gandalf-25

This is an absolutely first rate film with a seemingly endless cast of grade-A Actors (and a couple of Actresses). It's chocked full of so many familiar faces from both film and television that I couldn't stop asking myself "where have I seen that person before?" I thought that cutting back and forth between the two story lines was very effective and created a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Ten years ago, this would likely have been a two part episode of Masterpiece Theatre on PBS. PBS should stop asking "If PBS doesn't do it, who will?" They might not like the answer.

This is one of those "love it or hate it" films. I have friends who couldn't even watch it to the end, they hated it so much. Personally, I found it moderately amusing the first time, but appreciated it much more the second. Taken literally, it's a very bad film. It's like the proverbial actor/actress who must use a considerable amount of talent and skill to portray a really stupid and annoying character. Plan Nine From Outer Space is an enjoyable film to watch because it's so unbelievably bad (unintentionally). Mars Attacks! provides the same sort enjoyment, but does it in a very intentional manner. It's an homage to bad Sci-fi movies. If you really like SCTV, you'll probably like Mars Attacks!. If you find SCTV pointless and stupid, find another movie to watch.

A - I knew very little about this film before seeing it. It didn't help, I still don't like it.

B - I do get it, I just wish that I didn't.

C - If this film only cost $30,000 to make, they must have spent $28,000 of it on beer and pizza.

D - The most frightening thing about this movie is the fact that I shelled out six bucks to see it (I won't count the popcorn, I was hungry anyway).

E - If I ever see this film again, I'll have to be a prisoner of war undergoing psychological torture.

F - The person who thought this idea up is the greatest marketing genius since the guy who invented the pet rock.

G - If you enjoyed this mess then I have several hours of home movies you would likely consider a masterpiece of modern cinema.

H - I never thought I'd see a film worse than "Eraserhead". I was wrong.

I heard Emma Thompson talking about this movie on a talk show several years ago and eagerly awaited it at the box office. After a year or so, I forgot all about it until I saw a copy of it on sale at the video store for five dollars. Thinking that I couldn't go wrong for five bucks, I purchased it and took it to a friends to view it. All of us were fans of Jeff Goldbloom, Emma Thompson and Rowan Atkinson. As the closing credits rolled by, one of my friends commented that "this movie is so bad that it must have been made by the government". Everyone present was in agreement. If you want to buy my copy, let me know.

The best thing about this series is the fact that it will either teach or remind a great many people about the accomplishments of the race to the moon. Sadly I feel that this is one of the most misunderstood and under appreciated events in human history, thought of by many today as some sort of great patriotic publicity stunt by an insecure America. I feel I can almost read Tom Hank's mind and feel his desire to make people understand the difficulty and significance of the achievement. The series does a wonderful job of placing the entire series of events in context with the political and social climate of the day.

We now live in a world where most of us simply take it for granted that we will probably someday travel to, explore and perhaps even colonize other worlds in our solar system and even beyond. This is the only true because hundreds of thousands of people contributed to proving beyond doubt that it can be done. The race to the moon changed us, even if we don't quite realize it, and this series is a reminder of that.

I've seen many comparisons of this film to both "Fargo" and "Very Bad Things" and I am totally baffled. Fargo was a black comedy and very effective as such. Very Bad Things was so black in my view that it sailed right past being humorous and crashed headlong into disgustingly pathetic. I would not even consider calling this film a comedy. Sure, I cracked a smile occasionally, mostly due to an ironic plot turn or a subtle revelation of character, but comedy? No way. My most significant reaction to it was a feeling of anxiety due to the significant similarities between the central characters, myself, and 98% of the rest of the people that I've ever met. That's what I think the film makers had in mind. To make us think about our own possible actions in a similar situation, as unlikely as it may be to ever happen. Neither those totally pure of character nor those totally lacking in character will find anything disturbing or threatening here. Only the vast majority of us "good" folks will squirm a little as the plot progresses.

I thought the acting and characterization were generally very good. I was particularly impressed with the Billy Bob Thornton character as a man of limited intellectual ability with occasional flashes of insight and understanding that are quite surprising and keep him from becoming too cliche.

I've discovered that the more boring and dismal a film is, the more stiff and sore my neck will get watching it. This movie is about an eight out of ten on the Stiff-neck-ometer. A visually interesting movie with very poor dialogue and a cliche ridden and predictable plot line. Not all of the characters died in it, but I wish they had.

Rude, crude, juvenile, tasteless, and pretty darn funny. I had a few good chuckles at the first film, but a lot of great ones at this one. I wonder what the next one will be called? Thundershag? Live and Let Shag? A License to Shag? Wait, I've got it.....On Her Majesty's Secret Cervix!

I've literally just returned from seeing this movie. I'm not quite sure what to say. I stayed and watched the credits until the very end of the reel because I didn't want to get out of my seat. I still feel like I'm in a trance. I also feel like crying with the knowledge that this will be the very last Kubrick film. 2001 will always have a special place in my soul, but Stanley was right. This is the best thing he's ever done. Wow.

I learned some time ago to discount most of the hype surrounding highly anticipated films, and just try to take them as I see them. As a result, I thoroughly enjoyed The Phantom Menace. O.K, maybe it seemed just a bit too "kiddified" and some of the little plot twists were rather contrived. As well, none of the characters had the screen presence of a Han Solo or A Princess Leia. But on the whole it was a pretty good film. It did not lack a plot as a number of other folks have claimed, but in my opinion had no more nor less plot than any of the other films in the series. Try and keep in mind that this is ONLY Star Wars, not Shakespeare in space. It's really only supposed to be fun and entertaining, not a life changing experience. The simplest and most basic endorsement I can give is to say that I've seen it twice, enjoyed it more the second time, and look forward to my next viewing.

I agree with those who call this a poor imitation of Boogie Nights. It's not that it was all that bad, it just isn't that good. It's like the cream of wheat of movies. Fills your stomach up when you're hungry but fails to excite. Mediocre acting (Mike Meyers was OK), mediocre script, and mediocre plot. It could have done a much better job of conveying the shallow tackyness of disco culture, given that it was focused on the capital city. Just a whole lot of wasted potential.

I'm a fan of costume dramas, so I was only mildly disapointed with Elizabeth. I found the dark period candle/torch lighting to be pleasingly realistic (much more realistic than the historically innacurate plot). Generally, the acting was pretty competent, highlighted by the performances of Blanchet and especially Rush. Strangely, I found Joseph Fiennes a little miscast in his role, though I thought him superb in Shakespeare in Love. Without the benefit of reading the other comments on this site first, I was reminded a great deal of The Godfather during the scenes of rounding up and punishing the conspirators. As costume dramas go, I almost prefer "Lady Jane", an equally historically inaccurate film that just seemed to come together a bit more cohesively and provide a bit more compelling story while being somewhat more entertaining. Still, I suppose it's a great deal better than most of the other dross on offer most of the time.

Like another of the commentators before me, this movie reminded me of "The Prisoner" television program. The Truman Show is a somewhat thoughtful little film, and raises some interesting questions about the nature of privacy and of freedom and free will. The problem I had with it was the premise. I can sort of allow myself to be convinced that a man can be raised under such circumstances and not be any the wiser, providing he is kept happy enough not to examine his world too closely. Heck, I know people like that. What I can't swallow is that so many people could be so enthralled by the act of observing him sleep, eat, pass wind, pick his nose, etc., that it could survive for thirty years on the air. The most surprising thing about this film is Jim Carrey's performance. Sure, his comic persona may peek out once in a while and might be a bit inapropriate, but it's the mark of a potentially great actor who is still a little hesitant to let go for a while of the thing that made his career soar. I've heard it said before that he has the makings of a first rate actor if ever he is given the right opportunity to develop. After seeing The Truman Show, I'd have to agree. What were Tom Hanks and Robin Williams doing fifteen years ago?

This may sound unpatriotic, but I've always shyed away from Canadian attempts at this type of prime time drama. They've always had a kind of style about them that shouted "Canadian" in a non complimentary way. So when Traders premiered I was reluctant to give it a try. Thank heavens I gave in and viewed it. I was hooked from the very first.

Traders is decidedly Canadian. It takes place in a real Canadian city and is full of references to Canadian culture and institutions. Luckily, this is of no importance at all to the quality of the show. Both the writing and acting can stand shoulder to shoulder with any Prime Time drama produced anywhere in the world, including the best of both American and British television. It did not have to try and sell itself to me by appealing to some sense of patriotic duty to Canadian media like so many other past attempts.

When this show premiered, it was up against the brand new "ER". The magic of video allowed me to view both shows and make my choice. "ER" lost.

It goes to prove that when we stop trying to be so "Canadian" and just try to concentrate on quality, we can kick some major derriere.

This program reminds me a great deal of "Northern Exposure", a compliment since N. E. was a particular favourite of mine. How could you not like a small community where the natives sit around the local pub reading philosophy and arguing the relative merits of existentialism vs. scientific determinism, or where the local constable poaches salmon and the doctor smokes questionable substances in his pipe. Too bad Robert Carlyle is becoming such a celebrity. I suspect we've seen the last new episodes of this charming show.

This is a monumental film. As proof of that claim, I offer two points to ponder. Firstly, look at the number of user comments on this site. Few other films contained herein have inspired such a reaction (good or bad, it makes no difference). People simply do not take the time or effort to make so many comments on a film of minor importance. Secondly, the comments made represent just about every opinion and point of view conceivable. Many movies on this site are referred to as both the best and worst films ever made by the people who send in their comments. Usually, those opinions display a number of recurring themes and tend to form a pattern. Not so for SPR. The comments I've read run the full spectrum of criticisms, some of them highly contradictory. Only a truly monumental film can garner this type and degree of reaction, and draw such a diverse response from so many. Some of the greatest films ever made have continued to be controversial for long periods after their release. "2001:A Space Oddysey" is a good example. It's still loved, hated and misunderstood by hordes of people. Love SPR or hate it, it appears to bear the same stamp of indefinability.

This series helped break prime time drama out of the 70's, "Marcus Welby M.D.", "Medical Center" humorless, melodramatic rut, and was the father of such shows as "Northern Exposure", "ER", and "Chicago Hope". The latter has even paid homage to it through subtle references to its characters and storylines.

Along with "Hill Street Blues" it offered week after week of an ingenious blend of truly insightful drama and clever, often bizzare humour that left me craving more. It is still one of the most missed television programs to ever leave the air.

I think most people have totally forgotten about this show. I sure wish I could. Isn't it funny how some things just lodge themselves in your brain, no matter how useless or pointless they may be?

Clockwork Orange is a prime example of why Kubrick is considered one of the best directors ever (my own personal favourite). Having said this, it's definitely not for everyone. Although not terribly graphic by today's standards, it has a psychological potency matched by few films since. There is also a rather prophetic feel to it in its view of future (now present) gang violence that some may find a little too close to the mark to be comfortable with.

Like most Kubrick films, CWO is an intellectually challenging film that leaves the audience feeling a sense of puzzlement as to the meaning of many of its elements. If you only enjoy movies that play down to your level, you will not enjoy it. However, if you like to be challenged to reach upward a little and struggle a bit, even long after the closing credits, you will find it a treat.

Artistically, it has a great deal of that Kubrick style that leaves the viewer with the same feeling that you get after listening to a great piece of music or studying a fine painting. No one does it like Stanley.

Calling 2001 the best film of all time is a distinct possibility, but calling it my favourite film of all time is a dead certainty. No other film before or since has had the effect on me that it has.

Firstly, I have to say to those who find it pointless or confusing that it does indeed have a point and makes perfect sense once you discover it's meaning. For me, this took over 20 years and a great deal of thought and life experience (and a fair amount of reading). Don't have the time or the inclination? Stick to Star Wars (an enjoyable but totally different kind of film).

I was only ten when I saw this film for the first time. Did I understand more than 20% of it? No. Did I wish to? Passionately. I'd go so far as to say that a desire to understand this movie played a significant role in the direction of my intellectual development. That's a heck of a lot to attribute to a single film, but I'll stick to this assertion nevertheless.

I still experience a feeling of awe and wonderment every time I re-visit 2001, even though I now feel that I pretty much understand the film. Partly, I suppose this is a recollection of my first viewing as a child when I understood little of it, partly the debt of gratitude that I owe to the mental journey I undertook to finally "Get it". If anything, It has more of an emotional impact on me now in my understanding than ever before.

I'm also the only person that I know who feels this way about it, so if you don't "get it", don't feel badly. You aren't alone. If you feel the same way about, then we share a bond.

I was feeling weary from the constant barrage of action flicks, teen comedies and generally mindless drivel that you must endure as the "Coming Attractions" whizz past your eyes every time you enter a theatre. Five minutes into SIL, all memory of those images were completely driven from my mind and replaced by the best screenplay I've encountered in a long, long time.

This is not a perfect film. It doesn't matter. Any criticism that I could come up with would only feel like nit-picking at best. This is the sort of film that you encounter only once in a long while and renews your faith in the movie industries ability to make something truly wonderful. I had been quietly rooting for Saving Private Ryan to dominate the Oscars this year. Now, I must change my mind.

Sometimes you want fine French cooking, sometimes just a burger and fries. This movie is definitely the latter. If that's what you're in the mood for, then it's a pretty darn good happy meal. If you feel the need to compare everything to "Citizen Kane", you'll be highly disapointed (but you should be used to it by now).

This was an entertaining film. OK, the stunts may have been a little implausible (most movie stunts are anyway) and it may have deviated significantly from the ensemble nature of the series, but I thought that it stood up well on its own as a spy film. Some found it too difficult to follow, but to me that kind of challenge makes for interesting viewing.

What really ticked me off was the treatment of the Jim Phelps character (I guess the film's been out long enough to reveal that they made him the bad guy). This simply wasn't nessesary. Not only did they make the good guy of the old series the villain of the movie, they made him a particularly vile and nasty one. This is a bit like having Batman team up with the Joker or James Bond decide to go for the bucks and to hell with the rest of the world. Although I enjoyed the movie, I will always hold a bit of a grudge against it for such a lapse of good judgement.

If there was ever a television family that I would want to be a member of, the Larkin Clan would be it. Led by Pop Larkin (David Jason), a man of unquenchable good nature who does not believe in paying taxes but is more than generous with his money (which he seems to fall backward into), they make Kent seem like the modern day garden of eden. Half of the scenes in any particular episode involve either eating or food preparation. The family liquor cabinet resembles a shrine and plays "What do you do with a drunken sailor?" each time it is opened (a frequent event).

The luckiest character of all is the tax man who is sent to find out why Pop has never paid taxes and ends up never leaving. If you knew why, you'd probably be as jealous as I am. In the frequent words of Pop Larkin...Perrrrfec!

One of my top ten favourite films. Just like The Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful life, this movie was not well received at the time by many critics and did only adequately well at the box office. Although it will never have the broad appeal of those films, time has proven it to be a classic and it will probably endure long after many more critically acclaimed features fade from memory.