much anger! One daughter is so angry she lands in the hospital terribly ill and mom has a meltdown that she might have cancer. Yet, mom never puts a call through to Sweden to tell dad, and everyone is totally okay with that. Dad also never shows up at his oldest daughter's wedding. The director never explains this. Dad's a schmuck who moved to Sweden. There's your explanation.

The final frames reveal that lo and behold, dad did not move to Sweden but fell in a well on his property and died. I thought this was an interesting twist that could have been used more brilliantly earlier in the film. It would have been more fascinating to have the anger be about mom jumping to conclusions and how a family copes with that type of guilt in addition to the death.

The director made everyone in this film act pathetic, whiny and superficial. I think dear old dad jumped in the well to get away from the house of shrews.

I own this movie and manage to also watch bits of it every time A&E reruns it. A fantastic series that is true to the book and great fun. Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth are perfectly cast. Even though I know the outcome, I find myself mesmerized by the characters of Elizabeth and Darcy, rooting for them to find each other as if to say, `Damn man, kiss her already.' Their courtship is without a doubt a deliciously slow tease making this one of the sexiest films I have watched where everyone stays fully clothed and the imagination is sent wandering. I've always been grateful for Lydia Bennet (played to the hilt by Julia Sawalha of Ab Fab fame). Her impropriety and teenage giddiness provide nice contrast to the restraint shown by most of the other characters. On a side note, some of my favorite scenes are those between any of the Bennets and the flustered Vicar (Sam Beazley). Can't recommend a better way to while away a winter weekend!

Actually, this is a relatively fun movie to watch if you can suspend disbelief and enjoy the soapier moments of a doomed extramarital love affair. The idea is very 60's; a woman (Elizabeth Taylor) struggling to make a life for herself and her son through her art only to run up against social mores which frown on this type of freedom. Richard Burton sets out to right the wrong and ends up in the wrong himself when he falls for her.

Taylor essentially reprises her Butterfield 8 role as yet another woman looking for love in all the wrong places. The most impressive thing I can say about her performance is that she looks beautiful and looks like a woman a man would want. It is refreshing to see a woman with hips, breasts and a little bit of belly instead of the waifs that adorn the silver screen today.

Burton's clipped delivery of all his lines makes me wonder what she sees in him. His portrayal is so buttoned up that even when they're rolling around on the floor, his lack of passion spoils the scene. A little more zip was definitely needed to sell this man of God falling from grace.

Other performances were canned and poorly written; Eva Marie Saint as the wronged wife, Robert Webber as the jealous ex-lover, Charles Bronson as the painfully miscast beatnik artist friend. The line dubbing in some scenes was done so badly that it was laughable. The funniest moments in the film occur when men ogle and fondle the wood carving that Bronson has done of Taylor's nude body. I guess it was an attempt to inject blatant sex into the film, but it doesn't work.

The oceanside scenery steals the show and certainly offers the right environment for a torrid love affair. Unfortunately, the surf and sand can only do so much to bolster this drawn out story of sin, redemption and personal discovery. Fun at times? Yes. Glad to finally see Richard Burton drive off into the sunset at the end? Yes.

This movie works like a tonic to make one realize what is important. Even the act of watching it is soothing. The four central characters are all women of means living in relative comfort but their lives lack passion and significance. A holiday to Italy inspires them to relax and reassess their lives, something so many of us need and never do.

Lotty (Josie Lawrence) discovers an ad in the newspaper announcing an Italian castle available to let for the month of April. She implores her neighbor, Rose (Miranda Richardson), to invest in the trip so that together they might find happiness. Lawrence and Richardson beautifully portray compliant wives who are defined by their husbands, homes and obligations. Their body language and speech are so repressed at the beginning of the film. I found myself thinking that one or both of them will crack if they do not find peace.

To defray the cost of the trip, Lotty and Rose invite two other women to share in the villa rental, an elderly matron (Joan Plowright) and a titled socialite (Polly Walker). Interestingly, both Mrs. Fisher and Lady Caroline are very fragile, lonely women who have known great loss and mask their pain with cold exteriors. One is trapped by her past while the other is trapped by her beauty. Plowright shines as the brusque outer layers peel away and we discover her heart.

While each actress portrays a traditional female stereotype (Lawrence the daft, eager to please wife, Richardson the puritan, Plowright the hardened dowager, Walker the used up party girl), it does not detract and in fact, includes the viewer as we see something of them in us and vice versa.

For me, the essence of the film occurs when Lotty befriends Mrs. Fisher in a poignant scene. It characterizes the hope that all the women had when they embarked on their journeys. To love and be loved. To be happy with self. To be enchanted by life.

Supernatural is a slow moving pic about séance versus science as Carole Lombard is exposed to the dark side via a shady mystic and an overzealous doctor. A dull plot and even duller characters. As a Lombard fan, I like to see how she fared early in her career. Her acting in this film is just so-so and it brings to light how much she improved in the last nine years of her life. The big plus is Randolph Scott, not for his acting but for his physique. He's definitely easy on the eyes in a movie that otherwise put me to sleep.

The tour de force performance of Emma Thompson as hard-hearted English professor turned cancer patient, Vivian Bearing, does great credit to her craft and to Edson's play. That Vivian's teaching focus is the poetry of John Donne best known for Death, Be Not Proud is not lost on the audience. One passes through a gamut of emotions from joy at her reactions to her various predicaments to fear at the prospect of facing such a hard death. Thankfully Mike Nichols and Thompson refrained from a mawkish, movie-of-the-week portrayal of this devastating disease.

Kudos should also go to Audra McDonald as the oncology nurse, Susie, who cares for Vivian. Her compassion touches the soul and one is grateful that there are Susies in the world who can offer kindness when hope is gone. The popsicle scene made my heart sing.

Juxtaposed to Susie are the two research doctors who are at best, honest in their treatment of Vivian's cancer and at worst, detached in their treatment of Vivian. Do they depict all physicians? Hopefully not. However, one need only face a debilitating health problem to quickly learn that these doctors do exist in some form. Their disconnected clinical approach tends to cause more fear than the disease itself. Vivian found humor in it, which was her blessing. That real doctors might learn empathy from this film will be ours.

My Man Godfrey is a classic ensemble film with Carole Lombard and William Powell at the helm. The comedic timing is nearly perfect and the script is a winner. Character actors Eugene Palette and Mischa Auer absolutely shine. Lombard defined screwball with her on and off screen antics. Her portrayal of the rich and flighty (yet ultimately wise) Irene Bullock is one of her best performances. Powell's Godfrey matches her step for step, and Powell does one better by showing us depth in his character rather than play straight man to her every madcap move.

The movie is fast-paced and defines the word zany. What is worth noting though is that in many ways it is a commentary of the times by comparing the 'haves' and 'have nots'. I would encourage everyone to watch with more than a comedic eye. Through Godfrey, director Gregory La Cava's film speaks volumes about the conditions of the 1930s. The U.S. was plunged in a depression that forced thousands to the breadlines. The film opens with a treasure hunt and one of the items to find is a forgotten man. The rich set out to the city dump to locate him with no regard for his plight or his dignity. The man they bring back as the prize is Godfrey, who soon is employed by the Bullock family as their butler. Powell and Gail Patrick as Irene's snooty sister, Cornelia, are the antithesis of each other and some of the best social barbs are exchanged between them. Keeping their esteemed place in society is paramount to the Bullock family, and only the father (Pallette) ever seems to worry about money. However, La Cava does not allow the film to wallow in pity for those less fortunate. The film amuses throughout but it is a real art to weave social commentary into a comedy without banging you over the head. La Cava pulls it off beautifully.

La Cava, Lombard, Powell, Auer, and Alice Brady all deservedly earned Academy Award nominations. This movie will make you laugh and it should. It is very, very funny. It should also make you think. I suspect if you do both, Mr. La Cava and his wonderful cast will have done their jobs.

This is the perfect movie to curl up to on a winter day and get lost in a soap opera. The performances are very good and Lombard is just gorgeous. I think the best reason to see it is to see Kay Francis in a comeback performance. She had been relegated to the undesirable list by the studios at this point in her career. Her portrayal of Maida, Cary Grant's uncompromising wife, is great fun to watch. The movie is a little cornball in parts but overall it works. Lombard fans really won't be disappointed.