Steve G-2

I have to call this a dark comedy, but so dark (in a way) that it's painful to laugh at. The inanity of most of the characters, other than the central team of honest (but far from perfect) scientists, is so extreme that it is tempting to just throw in the towel and say "this is silly" - but it is so convincingly done that you can't. You don't want to believe that almost any of the scenes could ever happen, but you can't quite deny that they could.

The characters are a wild mix, but they are all well done. Some of them seem so normal that you think "wait, that one doesn't belong in this story." Jonah Hill's character is so despicable, and Mark Rylance's so fake-spiritual, as to be painful to watch; it has to be intentional that each scene with them is brief, allowing some respite. Almost every little scene pushes the limits of credibility, yet it hangs together. The story continually oscillates from outrageous to poignant, to witty, with occasional moments of "oh, now we're going to see some common sense take hold." But it doesn't.

This is a strangely enchanting film. The key plot elements are not notable for logical consistency, but once you accept that certain aspects are not meant to be explained, the characters and their behavior are extremely engaging. Of course it helps if the viewer is a Beatles fan, but that's not really essential; what matters is the way in which certain central characters are. The various characters may be lovable, venal, or (most of them) just plain people, but the interplay between the central character (beautifully played by Himesh Patel) and each of them - and his entire world - entirely carries the viewer along. There are few films (Stranger than Fiction stands out as another) that rely so entirely on a thoroughly implausible foundation, yet do such believable and captivating things with it.

I stumbled across this fine film by luck, seeking out Christmas movies I hadn't seen. It is complex, largely unpredictable, thought-provoking and well acted. Christmas is essential to the plot, and provides one - but only only one - of the main thematic elements.

The characters played by Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck are not very lovable, and not stock romantic comedy characters. If you've seen "Christmas in Connecticut" and almost anything with Fred MacMurray later in his career - forget it. Early on in the film, there are moments when it seems it will be a typical romantic comedy, with the two leads making foolish initial decisions about each other, followed by embarrassment, defensiveness, and arguments that quickly turn to romance.

None of this happens.

There are some lighter, amusing interludes, but both characters remain true to type - intelligent, suspicious, on guard, one with deeply ingrained ethical principles, the other not so much - and consciously constrained by their roles in society. Even when their relationship is thrown into what would seem to be a heartwarming family Christmas scene, sense and their awareness of what is wrong don't go out the window. Beulah Bondi's motherly wisdom and charm are beautifully done but do not solve everything, and Sterling Holloway serves not so much as comic relief but as a real character who would be comic relief if the situation were better.

The story remains unpredictable right to the end. Ultimately it is about honesty - to oneself and others - and getting second chances at life, which is very much a Christmas theme. Love does *not* conquer all - but it certainly changes things.

This is first and foremost a writer's story, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, storyline, screenplay, and acting. Author Alan Bennett (played with deftness, subtlety, and, one can't help thinking, great honesty, by Alex Jennings) found an unconventional and quirky approach to telling a true story as it unfolded - from the unique perspective of a playwright, for whom everything is a potential plot element and everyone a potential character. This is not a case of the playwright deliberately inserting himself into the story - he is an essential element of it, and the audience is not to forget it. Along the way of unfolding the history, he not only presents the observed facts, but lets the viewer in on how those facts appeared to him, and how they affected him as victim and as playwright. He unabashedly (and increasingly) plays teaching games with the audience, giving them opportunities to understand not only what is driving the action, but also *how* he is helping them follow what is happening; you can easily imagine the author says "look, audience - do you see what is happening here?"

According to what I can glean from various sources, the "mostly true" story is very largely true (the few additions are useful devices in order to illuminate some of the unknowns), but Bennett did not really know just how much of it was during much of the plot. His place in the unfolding mystery of "Miss Shepherd" is as central to the movie as the mystery itself.

Maggie Smith plays a complex, somewhat neurotic, almost pathologically secretive character, whom the writer - as a writer - can't help finding as fascinating a study as she is unpleasant and aggravating to deal with. It's tempting to lump this character in with other "difficult" women she has played in recent years, but it most emphatically stands on its own. She is not cute, or wise, or endearing, but pitiable and very real. A couple of added events in her story are improbable (of course much of the literal truth is as well), and apparently supplied or altered for dramatic effect, but to good purpose: they are shorthand mechanisms to help convey essential facts that the characters could not express more directly. The truth - the playwright's truth, that is - prevails.

In this film the Disney studios did the near-impossible: it is 100% mocking all the traditional Disney "princess story" tropes from start to finish, while at the same time using them to entertain from start to finish.

The script, songs, and performances work flawlessly in both ways from the start. The animated "True Love's Kiss" scene is charming - but charming to excess, quite deliberately. The youngest in the audience are delighted with it, while more mature viewers know it can't (and had better not!) carry on this way.

Soon after the scene shifts to the "real" world, some major plot elements become fairly predictable - it of course, because it's a "Disney princess movie" and as to those plot elements, that's exactly how you're supposed to understand it. The "Happy Working Song" is over-the-top farce, yet at the same time conveys the important message that in this story, the spirit of the fantasy storybook universe will actually work in the nitty-gritty real New York, rather than the two words remaining separate and irreconcilable. Similarly the "That's How You Know" musical extravaganza is both delightfully "Disney" and absurdly "Disney" at the same time; like Robert in the scene, we are mystified, tempted to reject the evidence of our senses, and yet carried away at the same time. It's like the best part of being in Disneyworld, where the "willing suspension of disbelief" comes so insidiously easily.

Every character is just what he/she should be, just as naive (without being dumb) or just as cynical (without being totally impervious to enchantment) as we could want. Only the evil queen is (of course pure villain.

Alan Mencken and Stephen Schwartz topped their best (which is saying a lot) with the music and lyrics, and probably no one but Amy Adams could have filled their songs and the princess role with so much charm without being silly. (And of course "practically perfect in every way" Julie Andrews had to deliver the opening narration - who else?)

This is one of the movies I consistently try to introduce people to; a relatively unknown yet tremendously rewarding viewing experience. The script is remarkably intelligent and witty, yet, not at all mannered or artificial - the characters fully justify the lines. This is one of Cary Grant's very best performances, and one of Katherine Hepburn's; the chemistry between them is striking, far beyond the better-known (also excellent) The Philadelphia Story, and worlds beyond (charming but far more lightweight) Bringing Up Baby. The key is the directing, of course, plus one of their best scripts - or anyone's. They and Lew Ayres, especially, make you feel strongly for them, and supporting characters Doris Nolan, Edward Everett Horton, Henry Kolker and Jean Dixon make significant contributions. The overall arc of the story is somewhat predictable, but the details are wonderful. You do not want to miss a word, a facial expression, a nuance, from beginning to end.

This is an enjoyable and engaging rendition of the 1953 book, suitable for young and old. It has some odd inconsistencies for the more critical viewer - mainly the fact that it is an unequivocally British story, set in an unequivocally British town, yet some of the main characters (and some other aspects) are clearly and inexplicably American - but those quirks needn't detract from the excellent script and characterization. It's a good film to re-watch with the finger on the "pause" button of the video remote control - the details of the Borrowers' home and equipment are fun to spot. (Don't do that the first time, though.) It's also notable for the first teaming of Mark Williams, Jim Broadbent, and Tom Felton, all leading characters here as well as in certain later and distinctly better-known films.

People seem to need to compare this to The Princess Bride, and I'm not sure why; they have very little in common but being fantasies (this one much more so than TPB) with good production values and not relying too much on big excitement. That's about it. OK, if that's an obligatory comparison, here are the differences: Stardust has magic, and The Princess Bride has likable, enjoyable characters. Oh, and TPB has a tremendously witty script, which Stardust doesn't; just clever in parts.

To be fair, there are two or three distinctly likable characters in Stardust, but they aren't present for the greater part of the movie; and for me, that was a big issue. Most of the characters are well done, but they range from truly evil to wantonly vicious to somewhat immature and peevish. In the abstract, taken as story elements, they seem like great ideas, but you wouldn't actually want to spend time with them.

Watching this film as escapism is fine. It's almost suitable for young children, but not really: sexual references and violence are not graphic or gross, but the prevalence of selfishness, including random and thoughtless killing, although not bloody, would be disturbing. Clare Danes is fairly magnetic, although not lovable, and the premises and story line are nicely twisted. Mark Williams turns in a nicely quirky performance, as always, and the visuals are smooth and attractive. Robert De Niro is charming as well as whimsical, but oddly, he's the only one. There's something wrong with that.

As expected from the trailers, the flight scenes are thrilling - not believable, but thrilling; but overall the film felt like a commercial for Alcoholics Anonymous. (The familiar formula: "you have to admit you've hit bottom and then AA can save you.") All the acting is competent but none of it particularly impressive; but maybe that's the fault of the script. Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, and John Goodman can always be counted on to give what the script demands, but this one didn't demand much, or even allow for much. Once you know that it's a movie about alcoholism and drug addiction, the major plot developments become predictable as movie devices, but at the same time contrived and unrealistic. Many plot elements were not credible: the open association of Washington's character with an obvious and outrageous drug dealer; his co-workers' tolerance of his obvious abuse for years before the film opens; his stability and effective behavior while full of alcohol plus cocaine; the takeoff into a severe storm; Nicole's incredibly quick and painless withdrawal from heroin, etc. Worse, while Washington's, Cheadle's, and Bruce Greenwood's acting was fine in individual scenes, their characters badly lacked continuity; their behavior at any one moment was often inconsistent with their characters as developed up to that point, especially toward the end. The hotel room door left unlatched; the open window; each step of Washington's interaction with the mini-bar - all were unbelievably contrived; and the final drug transaction apparently was deemed necessary for the setup of the final scene, but was totally inconsistent with Cheadle's and Bruce Greenwood's characters up to that scene; I could almost see the actors thinking "does the script really call for me to do this?" Oh, and Washington's behavior while full of alcohol plus cocaine seemed designed to convey one message: alcohol bad, heroin bad, cocaine - well, maybe pretty good. It gets you hot babes and is a quick, sure remedy for drunkenness. Despite a good cast and some excitement, I can't really recommend this film to any audience.

I had seen this movie mentioned here and there for years, but neither the title nor the cast list suggested to me that I would enjoy it. (Ive never been that big a fan of either Ernest Borgnine or Bette Davis, although I knew they were fine actors; and putting sweet young Debbie Reynolds in the same scenes with them did not seem promising.) Finally someone whose taste I respected recommended it, so I gave it a try. What a delight! A subtle, intelligent script, with a cast that absolutely did it justice. None of the characters are perfect; none are terrible; and above all, none are simple. What is remarkable to me is the complexity and depth of the characters that is revealed without any one of them ever explaining him- or herself any more articulately than real people do. It took fine writing (Chayevsky may have done this better than anyone else), fine directing, and fine acting all around to accomplish this. Somehow it escapes being distinctly melodramatic, "gritty," bleak, or even particularly sentimental - while at the same time avoiding being too light, or too witty. It is just eminently watchable.

First, I should mention that any summary of this film I've seen is wrong. It is *not* about seven Trappist monks who are taken captive; it is about eight (and briefly nine) Trappist monks who are living with the fear of capture or death.

That said, this is a slow-paced, subtle, beautifully acted and filmed depiction of the psychology of men of a certain kind in these trying circumstances. The moral lessons regarding religion and tolerance are good but very simple, and distinctly secondary. (It is, after all, based on truth, which is rarely neatly focused around moral lessons.) The action is trivial. What matters is the people. They are real people, sometimes admirable, but very human. They talk now and then, but they think first. They are not heroes, except sometimes, and in a very limited sense; they are just people with a degree of faith and love, and a strong wish to live up to their own ideals.

As others have mentioned, it is beautifully photographed. It is also quiet (there is no background music whatsoever, only the music the characters themselves provide) and slow-paced, and the persistent tension comes only from the knowledge of the fear under which the characters are living.

I cannot think of this quite as a war drama, but rather as a story of nine men whose lives, at this particular time, happen to be affected not only by their faith, and their work, and their friends, and their individual doubts and aspirations, but also by a kind of war.

I truly loved this film. I went in with uncertainty, because of the relatively lightweight parts Will Ferrell has had before, and left feeling very good about the world. It blends fiction and the love of fiction better than any other film I can think of.

The basic concept of the film is obvious in the previews: the main character who discovers that he is a character in someone else's book. OK, clever, maybe promising, but could be silly. It wasn't, not for a moment. What is remarkable is how unflinchingly and at the same time tenderly the writing, directing, and acting pursue the ramifications of this simple premise. The elements of love story, the comedy, and the tragedy are not separate aspects of the film; they all relate in important and often subtle ways to this central premise.

One remarkable aspect is the literary quality. Movies about books are rarely satisfactory to people who love books, and here, the relationship was crucial. The narrative from Karen Eiffel's (Emma Thompson's) book in the works, her own personality, and Professor Hilbert's commentary thoroughly coincide. I have never before seen literature, as such, handled in a movie so convincingly. I could easily believe in Eiffel as a serious, intelligent, introspective author, a master of literary craft; I could fully understand Professor Hilbert's (Dustin Hoffman's) reaction after reading it; I could easily believe that I'd want to read more of her books.

The weakest part (in my subjective view) was the very last scene: not so much the ending plot, but the narrative. For me, that took a bit of the edge off the literary merit. On the other hand, the scene in which Crick and Eiffel finally make contact with each other could so easily have fallen flat; instead it was one of the most perfectly crafted moments I have seen in a long time.

Note added 2014: After six years this is still one of my favorites ever; every little aspect is just right, and it occurs to me to mention that the relative weakness of the ending is completely appropriate to the story. Those who have seen it will understand why.

This was a delightfully twisted film. As others have said, the mood, acting, staging and script are all right on. The characters are strikingly real, although it would have been so easy to make them just stage characters; even when their behavior is temporarily hard to understand, it is also hard to disbelieve. Where it really excels, however, is inserting an element of science fiction with the other "magic" so smoothly that it does not seem out of place. Most people with whom I have watched the film entirely failed to notice more than one significant plot element, not because what was happening was concealed, but because - well, after all, it's illusion, isn't it? Throughout, and especially by the time you get to the end, you don't expect to really understand. Only when you really think about it and discuss it afterward do you realize that within its own terms, it all hangs together beautifully.

Sometimes a film is so complex and confusing so that people walk out saying "I don't think I get it"; but rarely do they also say "I want to see it again." The Sixth Sense was an exception; this one is even more so.

I did not expect to enjoy this movie; from the few descriptions I'd seen I thought it would be a string of silly gags about nudity. I could not have been more wrong. The story involves some normal, believable characters dealing with grief and with the habitual narrowness of their lives in a creative way. I liked them and believed in them. At times some of the characters seem a bit to good to be true, but far more often I found myself thinking "yes, I know people like that." Their flaws and errors of judgment are handled well. When I first saw this movie I was totally unaware that it was based on a true story; that fact just put the cap on it. There's a little bit of saccharine, but a lot more unfiltered honey.

The restoration of this film to its current 91-minute length was certainly worthwhile. Little or none of the additions are filler; they are of good quality and help the story line. The plot and dialogue are still a mere shadow of Arthur Conan Doyle's book, which remains one of the most enjoyable SF/adventure novels ever written (and possibly Doyle's most engrossing work); but a better adaptation at the time would have been very surprising, and none has ever been made. The female lead character, played by the delightful Bessie Love, is foreign to the original novel yet works very well; the other characters are surprisingly faithful to the book, likeable, and not nearly as dated or stilted as could be expected for the era. I enjoyed viewing it with both the more-or-less-original piano score and the modern orchestral score.

Those who are impressed with the dinosaurs as special effects should also consider that in 1925, scientists knew far less about dinosaurs than we do now. The visual conception was not only as good as movie viewers of the time could ask for - I suspect it probably would also have impressed a 1925 paleontologist.

All in all, this is a film for film buffs, and of course no competition for Spielberg - but darned good just the same.

This is a story of one very unusual and several fairly interesting characters - no more and no less. Some reviews talk about how well the film captures the look and feel of 1940 New York, but Tucci kindly does not hit you over the head with atmosphere; there are no "do you get it? You realize who that was supposed to be?" scenes. Instead he merely nails down the milieu so precisely that it becomes unobtrusive, and allows you to focus entirely on the characters and their story. Likewise he seems to ignore who in the cast is a star, in favor of who is right for each role. The result is not quite a touching story, nor an inspiring one, nor a tragic one, but a satisfyingly believable as well as intriguing one. Not a documentary, by any means - it is far more creative than that - but fine story-telling. No individual and no event is larger than life, but all are handled with respect and just enough affection. The fact that the story is true is almost incidental; from what I can tell, memorable characters such as Harold Ross (and of course Gould) are portrayed with great accuracy, but what really counts is that they work as characters.

Don't worry about what the secret is. Just get to know these people. You'll like them.

This is a bad, bad movie, done with a lot of talent. Everyone in the cast seems to be doing an excellent job of what the director wants done - but why? Why? The plot could have made a good short story or been the basis for a much more interesting full-length movie, but not this one. The main problem is the dialogue, which resembles nothing in real life. Speaking their lines, the characters seem to be working very hard at something other than communicating. There is nothing spontaneous, natural, or, in short, believable about *any* line of dialogue. The consistency is amazing - *never* does anyone say something the way a real person in such a situation would say it. As a result the characters become machines for speaking lines, not people. As a mystery, this movie missed its big chance: the payoff should not have involved the cops stepping in and finally identifying all the bad guys, but the inventor stepping in and revealing the mechanism by which he works his remote-control robots.

This is the gold standard for enjoyable mystery movies; only "The Lady Vanishes" comes close. Unlike many films which maintain the mystery by deceptive filming or editing, in this one you know just what the central character (Laughton) knows at all times, and you unravel the facts along with him. You are never quite sure how much you don't know, right to the end. Laughton and Lanchester are delightfully amusing without detracting in the least from the main story line. Tyrone Power is convincing and Marlene Dietrich is at her peak - not only as a fascinating woman but a startlingly effective actress. It's hard to say any one role of Charles Laughton's is his best - he gave himself so much competition - but this is probably the one you will want to watch again and again.

I do not routinely enjoy Steve Martin, but was extremely impressed with the sensitivity and deftness with which he played Cyrano de Bergerac in modern guise. There is nothing archaic or stilted about the script, yet it is surprisingly faithful to the character of the original play (which in turn is closely based on Cyrano's true history). Numerous scenes - including most of the best ones - are lifted almost intact from the Edmond Rostand play, but a viewer who is unfamiliar with that source probably will have no idea which scenes they are. The poetry, imaginative spark and romantic instincts of the original play are handled lovingly and with finesse. Daryl Hannah is just right as a thoroughly modern Roxanne, willingly surprised to find that there is still romance in the world. You do not have to be familiar with the source to enjoy this witty, satisfying, and very funny movie - but if you are, you will enjoy it all the more.

Note added 2015: When I first wrote the above in 1999, Steve Martin had not yet done most of his (in my view) best work; but I still go back to this as my very favorite of his performances.

This is a wry, engaging, and thoroughly satisfying film; I heartily recommend it for everyone but those who demand action above all. Don't believe reviewers who say it is "hilarious"; it is rather continually amusing in a gentle way, with laugh-out-loud humor occasional at most. The film deals directly with the characters' struggle to decide what is right and what is wrong behavior in their particular situation, yet the viewer can't help thinking that either solution would be just fine - for them. The film is full of very normal yet wonderful characters, whose flaws are as pleasant as their virtues. The various subplots all have their place, and do not detract at all from the main story line. At the end it is not clear whether good triumphs over evil, but quite clear that affection triumphs over meanness. Reminiscent of Peter Sellers' Heavens Above! or of some of Alec Guinness' early comedies, this is a great movie to share with family and friends.

This movie is about great character(s) and about the tragedy of the Old West: that is, that it wore out. Lee Marvin is unforgettable in this film because he is funny and tragic at the same time, and neither aspect detracts from the other. The same theme pervades the movie; Hole in the Wall is just a hole in the wall, its characters coming to grips with the fact that they are not dangerous any more. Yet it is a fun movie, not at all a sad one. The Greek Chorus of Stubby Kaye and Nat King Cole are a wonderful touch; they maintain the feeling of romance and legend that makes the movie so engrossing and prevent it from becoming melancholy. The funniest scene: Lee Marvin arriving in the farmhouse in front of funeral candles. No, I won't give it away; see it.

Describing the outline of this movie to others is a mistake. The story line is a network of loosely connected episodes and parallel plot lines; yet the result is a seamless whole. The characters are wonderfully believable without being predictable. I am not a fan of character studies, but I continually wanted to know these characters better. Techniques used in this film have been tried often by others without anywhere near the same level of success; this is the first time I know, for instance, that characters in a movie have been able to sit and tell each other stories, or even sit and look at each other, saying nothing, without the viewer feeling the slightest impatience. Stay with it through the final credits; not one line should be missed. Harvey Keitel, William Hurt, Stockard Channing, Forest Whitaker and newcomer Harold Perrineau Jr. all turn in subtle, natural, and ultimately remarkable performances. This is a beautifully acted and directed work, full of small surprises, and thoroughly satisfying.

An exaggerated, soap-opera-like version of Shakespeare. The director apparently decided to challenge himself - but not the audience - by using Shakespeare's words, extracting every possible innuendo and making each one graphic; no subtlety is permitted. As a result, many significant elements of the resulting story are done in pantomime - since they were never in the original script (sort of an inversion of the "What's Up, Tiger Lily?" experiment). Almost every spoken line is an exercise in melodrama. Only Puck - naturally the sprightliest and most off-beat character - is pleasantly mild. Calista Flockhart manages to make her character highly appealing despite the high tragedy that pervades her every word, while romantic male leads Christian Bale and Dominic West remain thoroughly unlikeable throughout. Kevin Kline oscillates from hambone to buffoon to romantic dreamer - all of which he does well, but they don't add up to a single coherent character. Finally, the filming takes a story originally set in ancient Greece, with a small cadre of 17th-century English clowns, and transposes it to turn-of-the century Italy - without any effort to reconcile the resulting inconsistencies. The pace remains suitably frantic until the last fifteen minutes, which appear to be an attempt at sentiment but fall flat. A visually attractive film, but overall reminiscent of "Finian's Rainbow" without the advantage of interesting music.

The acting, scenery, artistic composition and overall cinematography in Kundun are all remarkable, and combine to make a deep impression on the viewer. At the same time, the film tells a story which is historically and culturally significant. Unfortunately, the persistently mystical and impressionistic approach leaves the viewer wondering, at many points throughout the movie, whether what is shown is fact, memory, dream, vision, or simply a sensory/emotional impression the director wants to give the audience. A sense of death and doom pervade the movie, along with a vague fear of irrational forces acting through - or around - otherwise highly rational characters. Kundun is a work of art, but it is a dark art; a rewarding but not a satisfying experience.

I saw an amateur stage production of Noises Off which was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. The film, despite noble efforts by Burnett, Caine and Elliott, fell short. John Ritter did not belong, and the comic timing, camera work, and editing were lackadaisical. Yes, it is funny, but could stand to be redone by a more comedy-oriented director.