Louisville88

Okay, the first movie SUCKED, the second one was good, but the third one is SO much better. Is it a perfect film? No, not at all. But it is better on so many levels.

People attack the story. A.) I've watched worse and B.) It's actually legit. Who were the target audience members? Young adults. Okay, so 12 year olds and their mom's found their way in...big deal! That does not ruin the fact that the story does have solid ground. It is a chick flick, so that is probably what gets most guys. Also, vampires have been brought in a 100% different light (I myself am not a fan or the changes, but I realize that this is someone's story and that vampires are not real. There is not a code of conduct when writing these fables) Eclipse brings the suspense. It brings a darker tone. It brings better performances from Kristen and Rob who show that yes, they too can smile and enjoy life. They make out better. They interact better. Some of the minor characters get to shine more. Jasper and Rosalie to name two. They both were very good with what they had.

One reason New Moon was enjoyable for me was Taylor Lautner. He SAVED that movie for me. Had he sucked, it probably would have faded. I laugh at the people who dismiss him because of his body. Jealous guys mostly who all they can say is he has a body and no talent. Yet, do they complain when Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman go shirtless? Nope. Kate Winslet has appeared nude in more movies than any non porn star but she isn't less of an actress. It's just them trying to make a cheap shot. Now, back to him, he once again was great (when I use these words I don't mean Oscar). He is so sincere and I know that as he gets older he'll get better. This boy knows how to use his face aka eyes and mouth in expressing more emotions than any line could get across. He will go places.

Bryce Dallas Howard was a welcome change. The other actress did little to leave an impression and Bryce actually knows what to do. The story flows better, the pace is steady and the acting is 30 times better (which for this may not be saying too much!) Eclipse won't be making the AFI's top 100 any time soon, but it will gross over 300 million in the U.S. and it will stand as being superior than the past two. Whether you think vampires should sparkle or could care less if Bella chooses the troll down the block, this film holds merit. The struggle is actually felt this time (whereas in New Moon the audience really only felt the bond between her and Jacob and not Edward which shouldn't have played that way). Also, there is a scene where Bella is with her mother. I actually felt a little emotion inside me during that. I WAS SHOCKED! Usually I only feel sorry for Jacob, but Kristen got something out of me!

This film is (to sum it up without giving spoilers) about a bunch of married people who don't love each other and give every excuse in the book why they deserve to cheat and do whatever else they do~ "I fell out of love." This film had potential with it's subject matter. However, after hearing everyone dog marriage and how it's so stupid and their "trapped" I was just tired of hearing it. What are these people doing to make it work? Besides thinking, "Me, me, me!" Selfishness doesn't work in a companionship. The film starts out with a college age (yeah right) Jean Simmons falling in love with William Forysth (sorry if it's spelled wrong). They marry and have a daughter~ who seems just as selfish as everyone else. We discover she has problems~ with drinking. Things had been bad. Her maid (who lies to the husband about helping him make sure she stays sober) ends up helping her fulfill her selfish desire of running off the the islands. She meets (what a small world) her old pal Shirley Jones who has been the "other woman" for many years and has supported herself by sleeping her way through life (why an STD hasn't come her way we'll never know). Shirley gives the classic line of, "You can't break up a home that's already cracked." as a justification on why what she's doing is right. Having met her dear old college pal, Jean Simmons now has a means of supporting herself since she sold some jewelry in a pawn shop to buy a one way ticket. The Pawn shop dealer tells her (upon Jean motioning for her ring) "No lady no wedding rings. Who wants to buy someone else's heartache." I wont go further, but I was very unhappy with this film. I can take movies about divorce or people in unhappy relationships but this one takes the cake. EVERYONE was unhappy and painted the picture of marriage ruining everything and everyone gave the excuse of why what they were doing was acceptable. The film was immoral (can't believe I'm actually writing that~ a first for me and a movie) in every way. Happy endings aren't achieved by sleeping with whomever, taking whatever and not giving a darn (I don't think you can curse words on IMDb reviews) about anyone else but yourself. Marriage takes a lot of work but is well worth it. I wouldn't watch it again.

Okay, this movie was never meant to be a Gone With the Wind. It was not filmed to be a classic that showcased what greatness was. It was made to be enjoyed by the audience~ much like mission: impossible, the transformers and Harry potter films. I've read the books. Personally I dislike the Bella/Edward relationship. I dislike Rob Pattinson. However, Taylor Lautner~ whom I pictured as Jacob (not him but his likeness) was great. No Oscar for this, but still very good. He had emotion (something Pattinson lacks) and his affection for Bella is obvious. They're love story is developed I feel. The film entertained me greatly. It had it's moments of camp like the vision scene and Bella in the water when Edward appears. Overall, I think it was well done. As cinema quality I give it three stars. As an piece of entertainment, I give it four. Stewart was better here and really her scenes with Jacob are her best. Her love for Edward is more apparent in this film then in Twilight. I don't think pattinson will ever get better. Lautner will only rise.

This film was pure trash. Not the worse film ever. If it were to be broken down, the acting was good enough to get the job done but the script was SO out there and so stupid that one was left thinking, "Where did my life go?" Even Vanessa Redgrave~ whom I love (and is the reason I watched this) was wasted. Utterly wasted. She didn't even leave an impression. The directing was so distant that non of the characters left me much of anything, but to see Redgrave leave nothing. Her part was nothing. She was good as a mean boss but that was it. Do depth and she's given depth to small roles~ see Venus and Atonement. I would not waste my time and was upset to have spent the $5 on this movie...I wanted it back. No returns. Skip the film. It'll only bring you grief...and boredom.

Okay so I watch this movie on logo not too long ago. I've heard that this is one of the best in gay cinema. How? Besides the fantasy of the gay guy getting the goodie good Mormon boy how does this offer anything? Maybe I missed it, but Elder Davis suddenly having the homosexual door opened by a kiss and by magic is now gay isn't good enough for me. Or was it that night he sat pondering on his bed that maybe he loved Chris? Either way I felt it was under developed. They made Davis seem like he was vulnerable. Also, having grown up in Pocatello (but not being a Mormon but having many Mormon friends) this was an obvious "let's gang up on this religion". I can see for cinematic purposes having them be the bad guy, but the events they showed i.e. the excommunication scene, was completely made up. Grwoing up, one of my best friends Dad was in the stake presidency and he would have to go to these excommunication meetings. I asked him about them. Was it a "we're kicking you out because you suck?" or "you're not good enough for the 'club'". He told me that excommunication was a blessing. In their church you make promises. You make a promise when you're baptized and you make more when you go through their temple. It's a lot more severe when you go through the temple if you are having problems. So, they release you from those promises while you work out the issues. After a years time you can come back into full membership. They don't put you down like they showed in the film and it's not in a dark room with gym tables. I've seen the room. Having played basketball a million times in the Pocatello stake center (which isn't the building in the movie) I've seen the brightly painted and lighted room. Of course the film needed their "bad guy" and the church fit that mold. Another problem I had was that they painted this wonderful picture of how doing whatever you want is the best thing. I'm going to leave this and get back to the movie. Without having spoilers, I thought the use of the song and then the captions that went with it was very cheesy and the story Chris told Aaron about how he accepted being gay had nothing to do with the statement Aaron gave him of "You've never had to lose anything" (or something along those lines) Now had he told the story about his uncaring father and how accepting this lifestyle lost him his love and support would have been fine. But the story that was told was random and went with something else. The film had some good acting, I'll give it that. It had some bad lines and directing. All in all if this is one of the best in gay cinema then Hollywood really needs to start cranking out more films. I figured it's liked so much because it has a happy ending. Many in the gay community don't like Brokeback Mountain because of the unhappy life. Perhaps the happily ever after ending is what makes this a special film--to them. The whole story could have been done better.

I had hope for this film. I pictured a classic that I could watch over and over again, but sadly it wont be like that. This is really two films. The present scene is the best and the flashback could have made it on it's own. Really, the only things to stand out is: The acting (With Redgrave giving the best performance), the cinematography and the music.

Present: Redgrave triumphs with a role that offered nothing much. She gives several tender moments that are worth an Oscar. Richardson, who has been denied better roles and awards for far too long, was great as Ann's daughter (As was Toni Collette). Atkins did a fine job, but with the limits she had she did the best that could have possibly been done. Meryl Streep shows up, gives a good performance, and leaves as quickly as she came. The writing is best here.

Flashback: Danes gets one good scene in towards the end while she's singing with her children. Other than that, she skips through the picture saying the same things over and over again. Dancy was good, but too many useless scenes and bad lines hurt him badly. Close, who I've never been much of a fan of, gave a good performance as Dancy and Gummer's mother. Her greatest scene is when she's saying nothing at the dinner party. Gummer was wonderful. Wilson did okay. The writing in this half was just bad. The actors were given "timely" lines that didn't seem right coming from most of their mouths. Take, for example, the scene where the group of friends discover a body. One girl looks at it and says "There's blood all over!" The way it was delivered made it sound as if we were watching Hamlet since that's the tone she used.

The most tender moment in the film doesn't come from the young lovers, but from Redgrave, who imagines she sees Wilson in the hallway and gives a look that's beyond explanation. A must see for the performances (especially Redgrave's), cinematography and music. These three things should be on the ballot come Oscar time.

Peter O'Toole is one of my favorite actors and it's always been sad for me to think of him dying off without an Oscar. He's given great performances and my favorite is The Lion in Winter (for which he SHOULD have won). However, Venus has proved to be what is possibly his last chance at getting an Oscar. He is just wonderful in all his scenes. The film is very lovely, sweet, charming and funny. Jodie Whittaker is just lovely and a very talented upstart. However, if any other character deserved an Oscar, or a nomination, it is the great Vanessa Redgrave who has stood firm in being a great talent and hasn't even started to fade away like O'Toole almost did. Her scenes aren't that big but she leaves a lasting impression. She still looks beautiful at 69 and she still shows the same display of emotion as she did in her star making breakout role as Rosalind in "As You Like It" to her recent released film "The White Countess". She and O'Toole play off each other very well. This is a wonderful first film for them. See the movie, I know you'll enjoy it.

I will say that this film had some boring parts for me. But over all I liked it. Vanessa Redgrave was charming as the ex-wife who still loves her crazy husband but wants a stable life...and yet she wants to roam free! Funny moments, great acting, good movie. A must see for anyone who can take British comedy.

Warner shines in this film. It's most likely his greatest performance. Redgrave turns out another great one. Interesting fact, she was offered the starring role in Georgy Girl but turned it down to do this. Her little sister accepted the role and they were both nominated for Best Actress in the same year.

I'am a Vanessa Redgrave fan. However, that does not mean that every performance she gives and every film she makes will be "Oscar" worthy in my eyes. This film DESERVED every Emmy it was nominated for (3) and deserved the 2 wins. However, Redgrave was cheated out of her Emmy. I have never seen a woman pass so greatly as a man before. Redgrave is wonderful! She even got down the movements of a man! There are times you can tell it's her. But if you don't know her, you can't. She looks like a man 100% of the time and only when she turns slightly do you get a glimpse of the real person.

The movie is wonderful. It's brilliant. Redgrave is brilliant! You see her struggle time after time with her identity and you feel for this character. She really jumps into character. She even fights like a man! If you can get your hands on this, get it! It is wonderful!

This film had so much potential. Just so much. Vanessa Redgrave was deserving of a Golden Globe nomination and Emmy, if this is a t.v. film, and Raul Julia was good as well. It's our lead actress that gives me the trouble. Laura Dern switches the moods and attitudes of her character almost all the time, sure she has her moments, but when you have bad ones, they tend to over shadow the good. The ending left me wanting more, it just...ended so suddenly, I think I'll have to blame Dern for that since her performance was so shaky. Redgrave was born to play this role was was wonderful in it. Especially with her German accent. It was flawless. As is 95% of Redgraves work.

Vanessa Redgrave plays a brilliantly wicked Sophia in this mini epic. I just purchased this film and watched all 6 1/2 hours in one setting and believe me, it didn't feel that long. The acting was good, and the story kept my interest. I'm surprised Maximilian Schell wasn't nominated for an emmy. Redgrave, as I stated, was just wicked and her facial movements were classic and evil as she watched Peter move up. I would greatly recommend this film for anyone. I've never been interested in Peter the Great, so this was a very interesting film that, as I've read, was full of falsehoods, which most bio pics are. I will admit that I purchased this because of Redgrave and so didn't know what to expect. It was, once again, a great film. Also, whoever did the make-up deserved that win, if i remember correctly, because when they aged Redgrave she looks exactly the way she does now. A must see for anyone with a free day.

The Ballad of the Sad Cafe is a great film. I guess everyone who couldn't stand it saw it, because I just saw it (5-23-06) and thought it was a good movie. I might also add that I was very sleepy, and I always fall asleep while watching a film. I've slept through The African Queen, The Lion in Winter and other great classics that are praised by critics alike. This gives the film that added bonus that I can stay awake while watching it. Vanessa Redgrave is wonderful, as usual, and delivers a great performance. The other actors I have a question about, their names, but the actor who played Cousin Lyman was good. I couldn't stand him at all for what he was doing to Amelie. The ending scene is very good and heartbreaking. I mean, I'd watch this 10 times in a row to see Vanessa box with some punk husband who she never truly loved and never thought of their marriage as a give and take, but more of a contract. This is a great film!

I like Julie andrews so i was interested in seeing this. I had to fight my through the the WHOLE movie! This film was campy! Why was it done like this? Julie was good, but that's it. The songs we're so so and not very memorable (The only one i can remember is the title song and Baby Face). Also, the guy who played the romantic lead, not Robert Fox, the other one, was just plain BORING. and the fight scene at the end was camp at it's best. I only really laughed at the elevator scene, the one where Millie tries to save Robert Fox's character and has to madly dance her way down to the first floor. I really don't see how this film is getting the rating it's getting. 7.2 stars out of 10! I guess the Julie Andrews fans and the rest of the casts fans just don't see it as camp. Wouldn't recommend it, might buy the soundtrack, but that's pushing it.

This is a wonderful movie. Redgrave is wonderful as Ms. Bennet. She is a very good actress and its nice to see her do some light comedy. My only complaint is Uma Thurman. It seemed as if she didn't know how to play her character. her mood changes, her mannerisms, even her attitude. Her scenes are also awkward. She never gives a convincing performance. Redgrave, once again, is wonderful. Displaying the various moods needed and giving off an award winning performance. Fox is also a so-so actor. He is good, but also awkward and one really doesn't see why Redgrave would want him so badly. This film has been coming on t.v. for quite some time now and I watch it every time. I've even bought the DVD! It is a nice romantic comedy that can be enjoyed. Also, it is funny to watch Fox's not so quick hand, as he does his magic tricks.

Asylum is a brilliant film about a woman who is obsessed with a crazy man. Natasha Richardson is perfectly casted as Stella. We see her, bored out her mind at the Asylum. Trying to pass time. Then, one day her son introduces her to his new friend, Edgar the gardner. An attraction is ignited. Soon, boredom takes over and is just to much and lust begins taking its place. Stella visits Edgar in the greenhouse he is repairing and they have a brief, but physical, affair. This soon leads to Stella returning for more. The passion is intense, her obsession is intense. This all seems fine to and a life together has become her dream. But after Edgar sneaks out of the Asylum things begin to unwind and the truth uncovered.

This is a wonderful movie. Stella has passion and obsession, while Edgar has passion and possession. This interesting combination provides enough material to leave you on the edge of your seat as the movie comes to its end. Perfect acting, especially from Natasha who very well deserved an Oscar for this.

This movie had potential but sadly it ended up being a bore most of the time. It really couldn't decide what type of movie it was. The video case sad Thriller, but it was more of a family drama with a touch of thriller. Vanessa Redgrave was excellent. I've seen her do better, but she was still good. A whole movie could have been made about her character. The actress that played the Mom was also good. Sadly, though, the main actor was terrible. He kept on ruining lines. He had his good moments, but sadly the bad ones keep playing in my mind. The little girl who played the youngest daughter was also terrible. Who cast her? The two scenes that are keepers are when Vanessa describes her life and why the children have come and the final scene between the father and Nikki. I have a system going with IMDb ratings. 10=4, 9=4, 8=3 1/2, 7=3, 6=2 1/2, 5=2, 4=1 1/2, 3=1, 2= 1/2 and 1=bomb. On that note, this film got 2 1/2 stars.

I saw this at the Virginia film festival and it was wonderful. Could have used better direction, but Vanessa Redgrave was marvelous nonetheless. As an added note, she did not get her son this film. He got it on his own and had her star in it. I thought it was a brilliant piece of work that could have been better but got its message across. It Was Wonderful And deserves much, much more Also, this film was a HUGE HIT at the festival. They had to add another day to screen it because it was sold out on its regular schedule and there was so much demand. So to those who don't like it, I say that the general public (At least those in Virginia) love it.

This is just one of the few movies I've seen that seemed real. These characters were just so wonderful. Jake Gyllenhaal was fantastic! I cried in the scene in which Ennis turns him down and I'm a straight male! Heath Ledger was also wonderful. You really saw his struggle between right and wrong. Michelle Williams was also phenomenal! I've never even heard of her until this and I hope she wins that Golden Globe and Oscar. I also cried when she found out about Ennis secret love. The only thing that really made me upset was when Jack (Jake) had sex with a Mexican whore and got some ugly rancher toward's the end. I thought, "They ruined the story. How is it suppose to be a story about forbidden love, when one of them is cheating?" Then I reread the book, and discovered that that really happened. Then I analyzed it as, "Well, he had the love and affection (From Ennis) but he just needed the Romance. He was the more gay of the couple and he needed to fill loved. Sleeping with a Mexican whore and some ugly rancher was really his only way of being with Ennis." Anne Hathaway was also good, though I have to say I was more shocked on seeing her bear her womanhood than Jake and Heath kiss. That brings me to my next point. Ang Lee made me, and my girlfriend, feel as if what Jack and Ennis were doing was as normal as could be. My girlfriend and myself weren't uncomfortable in the least. We just got uncomfortable seeing our little princess bear her womanhood. But it was still okay, really didn't my mind away from the film. I also got disappointed when they played one of my favorite songs from the film, "I don't want to say goodbye" in the scene with Jack and the ugly rancher. Really Jack was dancing with the ugly rancher's wife, but still. This is a terrific movie that deserves Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Song, Screenplay and score. Also, they did a wonderful job with aging everybody. They even gave Anne nicotine stains in-between her teeth! A must see for anyone with an open mind and a heart.

I bought the DVD to The White Countess, not knowing what to expect because some friends of mine saw it and said that it was boring, (They like action films and this is Merchant/Ivory. enough said. right guys?) Well anyhow, my girlfriend and I saw it together, I was nervous because she too can't take slow films and I expected her to complain. We both LOVED it. Natasha Richardson was stunning as Sofia and deserved an Oscar for the film. Even if the film didn't make it and others say there's not much to it, she has those scenes in the film inwhich the Academy takes notice aka the clips they show at the awards show. She has many including the discovery of her daughter, the big news at the end, and when her landlord finds her. I'm trying to to spoil it for people. The real shame is that the Redgrave sisters didn't get to do much. Vanessa, who is and always will be a wonderful actress, was just touching in the film and seemed to be a different person. Lynn was pure evil. I read someone's remark that said she over did it. How? She couldn't take it down a a bit because then she would just be a nagger aka "Sofia could you please get us three hundred dollars so we can leave?" Instead Lynn gave us, "We need the money, now go out, earn it, give it to me, and leave us alone you dirty slut." She never said those words but that's what her character was like.

I felt that Ralph Fiennes took in a supporting role because this film was all about Sofia trying to make it in life and a man who helps her get out.

People talk of there being no love story involved, I felt the attraction when Ralph stole that kiss and the end is the kind of love stories that need to be done more often instead of everyone jumping into bed.

The film is just wonderful. This has to be my favorite Merchant/Ivory film followed closely by Howard's End, A Room With a View and Ballad of the Sad Cafe.

I love this movie. I watched it because of Sharon Tate and ended up becoming a huge fan of it. I've read so many reviews to this movie it's scary, but most of them call it bad. Stating its camp appeal and then giving it anywhere between a bomb and three stars. That's a big step in ratings. Plus I've seen some movies that were bombs and believe me, Valley is Gone With The Wind compared to those. I will admit that there are a few, I said few, scenes that are campy. But I think the movies fault lies in the hands of its director and screenwriters. These women made lines like, "That old witch oughta be boiled in oil" (Sharon Tate) look like they were poetry. The few scenes that I'll say are bad are: The first telephone scene between Jennifer and her mother. The director had Miss Tate talk so quickly, you could tell she was talking to dead space, The Gillian Girl commercial. Even Barbara Parkins has stated that it was so over done that it just had to be funny.

Sharon Tate. One of, if not, the most beautiful woman to have ever graced the silver screen. She turned a character who was really annoying, into one that you actually cared about. How many people can make you feel sorry for them because everyone thinks their beautiful? She's also the only actor to get a nomination from this movie. She had a Golden Globe nomination in 1967.

Patty Duke. She is just terrific as Neely. She gave the movie a dark comedy humor instead of the campy humor others say she gave. Dark comedy is basically when you laugh at something that is serious, but whats happening is funny. E.G. "Boobies, boobies, boobies. Nothing but boobies! Who needs'em? I did great without'em." Campy is when the actor is such a terrible actor that they over due every scene.

Barbara Parkins. She is good as Anne. Anne is really a boring person who helps everyone and Miss Parkins got that down. She really didn't dazzle me as much as the other two stars.

Susan Hayward. Perfect choice for Helen. She gave us that Brooklyn accent that a woman whose been on Broadway her whole life would have. Some people have said that the scene in which Neely takes her wig and flushes it down the toilet is a laugh--Well it is! But, again, its that dark comedy when Patty flushes it down the toilet and say, "ow do'ya like that, it wont even go down the john." The Music. Beautiful. It was the only thing to get an Oscar nomination. It lost to the wonderful movie, Camelot.

If you tend to watch the movie, don't watch it thinking of it as a comedy. Watch it with a serious attitude because that's what they movie is. Despite the few scenes.

With that, Camelot is an excellent film despite Franco Nero. Out of four stars I give it 3. That's because Franco Nero slows down the movie greatly and has some bad scenes. The casting is wonderful (Dispite Nero who fills in the shoes of Lancelot as a handsome man) Richard Harris is the BEST King Arthur I've ever seen, (I've seen every movie about him.) His singing voice is far better than the talk sing, of Richard Burton.

Vanessa Redgrave is the BEST Guenevere to have ever been played, (I've seen every actress, on film, to play her.) Although Julie Andrews has a beautiful voice, I feel that Vanessa did better with the songs than Julie. Vanessa made them her own, gave them feeling, whereas Julie sang them as if they were just songs. Also, Vanessa played Guenevere perfectly. Julie played her as a ditsy, comedic queen. Not really good for a drama. Plus I could never see Julie Andrews doing those scenes, especially the dramatic ones. I've tried to picture her, but I just can't. To let you know, I'm also a Julie fan. Plus Julie Andrews resembles Glenn Close when she has long hair. Also the director said that Julie didn't look as if she was worth losing all England for. That's the true reason for the casting. And, to those who think Vanessa entered this film without preparing for it, she took singing lessons.

The movies songs are wonderful. I enjoy all of Guenevere's songs and Arthur's, and I enjoy If Ever I would Leave You and Guenevere. It's a must see for any fan. Warning, Franco is rather boring, so just bear with him. His costars tend to bring up his scenes. Also, director Joshua Logan doesn't help either.