Embley

really one of the worst films in recent memory. and that is saying a

lot.

what a muddy script and incredibly bad direction. a few people

said to me that at least it looked good, but i thought it just looked

cheesy - very cliche.

one dimensional characters. bad story development. totally

fractured. very predictable. badly edited. REALLY badly written.

hard to tell if the acting was particularly bad (although i can say

with certainty that at least 'the partner' was really awful..) as the

actors had NOTHING to work with.

amazing that this made it to the big screen..

did i mention that it was bad?

i was very impressed with this documentary-style tv movie. i appreciated the fact that the filmmaker took this approach, giving a sense (at least i hope) of the people on whom these interviews are based, while allowing a buffer zone so that the real people are not subjected to more publicity OR made to look stupid because of their personal beliefs. i thought it was a very wise approach to take and allows more of an unbiased POV in many ways than would a straight up documentary. not to say that this piece was unbiased - it wasn't - and i don't think it should have been. but the filmmaker did not take any low blows and that was refreshing. the way the whole piece was put together was different - i could feel the theatrical aspect coming in, the visuals were much more fractured than a standard tv movie, and i could REALLY appreciate that this was not just another murder story come to life on screen.

thank you for not doing a re-enactment of the crime! i think it was WAY more effective to hear it described by people. i found the laramie project to be horrifying and touching, and i wish more pieces were made that hit at such a gut level. i won't forget this movie.

to its (minor) credit, i did jump once, and there were one or two small twists that i couldn't see coming a mile and a half away, but for the most part it was predictable and boring and the writing was pretty vile. the acting was not terrible - the main boy, fenton, was good - but didn't his brother keep calling him curtis? what was up with that - maybe i missed something there.. there were holes the size of bowling balls in the plot. and why didn't matthew mcconaughey move his lips during the film? i don't think it is worth paying much to see.

this movie was pretty good - i thought the actors were great - all

very natural - especially gael garcia bernal. and the story was

interesting - a little more than just a teen buddy road movie. the

only thing that was annoying was the narration. not the narration

itself, but the way it cut out the sound. seemed like the director

wanted to do something a little different, but it didn't really work that

well... at least not for me. this is well worth checking out.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What was Steve Martin thinking? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

emma thompson is one of the finest actors of out time. i wish she did more work (or perhaps that more people did work like hers) because when her name is attached to something i am almost always sure to get something from it. i can't think of any other actor i can honestly say that about.

not worth the money. boring. john cusack is not bad (he is always good but can't quite lift this film out of the mire) and julia roberts is fine (seems like the purpose of the film was to see how many times they could have her smile in a film) but catherine zeta jones is pretty lame - sorry i just don't think she is a great actress by any stretch of the imagination. the writing is somewhere between bad and mediocre. the whole thing is fairly uninteresting in a bad screwball comedy kind of way. bad dialogue, nothing intriguing about the plot, no closure at all... i am getting bored just writing about the film. it is slow and not funny. it was a waste of my time - i only saw it because there was a press screening and i am VERY glad i didn't spend any money to see this.

jamie bell really does an amazing job in this film. when he first danced i thought - my god why would anyone think he could dance? but in fact he moves in a really unique way and he comes across as very original. as it turns out i wish we had seen him dance more. he has style.

julie walters and gary lewis are also very good. it is definitely a performance driven film. it has the requisite tears and laughter (my only real beef with the film is that debbie drops out of sight half way through the film and i thought she was great so i wanted to see her more and find out what happened in her life as well...

it is a nice film, well worth seeing, although i don't think it is entirely necessary to see it on the big screen (well everything is better on the big screen but you won't lose a huge amount visually in the transition from the screen to video..)

i can't say i ENJOYED this film - it isn't the kind of film you can really have a good time at.. it is depressing and bleak and leaves you feeling drained.

i thought the performances were good, some of the camera work was beautiful and the colours were amazing, and the editting was very good.

but i got bored of the repetition. i get that it was possibly reflecting the repetition in the characters lives, but i just found it a little too much after a while. and i also found the freakish hallucinations by the mother with regard to the tv show late in the film a little too much for me. it didn't mesh with the rest of the film as far as i was concerned.

but i thought the parallel between the mother and the son's habits was very interesting and the gradual deterioration of all of their lives (although they didn't seem to have much to deteriorate from) was well done.

overall it isn't exactly an easy film, but well worth checking out if you don't mind a bit of work.

i am disappointed. to be honest i thought from the advertisments that this film would not be great but i figured if it was a robert redford film with will smith and matt damon it had to have something to it. but it didn't really.

the best things about this film were will smith and some of the camera work. matt damon wasn't bad. but the script was very unfortunate and i don't think the actors could have done much with it. will smith seemed to be given the amusing lines to say and his smiling face is full of light that brightens up the screen always.

so the script. yes it was very bad. no real character development, no thrill to the story, everything felt very rushed. it is hard for a film to live up to a book - the book this was based on was not fantastic, in fact it was kind of cheesy at points, but it was very lyrical and had moments of real beauty - these characteristics did not make it through to the film, though. the script for the film was quite different form the book and i think that was a huge downfall. the whole romance storyline was created for the film and it felt flat to me - no depth to it at all. the relationship between junah and bagger vance is also very different and suffers for it i think. there is little chance for a bond to develop between the two and bagger vance comes off as a wandering life-saver, instead of the mystical all-knowing god that he was in the book. the whole premise of the book - looking at golf as a analogy for the human condition - gets lost somewhere. the film is very thin, little substance if any, and while it doesn't look bad, it doesn't look great - the looks won't carry the film.

and the editing was quite bad. there was no flow to the film. it felt very choppy and there were often cuts or transitions at the wrong points so that it was unclear where the focus of the scene was. i was amazed that this film was released in such a choppy state. very sad.

this is redfords worst directorial work - and it pains me to say that because i admire the man and his work greatly. but there you go - no denying it.

i went into shock when this film won the academy award for best film. i mean it was good but it wasn't THAT good.

but i digress. the acting was great - everyone was perfect in their role (although i have to say that cate blanchett should have gotten the best actress oscar and why geoffrey rush was nominated for this film and not elizabeth i will never understand.. but for some reason i actually expect every year that the academy will award films that are deserving and every year i am disappointed..) and the writing was stupendous.. tom stoppard performs magic with dialogue..

the costumes and sets were beautiful and the overall feel of the film was lovely.

it was amusing, romantic and well-paced. overall it was eminently enjoyable and i would recommend it to anyone looking for a higher level of escapist fare than is normally offered at your local blockbuster.. but the academy award for best film? methinks 'tis a stretch .

not worth wasting your time with.

the performances were disappointingly mediocre, the script is boring, the dialogue is ludicrous and there is not power to this film at all. plus half of it is in soft-focus or framed poorly. bad bad bad. i won't even go in to the role of the president. ridiculous.

i got the feeling it was supposed to be funny or a commentary on the state of the u.s. but it falls extremely flat. there is nothing here worth spending your time or money on.

its very sad because joan allen is a great actress and gary oldman is amazing and i was looking forward to a political thriller that showcased their talents.

i didn't remember how awful pretty women was until it was on tv the other day and i watched it. well part of it. i couldn't stomach it. which is funny because when it came out i thought it was amusing.

why they decided to try another version of it i will never know. runaway bride is awful. one of the worst films i saw all year. i am so sick of the portrayal of women in film. is someone ever going to make a film where they don't look like fancy fluffy morons? what is up with that.

this film sucks. only watch it if you want to see what NOT to do.

england is a conspiracy of cartographers.

this is one of the best written and best acted films around. it is highly amusing although it takes a little more work or attention then other comedies. tim roth and gary oldman are at their very best (and that is certainly saying something as both are stupendous actors).

its a masterpiece.

england is a conspiracy of cartographers.

this is one of the best written and best acted films around. it is highly amusing although it takes a little more work or attention then other comedies. tim roth and gary oldman are at their very best (and that is certainly saying something as both are stupendous actors).

its a masterpiece.

i didn't think von trier could pull it off - i thought it would likely be awful - but it wasn't - he did it. i thought dancer in the dark was one of the most amazing cinematic experiences i have ever had. i was literally speechless afterwards.

i have to say though that i have spent a good portion of the last 18hrs since seeing the film arguing with people about it. i am really amazed that it could produce such severe reactions from people. i thought it was very dark, sometimes humorous, interesting/good looking, and very different than anything i had seen before..

i was very excited to see the film after all i heard about it, but also somehow dreading seeing the film, as i didn't expect it to live up to all the hype surrounding it... but it did and then some.

this was okay - it was a little too slick for me, but i thought it was interesting - mostly i went to see it because it was shot on digital video, but i didn't like the effects they went for, the changing shirt colours and the extreme flourescence - i like stuff a little more subtle..

i thought the performances were good - especially marya delver - she made me laugh more than anyone else.. although don mckellar stapling signs to his chest was not bad either..

but overall it was just too gen-x for me. i have gotten sick of the apathetic twentysomethings searching for meaning.. it has all been done.

the only other two reviews of this film on here at this time make it out to be awful. i don't think it was - i thought it was interesting. it isn't a film i can say that i "like" - it is very difficult to like this sort of horrifying film.. but i thought the characters were interesting and well-portrayed.. the young girls were very good. and i liked the ending very much. i guess the reason i did not hate this film was the performances and the fact that i was filled with a tension throughout the film - bad films do not generally fill me with anything but annoyance. and you can feel the tension from the beginning of this film, way before anything happens to confirm our suspicions.

it is not an easy ride, but i think it is worth it.

i thought the performances were not bad and some of the dialogue was amusing but apart from that i thought this film was boring and looked bad. the camera work was definitely lacking (in many cases it was just plain bad) and the black and white video did nothing to pull me in - i just found it irritating.. the whole piece felt like it could have used a little more time in development and planning..

i had a lot of problems with this film but the main ones were that it is largely boring and seemingly implausible. molly parker was rather weak and her character was thin - i didn't think the motivating force for her actions was adequate. callum keith rennie was fine but the dialogue they were all given was very stilted and silly. it did not come together at all. although i had heard it was offensively bad and horribly violent, it wasn't as bad as all that. but the swans were definitely annoying.

great movie - some of the most amazing kung fu i have seen on film. this is a fun film, it is magical, the story isn't bad, and the visuals are great. michelle yeow is excellent and so is chow yun fat (although michelle yeow deserved top billing..)

ang lee does it again...

i thought this was a beautiful film. it is not my favourite of his films - chungking express holds that spot - this one is quite different from anything else i have seen of his. it is slow (but not annoyingly so) - it takes its time and ponders the characters.. there is minimal movement in the frame - the camerawork is wonderful. the acting is great. the film feels like a long warm comforting drink.

this film didn't really do too much for me. it was okay, but lacking the oomph of Labutes other films. i am not the hugest fan of his other films - just not my cup of tea - but i think they were interesting, they stayed with me long after they were over. nurse betty didn't really stay with me. it has a few pretty funny bits and some good performances, but overall it was just okay.

i brought home this film and watched the beginning and got bored and turned it off. the next day i watched a little more, got bored and turned it off. the next day the same - for 5 or 6 days.. and i am still not finished it!

i persist because i really like most of mike leigh's films, and granted there have been a few interesting/humourous moments in topsy turvy, but overall i can't say i am impressed at all. apart from the art direction, the film seems pretty boring, and while i don't expect leigh's films to move quickly i do expect them to move.

if there is some secret great ending someone please let me know and i will brave it out, but as it is i think i have to call it quits on this one.

i almost gave up on this one, but i am glad i did not. i thought both girls were very good - very interesting characters well portrayed. the plot was simple enough and camera work and art direction were decent.

by the end the film really had grabbed me and it stayed with me for days. i have thought about it many times since. i don't think it is a fantastic film, but any film that gets into a person's head like that is worth seeing so i would recommend it.