cstrother-1

Hard to understand the good ratings for this film. Very derivative, clichéd, nothing new to say at all that has not been done much better elsewhere. Soprano does it better every week. A waste of good actors. I love Mena Suvari. A real shame she had to be in this. Alec Baldwin threatened to be good from time to time, but seemed generally unconvincing to me. Why bother to put out this stuff after such films as The Departed. Freddie Prinze, Jr. was okay, but did not seem like law school material. The general atmosphere was pretty good New York. Jerry Ferrara pretty much plays Turtle here, just like he plays Turtle on Entourage, only more clichéd. You may or may not like that character in this context.

I just saw this TV on some obscure cable channel. What a great period piece. A mix of well-known groups and the obscure, at least in the States. It was most interesting to me to see how some of the greats just sort of leaped off the screen, even though it was all lip-synched. Stevie Winwood in the Spencer Davis Group, as one. The Animals another. In fact, I thought the Animals out and out killed. I thought Herman's Hermits were good.

Lot of comment on the Beatles here. Nice to have some live Beatles clips for sure, but I did not think they were that remarkable.

The group with the red-haired singer asked about by another comment is the Rocking Berries. A real gem of a group that I had not heard of. Billie Davis was great, too. A real cutie, exuding personality.

Also, a good illustration of how there is really bad music in any era, too.

Dress and hair styles were great, too. Within a couple of years it would all be different.

Well worth watching.

This is really a decent film, with excellent acting throughout, and some original touches. Edge of the seat stuff. Wonder why the critics got things so wrong. Not "Pulp Fiction," but nothing is. Hyper-violent. Tarantino influenced. Sure, lots that could be criticized. But a heck of a lot to like.

Great '67-'68 Mustang. Supporting actors fascinating. True character actors. Lots of plot twists, some of which may not be credible, but I think suspension of disbelief is pretty easy. Quotable lines. Good, and lots of, bang for the buck. Good effects and camera work throughout. Highly staturated colors portraying grimy scenes. Soft pastels for the most disturbing section of all. Great, unobtrusive sound work. Nice film-making throughout.

I agree with the reviewer entitled the review "horrible." What were they thinking. This is a truly morally bankrupt effort, and I have lost all respect for anyone involved in it. (I suppose it is worth seeing for the bare breasts.) The biggest dis is against the Chicano gang members. What walking talking stereotypes. I kind of like the white guy wiggers, as as sort of clown squad. Actually a decent "send up" of those kinds of guys. The girls are just silly, but no it is not okay gang bang 16 year- olds. And yes, the barrio is one dangerous frigging place to be hanging out getting high, particularly if you are so white you basically glow in the dark. Among other things, is it really credible that the Chicano girls would not have a lot to say about a bunch of rich bitches suddenly in their midst. This has to be one of the worst movies ever made. And do not get me wrong, I am all in favor of social commentary or any type. That said, there is something to be said for the nudity.

Maybe I just do not get it, but it seems basically just unfunny, except that Vince Vaughn nearly pulls the whole thing out. When he is on the screen it is highly watchable. Most of the dialog seems mumbled, except that it is all so predictable that you do not need to hear what is actually said. This working class versus high society sports has certainly been done much better. Caddy Shack certainly comes immediately to mind, but so do most sports movies.

I generally like these National Lampoon movies, by the way. Normally no great shakes but decently amusing. This one just seems weak, dilute, uninspired--again, except for Vince Vaughn, who comes across as a giant of a comedian compared to the rest of the cast.

I saw the play at DC's Arena Stage and thought it was great. But the movie seems heavy handed, trite, overplayed. It swings too broadly.

I am a big Platrow fan, and, like Roger Ebert, I suppose, I admire that she takes chances in film. This a role that is similar to pulling on a fat suit. She is convincing across the board to me here as someone that could be a gifted mathematician, at least borderline crazy, and deeply depressed at her father's decline and demise. It just seems way overdone--played too "big"--to me in a film. I am a Jake Gyllenhaal fan, too, but here he seems like more of a pretty boy than a convincing actor here. Again, it is not that he is bad, or uninteresting to watch. It is that it is not fully what the play has to say to me. (Hope Davis is absolutely, dead on as Catherine, however.) I thought Anthony Hopkins was good, not really great.

This screenplay has enormously important things to say about trust, relationships, family, math, academics, love. Perhaps the Director just sees it differently than I do. Given the other reviews, I would not want to discourage anyone from seeing this. Paltrow is fascinating in many ways. I sure would not want anyone to miss the play. Maybe I am in the minority here, but I would love to see a different director take another crack at this play as a movie. (Not that I do not generally like Madden, too.)

I just finished re-watching the DVD of this film, and I am moving it from an 8 to a 9, and not sure why I am not giving it a 10. Really well-crafted. A great story. It has everything really. Originality. Human interest. Compelling characters. Life lessons and lots to say about the human condition and man and nature. Romance. Literature. Pulls you completely in and gives you a different perspective on the world in general. Very sweet and gentle without being sachrine in any respect. Wonderful Zen quote that was dead on for the purpose. San Francisco is all its glory. Music and literature. History. Beats and hippies. Lots of interesting stuff on parrots and other birds. Sort of a MOby Dick in that way. Melville, when he was writing about whaling, was not always really talking about the nuts and bolts of whaling, and this movie is not always talking about the nuts and bolts of birds. The DVD features are excellent.

A must see independent film. Makes one feel like there must be fantastic stories out there waiting to be told by wonderful undiscovered filmmakers. Have to emphasize that this film has a very nice touch. It is quite sentimental in many ways, but it never seems overly so when you are watching it. Also, the description of the hero of the film as a "homeless musician," does not give a very clear picture. Mark Bittner has a very nice home on Telegraph Hill, although his is living rent free thanks to the generosity of the owners of the cottage he lives is for most of the film. He is a well-read, intelligent, introspective guy, with a lot of sophisticated things to say. Referring to him as a "homeless musician" seems to me to give an odd impression.

Wow this is a great film. So good that I was surprised when I saw Cash's San Quentin performance this week on TV, I was struck by how very much unlike Johnny Cash Joaquin Phoenix's performance seemed to be, whether actually singing and playing, or say simply talking on stage. The real Johnny Cash seemed much more the exuberant extrovert, and, among other things, brighter, sharper, looser. Phoenix's Cash is darker and much quieter, but at the same time does not quite show us the Johnny Cash that wrote "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die." But as to this latter point, it may be that no film is big enough to show the whole of Johnny Cash, a very complicated guy.

No doubt that Phoenix truly captures much of essence of Cash. Because of that, and many other things, there is real magic in this film. Witherspoon and Phoenix simply crackle together. Their chemistry lights up the screen. Is this simply acting, or are these two somehow cosmically in synch. No one could doubt that these two as portrayed in the film would be together, and I sense that this is the essence of the Carter/Cash relationship, too. The sense if that if you meet folks that resonated like this in real life, you would know immediately that they quite a couple.

Most of the cast provides acting of the very best kind. The director has to get credit for that kind of overall effort.

The sense, too, is that the performances and the takes on the creative processes are spot on. This must be what is like to be this kind of celebrity/performer. I have only seen it once, so I can break it down, but I bet things like the lighting, costumes, colors, soundtrack (even apart from the fantastic vocal numbers), camera angles, etc., are a school for how to make a convincing film. I am sure that each contributes to creating an engrossing world on screen.

I would say this is a real film, too, in that the narrative is not so important as the creation of a convincing universe, with individuals taking completely understandable actions within that universe. Thus, the movie explores and reveals something of the human condition.

This one has Oscar written all over it, certainly for Phoenix and Witherspoon. Their performances are simply not to be missed by anyone that cares about film-making. I would expect Phoenix's efforts to influence lots of other actors. What he does is very effective with an economy of overt speech and movement. Talent by the gallon. Mesmerizinig to watch.

I only gave it an 8, because parts of the story-line, the narrative, seem trite, as if playing to the larger audience. Too much bathos in places. Phoenix is utterly convincing as man that has had great sorrow in his life. The narrative is distracting to me by dwelling on specifics. The point is not what happened to Cash, but what man was created.

But what is good in this movie, which is most of the movie, is tremendous.

This is a great, laugh out loud, roll on the floor, comedy. Steve Carrell is as good as many others are saying. Catherine Keener is superb as a believable love interest with her own excellent comedic sense. The rest of the cast, too, is very funny, each taking a turn.

The overall "sweetness" of the mood of the movie is remarkable. It never seemed cloying to me, which I would have though was an impossibility in a movie, which is pretty darn raunchy in places. It is amazing that the jokes in this movie are largely not at someone's expense, and that the story is largely one of love conquers all, and the importance of friendship and human connections.

But the important thing is that this movie is just plain deadly funny. Kudos!

I have seen all the big movies of 2004 now and I am convinced this one is the best, and an all-time excellent piece off work. I have also read the novel, seen the DVD, and listened to the voice-over by Giamatti and Clark.

The music, the camera-work, the scenery, the wardrobe, the color, the lighting, the editing, the writing (particularly the adaptation of the novel), and lots of little touches all contribute to the mood and meaning. They say that comedy is harder than drama. How about a combination of comedy and drama that really works? How about such a combination, where the lead characters are not very attractive? Giamatti is excellent, but so is Clark. Lots of acting with little glances and subtle body movements. Madsen is perfectly cast and her character well-played. Many find that the interaction between Miles and Maya is not credible. It seems to me that Maya and Miles are both more than deep enough for this to resemble real life more than the movies.

This may not be the most profound movie ever made, and it may not advance movie-making on a technical or technique level, but this is a very good film, all around.

Parts of this movie are just great; other parts seem repetitive of lots of movies of this type. Many parts are laugh out loud and laugh hard. Other parts drag.

The chemistry between Wilson and Vaughn is excellent, perhaps even better than that of Ben Stiller and Wilson, which is going some. Wilson's character seems the more typical, with Vaughn having more original bits to his character. As others have said, Vaughn's performance is not to be missed. The constant analysis of situations with reference to the "rules" is funny in part because of the truth contained in them and the perceptiveness of the characters, even though their goals are superficial.

The supporting cast is great. It has been said before, but "when Christopher Walken is the most sane character . . . ." The younger sister and the brother are scene stealers. The interplay between the younger brother and the Vaughn is original and sidesplitting.

Overall lots of fun. Worth the price of admission. Vince Vaughn deserved lots of attention before, for comedy and drama. This movie will establish him as a comedic star to look forward to.

Saw this movie as a preview last night. I think they have a real winner. Perhaps even a major hit. Good movie, strictly a chick flick.

Some excellent writing. Some very clever banter and very funny segments.

Some of the plot seemed not credible and off, and the overall premise is fairly corny, although with some original touches. The kids and animals are adorable, and add good color to the movie, although Newfies generally slobber a lot. Setting seems to be in a combination of Boston, Boulder, LA, and San Diego, with blue collar folks living in modest houses with lavish interiors. Must be nice to be in grad school, living in a trailer, and driving a BMW M3 convertible.

But Diane Lane is utterly winning, classy, and stunning, when she is not rather convincingly looking a little dowdy and aging.

Cusak is really "on." The chemistry between Cusak and Lane is palpable. To me, but not the other three viewers with me, a point of lack of credibility was that Lane's character would have any ambivalence or uncertainty toward the Cusak character. The camera loves them both.

All of the supporting acting is great, particularly Stockard Channing as the brassy girlfriend of the father. That would have been an easy part to leave two dimensional, but Channing is nuanced/deep. Elizabeth Perkins is completely credible and engaging as one of the sisters trying to get Diane Lane back into the game after a divorce. Chris Plummer is perfect as the father--handsome, loving, wise, and sad. The Lane character's entire family is sweetly supportive and believable.

This is extraordinary TV/film-making. It is as good as Sopranos or Six Feet Under. Complex, deep, filled with the unexpected. I, like others, have found that British drama can be a bit slow, but this is anything but slow. First rate writing and acting all around. I can't add much to what others have said. This is truly the real Magoo. I am amazed that I have not seen this series written up everywhere. Hate to build it up to others, because I came upon it relatively unbuilt up and it just knocked me out. Sorry for all the hyperbole, but this deserves it. Robbie Coltrane is quite the 300 + pound sex symbol. All of of the actors play human beings with strengths and weakness, with complex interactions. The Big Sleep has nothing on this. Prime Suspect is good too, but the characters here are more believable.