Stamp-3

Three questions I have to ask myself:

Why? Why do I put myself through such torture as to watch this kind of feeble mediocrity. A couple of years ago I posted a comment on The Dark Knight, and if memory serves me right I grudgingly said it was just about OK. Even then I was being charitable, but hey ho. With this one however I only have myself to blame. I knew it would be pointless, but still I went. Which adjective to choose? I want to say "portentous" but that won't do. Describing something or someone as portentous, however negatively meant, usually means that the target at least has something, some behaviour, some expression, to be portentous about. To describe a nullity like this movie as "portentous', well you might just as well describe strawberry jelly in the same way. I could level criticism at any character, at any plot point, but why bother. Suffice it to ask how could something with so much sound, fury and action, be so glacially slow? When Batman was in that silly prison, only good manners prevented me from leaping out of my seat and crying "for God's sake climb up the damn chimney you miserable ***** !"

Second question; What? What do people actually see in this, what are they taking out of it. The movie has garnered a lot of praise and a lot of criticism (not helped by the terrible events in Colorado), but everyone regardless of their stance, seems to take it seriously. Why? What are they seeing that I am so patently not? It cannot be plot, it cannot be acting, it can't really be the action and effects. So, what?

Third question; When? When will I ever see another of these ludicrous comic book movies that are being churned out, again? I can answer that one. Never! (at least I hope so!)

One last thought; compared to this "trilogy" the Tim Burton Batman was a masterpiece; good plot, well structured, well acted (the two Jacks and Keaton actually knew what they were doing) leavened with humour and real wit, something this latest movie could sorely do with.

The only conclusion I can come to about "The Dark Knight Rises" is that in this dumbed down age it offers a offers a totally spurious and bogus level of ersatz profundity and intellectualism that the audience, who are used to no better, lap up and think is the real thing. But actual entertainment (which movies like this are meant to deliver)? No way.

It must be an age thing.

For over forty years I would go to the movies once perhaps twice a week; in the eighties I was seeing over one hundred films a year. Watching movies on TV, video, and even DVD/Blue Ray was no substitute for the cinema experience. But over the last few years, I have left the theatre disappointed so often that I have cut my movie going down to perhaps one picture a month.

And last year out came Avatar. "The most hyped, the most praised, the most successful, the most amazing etc etc" movie experience ever. And I knew it would not be very good. But even on my much reduced movie going schedule I dithered and thought I should really see it. But I didn't and later in the year when it came out on DVD, not buying it was no hardship.

But now Avatar is showing on Sky Movies, in England where I live. So we watched it. I lasted forty five minutes. Not good enough, I thought, certainly if I am going to share my views on IMDb. So I tried again. I have got to about 110 minutes; and that is all I can take.

Let me say right from the outset, I am in awe at the dedication, the skill and the professionalism of all the men and women who produced this film. I assume we are looking at years of the most painstaking and exacting work. But in the end you have to ask, to what effect?

I am not against monster movies, I can appreciate visiting "other worlds". I am a bit of a sci- fi buff and I certainly have had my share of liberal guilt (as befits a product of the sixties!), and, to top it all, I loved The Terminator!!

(I even thought Titanic was pretty fair; although to this day I have hardly met anyone who will actually own up to seeing it; strange for the hitherto biggest grosser of all time!)

But this! A glacial pace (even through the action sequences), a story that would make a Year 3 (2nd Grade) schoolchild's infantile ramblings on "the environment" seem profound and an attempt at polemic that was so dull no sane person could be even able to recall it.

More importantly, the story line, the dialogue, the "acting" (but one could only feel sorry for the actors) were so dull and plodding as to invite sleep. Only Stephen Lang had even the semblance of an actual personality. All in all there seemed to be an almost mathematical correlation between the awesomeness (is that a word?) of the film's effects and the awfulness of the story and dialogue.

Avatar has its critics, I know, some of whom say that the storyline is just a rehash of the Pocahontas story. But really how can they know? Did they manage to stay awake?

Avatar (the first 110 minutes) was totally devoid of any wit (and I am not speaking about comedy laughs). One could feel not the remotest empathy with any of the characters and sometimes I found myself actually closing my eyes in embarrassment at the leadenness of the whole thing. Sometimes with a bad movie one can find refuge in the cliché "so bad it's good" and discover a measure of enjoyment that was not the film maker's intention. But not in this instance; it's just bad.

I'll stop now (and not before time!) , because what is the point of some grumpy old man like me ranting on at what is obviously a "masterpiece"!!! I might as well criticise Barack Obama on The Huffington Post!

But you know, it's not an age thing. Bad is just bad.

Watching Inception, I actually felt as if I had lost my short term memory faculty. I think various characters, especially little DiCaprio and his sidekick Joeph Gordon-Levitt, were forever explaining things. What had happened, what would happen, why somethings might happen and why other things might not happen etc etc. But after a while it became impossible to retain the nonsensical gobbledygook that was being spouted and I kept asking myself why are they doing this, why are they doing that? Why are they in the middle of a snow covered mountain? Why is that guy floating around, tying everybody up and stuffing them down a lift shaft? I think all this was explained. Was it? Oh I can't remember. But then a sense of complete ennui took over my body. A listlessness so total that I could not summon up the energy to even try to follow this nonsense.

Today's film makers often pay their respects to the great directors of the past, but their praise and appreciation is entirely bogus. It cannot be otherwise, considering they have no notion how to develop plot, how to create characters that live and breathe and exude vitality. For Christopher Nolan, wit drama and tension may be beyond him, but surely simple coherence is not too much to ask? I am very aware that many people love this film, indeed some even declare it a work of genius (dear oh dear!), but there are some dissenting voices. And for those who recognise Inception for the nullity it is, I have more than once seen the story of "The King's New Clothes" being invoked to describe how so many people seem to have been taken in by this nothing of a picture. But whilst I agree with most of the views of the dissenters, I must take issue with those who use the "King's New Clothes" as a simile. And the reason is simple, this movie is not fit to mentioned in the same breath, even via an unflattering comparison as Hans Anderson's marvellous story. Anderson created, in a few short pages a storytelling masterpiece,; a strong narrative, compelling characters and a classic denouement, all told with brevity wit and clarity.And at the core of the story is an ethical and moral issue that people can, and have debated for centuries And all these characteristics in this gem of the storytellers art, are totally missing in Nolan's boring incoherent mess. In short, rather than be compared to Anderson's great little story, Nolan should be studying it closely to see how a story can be successfully told.

When "Across The Universe" was released in 2007, my immediate reaction was that this would be a picture I would not go near. A bunch of clean living "High School Musical" 20- somethings going through synthetic emotional angst and destroying some great Beatles songs in the process. All in all this would make the karaoke wannabees of American Idol and X-Factor seem almost acceptable.

No, I thought. You may be old and decrepit, but at least you were there. Let today's children wallow in their melisma crazed mediocrity and you leave well alone.

Cut to November 2008. "Across The Universe" is showing on a British movie channel this weekend. The house is quiet, I am by myself; OK let's just watch ten minutes and have all my prejudices confirmed.

Two hours plus later I have been utterly transfixed and beguiled by one of the most enjoyable and compelling movies I have seen in a long while.

Right from "the off" I thought this might be better than I thought, when I saw it was written by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, probably the best TV and movie writing team that The UK has ever produced, and whose work goes back over 40 years and right up to The Bank Job with Jason Statham. (For younger American movie goers they script doctored practically the whole of "The Rock".)

And the story, developed as well by Julie Taymor, the director, was very compelling and very well told. Instead of some vacuous piece of teen nonsense, we are given a very believable story of young people struggling with their own beliefs and sense of identity and self worth in a very tumultuous and world changing time. And I can tell you, even though this is ultimately a fairy story, and uses some very stylised set pieces, the sense of reality and truth was very strong. (Although I don't know why Ian and Dick had Jude working in a ship yard; there was precious little ship building in Liverpool in 1964.)

And the set pieces were wonderfully done. The Induction scene was quite simply a tour de force of creative imagination, and even the Mr Kite extravaganza was a real hoot.

The way the songs and the fairy tale fantasy was integrated into a very real and poignant story was excellent and a testimony to director, set designers and, above all, the actors. I had a real sense of time and place and never for one moment did I think that "these people are trying to create something they know nothing about".

But ultimately it was the songs. The way they were used was superb and the arrangements were almost without exception imaginative, even breathtaking. Indeed the biggest compliment I can pay the music is that often the treatments gave greater depth to the songs than to be honest the originals actually deserved. Even as I am writing this I can't believe what I am saying, but it's true you know. I would actually like to get Prudence's version of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand".

All in all treat this as a salutary reminder for old has-beens like myself. There are great things still happening out there; make sure your prejudices don't make you miss them.

I saw Appaloosa last night. Absolutely fantastic. Whether it is because he is a bit older I don't know, but Ed Harris obviously actually understands westerns.

A straightforward western tale with very little revisionism, with real men doing "what men have to do". The sense of space, the wish to be part of civilization, the bad men resisting that encroachment, the sense of the mythic; it was all there.

A little bit more modern in approach than a classic 50's tale, particularly in how Renée Zellwegger's character developed, but a real story nevertheless; good guys, bad guys. Jeremy Irons is very good as the baddie. Timothy Spall is good comic relief and Ed Harris and Vigo Mortensen a terrific pair, carefully nurturing their relationship while understanding exactly what they have to do.

The pace was very good, allowing the story and character to develop properly. Even so, it could have and should have been shorter - John Ford, or more likely Anthony Mann would have got through this story in about 90 minutes, but very satisfying nevertheless.

Costner did a pretty good job on Open Range (that was really miles too long), 3:10 to Yuma was pathetic (why they bothered to remake it when the makers so totally misunderstood the thrust of the original I will never know).

But this was the real deal, or at least as near to the real deal as we are ever likely to get nowadays. Too bad it will disappear without a trace.

Anyway, I finally got round to seeing The Dark Knight and, given the overwhelming and fanatical praise the movie has engendered, a rather negative critical evaluation which pours cold water on the mass hysteria seems a bit pointless. Because what do I know? But here goes anyway!

So let's confine ourselves to a couple of observations that might give the adoring fans some food for thought.

The plot, whilst completely linear, and in fact, rather banal, was confusingly laid out, and not because Nolan was trying for anything enigmatic or even thought provoking; simply it was a tale not very well told. Muddying up a plot, especially one so basic, is not the mark of a clever movie, simply a poor one.

The fight scenes were likewise confused and consequently rather uninvolving. And somebody must have been on a bonus to see how many shots of the back end of the "Batcycle" could be included in the final cut.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ELEMENT

POSSIBLE SPOILER ELEMENT

But the real surprise for me was the misuse - and I think it is misuse, however deliberately it was conceived - of the central character of Batman.

Batman was essentially a bystander in his own movie. He didn't really seem to do anything, other than swan off to Hong Kong, a sub plot that seemed to be taken from a another movie altogether.

Harvey Dent was the protagonist of this film and The Joker the antagonist.

Batman was seemingly cast adrift, totally peripheral and rather ineffective. It seemed to me that everyone's destiny was settled without much help from Batman, and even the Joker achieved pretty much what he wanted to do.

I'd almost go as far to say that if the movie had done away with Batman and had been rewritten as a straight crime procedural, it would have been a better movie.

Now Nolan and his buddies obviously know what they wanted to achieve, which is fair enough. I am just surprised with the impression I was left with.

Still as I said at the beginning, I am really the wrong person to critique this film. I was cajoled into going and I thought, well it will probably be OK.

And, being kind, that is just about what it was.

What makes a movie like this so wonderful? It's probably just an age thing (I remember seeing this movie at the cinema), but when I saw it again recently I just felt a sense of joy and pleasure and, yes, optimism. Now these are words that may be almost incomprehensible to today's jaded, cynical and, often, brutalised audiences, and I am sure that many would see this movie as slow, naive and totally irrelevant.

But for me the effortless playing, the perfect timing and understated sophistication is so much more intelligent, witty and rewarding than the clunking, crude sign-posted so called "rom-coms" of today.

This is not their best film by any means, but to watch O'Toole and Hepburn playing off each other with such natural and fluent grace is simply magical. Lighthearted fluff like this completely works when the actors really know what they are doing.

And has there ever been anybody who is simultaneously so sophisticated and vulnerable as Audrey Hepburn? There is a scene where she is wearing a chaste little nightdress and she put on a pair of ordinary street galoshes. As she clumps across the room she displays more sex appeal and sheer class than any of today's moussed up, made up, blown up actresses could ever comprehend.

I just had to put a post up about this show, which I have recently watched for about the sixth time. With all the wonderful TV that is made these days, I don't think that there has ever been a show that is more purely enjoyable (and I have been watching TV for over 50 years!).

I had actually read Erlichman's novel ("The Company") and found it a good tight little thriller, obviously using the JFK/LBJ/Nixon Presidencies as his template to tell a fictional tale.

I then saw this TV miniseries in 1977 when I was working in New York, and again back in England a year later when it was shown over here. BBC then showed it again in 1994 when I had the good sense to videotape it (good old VHS), a tape I have kept and pull out every five years or so to watch again. And I love it every time.

The brilliant stroke the writers of the show pulled was to take the book and expand it, to make a full-on comedy drama of the Nixon White House.

And the casting and the story lines are astonishingly entertaining.

Cliff Robertson (the notional hero) is OK, but he has the boring part and has to introduce "The Macguffin", which in this story is the fate of "The Primula Report".

The real fun is the political shenanigans of Senator/President Monckton (Nixon) and his appalling crew.

There are so many good performances (especially Jason Robards as Monckton, but also Andy Griffiths, John Houseman, Harold Gould etc)), but the two "tours des force" are Robert Vaughn as Flaherty and, above all, Nicholas Pryor as Hank Ferris. And the scenes between the two of them are priceless; ("Loyalty Hank, loyalty").

Pryor is amazing. Playing this frightened, ambitious, corrupt little man; the hoops he puts himself through are both hilarious and unutterably painful. The sequence where he inadvertently reveals the levels of corruption going on at The Whitehouse and is dragged over to Flaherty's office thinking he is going to be exposed is, quite simply a comic masterpiece.

And I think this is the point where I diverge from the other, very laudatory, posts on this page.

Those that remember it and have seen it, love it, but their comments are all too serious. In large part this show is a comedy. Not a comedy of jokes and "bits", but a comedy of manner, of wit. The sheer appalling behaviour of the main characters is breathtaking, but you can't help rooting for them. They are all going to get their comeuppance, but it's so much fun watching them do it.

This is a pizza and coke show, par excellence. In fact it's a soap opera, but none the worse for that. The filming technique is very dated; there are so many zoom shots and "dah dah dah" moments, it sometimes feels like an episode of Dallas, but that all adds to the fun.

In short I defy anyone who starts watching it not to be totally hooked.

I only wish they had made a sequel where we could have seen them all crash and burn (with perhaps, against all the odds, Hank actually surviving!!).

The Prisoner may not be the greatest television series of all time, but for me it will do until something better comes along. I was one of the millions of people in the UK who watched the series when it was first televised and sat enthralled every week.

But rather than extol the virtues of the show overall, as many contributors to these pages have done, I would like to voice my love and support for the final episode.

INEVITABLY SOME SPOILERS

I loved the final episode and have watched it many times over the years. The first thing that has to be said, before one gets into its meaning and its relationship with the other episodes, is to acknowledge that it is an absolute virtuoso piece of television. The sheer imagination and creativity of the episode boggles the mind. The dialogue is quite astonishing, it's like avant garde poetry. The energy of the whole piece is staggering.

I believe McGoohan wrote the whole script and knocked it off in about a day. How he did it I do not know, but to say it was inspired is an understatement.

More importantly the episode is of a piece and complements all that went before. Where I think a lot of people have been thrown with The Prisoner… well perhaps that's a bit condescending….the key issue one has to address and acknowledge with the show, is that it presents an allegory of the human condition wrapped up in a fantasy; surreal, almost Alice in Wonderland in style; and then tells the tale using the conventions of a (brilliantly executed) action adventure series.

But you have to accept that it is the allegorical, stylised presentation that drives the show. Therefore one cannot expect a rational, neat conclusion. Who could the people behind the Village be? Who could Number 1 be? The Russians? The CIA, Ernst Stavro Blofeld? It just could not be anyone of these. In the context of the Village, my earlier comparison with Alice makes more sense; Number 1 might just be the Queen Of Hearts.

But the reality of McGoohan's imagination is much more compelling. First of all he took the conclusion and climax in an obvious direction; to move further away from even the notion of reality and to challenge us with ideas. And to express those ideas in the totally bizarre and wonderful setting of trial is quite stunning.

The whole series is about us, about the individual and how we confront the world and the oppressive evil in it; and how we express our own humanity. The Prisoner is about ourselves, the good, the bad; the strong; the weak. And to express that as an allegorical fantasy is, I think, something close to genius.

I think the question one has to ask is who else could Number 1 be, if not ourselves; or because this is a series in which McGoohan is the hero, Number 6. And Number 6 is us; with all our strengths, weaknesses, anger, frustrations and, believe it or not, hope, despite all that outside forces may throw at us.

But even having taken this line, McGoohan surely does not leave the "rationalists" empty handed. There is a conclusion, they do escape (albeit in a surreal way, bursting out onto the A2 – incidentally try driving down the A2 at 70 mph today; that would be surreal!),

And even the ending, with the Hearse driving up again and the compressed air "swoosh" of his house door opening, tells you the dark side may yet win.

The whole episode is perfect, and more importantly, to repeat myself, is a totally satisfactory ending to what has gone before.

Incidentally, as a coda, one comment on the whole series. Look at many of the episodes again, and evaluate the underlying themes of the whole series. Take away the sixties style and look, and doesn't the show resonate even more today than it did even then. What The Prisoner is fighting is more terrifying now than ever. And we are losing the battle with ourselves and letting it happen

Funny and sad, sweet and acerbic, Shopgirl is quite simply the most rewarding experience of the year. I have not read Steve Martin's novel, but from what I knew of it I kinda thought the movie would be good. What I did not expect was an experience so involving, so compelling and simply so delightful. Good, interesting characters start with the writing; great characters emerge when the actors enhance the writers vision. And we see three great examples of this here.

Everything about this film was note perfect; a terrific, slightly idiosyncratic story, wonderful scenes that sometimes have you laughing, sometimes wiping away a tear and always inviting your rapt attention. Terrific acting and direction which ensured that every scene was "just enough".

There is a word that is hardly ever used today, and if it is, it's usually in a sneering way; and that word is "sophistication". But "Shopgirl" is a truly sophisticated movie. Not in the superficial and secondary sense of being glamorous or even cultured, but in the better sense of intelligence, complexity and subtlety. And there is real intelligence at work here; and while all involved display it, it is Steve Martin's own vision that ultimately informs every aspect of the film.

The success of "Million Dollar Baby" gave me new respect for the Oscars; is it too much too hope that "Shopgirl" could achieve the same recognition?

I've just watched the first part of 'No Direction Home". All I can say is thank you Mr Scorsese for bringing us such a wonderful document. I suppose the movie has most resonance for people who were there and buying the records and listening to the performances, but I would have thought even a fifteen year-old looking at the footage of Dylan singing "Pawn in The Game" would feel a shiver of wonderment.

I did not actually go to any of the '65 and '66 concerts (something I always regret) but I know many people who did, and many have told me that the cheering was usually as loud as the booing, and I don't know if that will fully come across; but a wonderful document, nevertheless.

And that is why Scorsese must be applauded; the editing was superb, the interviews were well chosen, the music clips were generous and Dylan is wonderfully articulate and revealing.

Yes boys and girls I enjoyed it; and Highway 61 in all its vinyl glory is going on the turntable right now!

I have always found this picture fascinating, perhaps, unwittingly, almost a milestone. The other contributors on this page have got quite worked up about the historical context and accuracy of the movie. What they have to say is very interesting and I am sure very valid. I confess I was content to enjoy the film as an involving, and at times quite compelling, drama.

What has always interested me however about this movie is the acting. And the real sense of, in this one film, the baton as it were, being passed.

For about the first three quarters of the movie the acting is exactly as one would expect from almost any "stiff upper lip" Hollywood military drama of the time. Dear old Gary Cooper (getting a bit long in the tooth) hitting his one note and doing it very well. And a few old stalwarts like Ralph Bellamy dutifully plowing the same furrow. And even the younger actors content to mimic the same stodgy expository style of their elders.

And then...in comes Steiger. Fluid, fluent, naturalistic, delivering his lines twice as fast as everyone else. In short a real character, as opposed to a cut-out, hits the screen.

I guess what you could call it is new acting mets the old. Now by the time this movie had come out, "The Method" had already had lots of screen time...Clift, Brando, Shelley Winters, Steiger himself. But they were in their own movies. Well perhaps "Red River" might be another example (Wayne and Clift); but this movie is the best example of all.

When I saw the movie I knew nothing of the actual events portrayed, and I suppose, as I was watching it, I assumed that we would plod through in a totally acceptable way to Mitchell's certain triumph. And then wham! Rod blows the whole film out of the water.

In the actual story Mitchell was "beaten" by Gullion (and historians I know that statement is a travesty...but allow me my soundbite point.) In the movie Cooper is knocked cold by Steiger.

Saw the first two episodes of Joey on a quick trip to New York to stay with friends (no pun intended). Channel Five in UK have paid a lot of money for Joey and I'm afraid to say I don't think their investment is going to pay off.

Forget the comparison with "Friends", just look at it as a new sitcom. And as a new show it is just not cutting it.

Why? Well it is so static and underpowered. There are just not enough people in it. They all seem lost in the middle of very uninviting sets. The actors don't seem to know where to move and how to react to each other.

One or two good lines (I liked the teen pregnancy joke) and the first episode did come to life a little when Joey's agent was introduced; but for the main it seemed everyone was just floundering.

The only slight cause for hope was is the relationship between Joey and the building Super (either actress - why was the first one ditched?); there could be something there.

The only thing I can think of which might help it is to introduce some more characters quick - other tenants in the apartment block perhaps. But even then...

I hope I am wrong. I won't be seeing episodes 3 and on 'til January. I will keep my fingers crossed.

Constrained as this movie is by the parameters of the high action cgi antics expected by moronic male adolescents with the attention span of fruit flys who form the main target market for Summertime blockbusters, this one was actually not bad.

Good source material of course; and unlike many who have contributed a comment, I thought the movie very true to Asimov's vision, even if not following exactly one of his stories. The dilemma and consequence of robot/human interaction is very well explored and will take me back to the stories; stories I have not read in nearly forty years.

And of course Will Smith was excellent. Will Smith is an intelligent adult man, and in this movie he is playing an intelligent adult man, something so rare in these sci-fi blockbusters as to require being favourably commented upon.

Incidentally, just a small point, but one that does bug me a bit. "I Robot" is not really a book. It is a compendium of short stories written over several years; so to say that the movie "does not follow the book" is a bit ludicrous.

I am probably completely wrong here, but it would not surprise me if the title wasn't originally even Asimov's, but rather a name suggested by an Editor at his Publishers.

I can't believe some of the reviews in the comments section for this movie. Some liked it,some didn't; but the one thing most seem to agree on was that this movie should be taken seriously....or that it should be criticised for not being believable.

Come on people. This movie was an out and out comedy. Surely everyone can see this. It would just make no sense if it were to be interpreted in any other way. And it was a comedy of a certain kind; a parody (or possibly a tribute?!!) to 1950's sci-fi doomsday scenario movies.

I completely lost most of the nonsense dialogue that Dennis Quaid was spouting, but I swear at one stage he said he needed an "infra red calcinator death ray".

And.......

SORT OF SPOILER!!!!

The moralising at the end...Didn't Michael Rennie warn us earthlings of exactly the same fate fifty years ago? I am right I'm sure; it was the identical speech.

Comment or criticise this movie as you will, but be fair; compare and contrast it to other movies in the cannon...'Hot Shots Part Deux", "Loaded Weapon", " Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein", "Our Man Flint" and all the other genre parodies that try to win our hearts.

I suppose this was ok, but really no great shakes. I see there are over 250 comments on the movie on IMDB, and I have only read about 40, but surely I cannot be alone in stating the obvious; Bruce Almighty is a reworking/remake - call it what you will - of Groundhog Day.

Vain, shallow minor media celebrity, thinks he deserves a lot better than he's got and goes through a bizarre supernatural experience to find redemption and make himself a better person.

But Groundhog Day did it with imagination, wit and emotion (the benefits of a great idea, a clever script and superb actors).

Bruce Almighty is just a tired re-tread showing little imagination and going for obvious belly laughs. Even the incomparable Morgan Freeman can't really do much with this material.

Jim Carrey has his moments I suppose, but he is a one trick pony.

I really am an incurable optimist. Time after time I go to movies like this hoping for the best, and always coming out disappointed. Oh well!

What a wonderful picture.

And once again we can enjoy that rarity; a film about adults, that examines adult themes, and is aimed at adults. but even when the occasional movie like this surfaces, it is rare to see one that succeeds so completely. The interlocking of the characters, the witty use of coincidence, the slow realization of each character as to the real meaning of his or her own relationships; all this was handled so deftly. And the acting! Totally compelling.

There have been some very positive comments made about this film, which is great. What I find perplexing are the sprinkling of negative reviews. "badly acted", "superficial", "boring" - just some of the negative terms used. Well all I can say is that I would love to see the movies these people compare Lantana so unfavourably to. Either there is a pool of truly wondrous movies that I am regretfully unaware of, or these are comments made by people for whom Vanilla Sky represents a demanding emotional and intellectual challenge. I suspect the latter.

The original Italian Job was a wonderful movie, particularly for Brits who hark back to what we fondly (and probably wrongly) think was a better time.

And now a major studio is going to remake it. And the remake will not work. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Why? It's not because it will star Wahlberg and Norton, (although two more uncharismatic planks of wood are hard to imagine); and it's not because it will be mostly based in Los Angeles; and it's not because it will be filled with cgi generated car stunts.

The reason I fear it won't work, is because, like so many of the recent remakes, it will be literally pointless, in the sense that the makers (re-makers) will completely miss the point of the original.

What is the Italian Job fundamentally about? Is it a heist movie? No, even though the heist is the central plot idea. Is it about a car chase? No, even though the speeding minis give us one of the most enjoyable car chases on film. Is it about the politics and attitudes and behaviour of the times? Well we're getting there, and certainly such nuance and subtlety will be beyond our re-makers.

OK, yes it is about all of those things; but at its core it is about Charlie Croker, how he lives, how he thinks, how he behaves; his whole philosophy of life. It's Charlie we identify with, it's Charlie we love, it's how Charlie behaves that we want to see.

This is a film about a hero.

He's irrepressible, he's optimistic, he's quick witted, he's funny and he's resourceful. And it's how he behaves and it's how he reacts that makes and drives the original. IN EVERY SCENE, FROM BEGINNING TO END.

And it's why the ending is so perfect. Charlie is completely and utterly (and life threateningly) snookered. But he doesn't give up. Not yet any way. The ending is Charlie's, and it's the culmination of everything we have seen him do throughout the whole film.

And what do the re-makers see? A heist movie with a great car chase(which of course they think they will be able to better….dear oh dear!), and some stupid bits with Benny Hill that they can forget about.

And that's why the remake will not work. Because they won't understand what it is they are remaking.

And it's this lack of understanding as to why (each in their own special way) the originals worked, that led to such disasters as the remakes of Get Carter, The Thomas Crown Affair and Planet of The Apes.

And if that all doesn't worry you, just think, even as we speak Joel Schumacher might right now be thinking about what he could do to The Godfather!

I have never understood the Star Wars phenomenon and look on

in bemused astonishment when year after year, in poll after poll,

the original is voted the greatest movie of all time.

And believe me, although I tend to find my movie favourites from

before1975, I get enormous pleasure from Summer popcorn. I

have just seen Spiderman - it is wonderful, - Back To The Future,

ET...I've seen Starship Troopers three times! Every year there are

great blockbusters that hit the target because they know exactly

what they are aiming for.

But Star Wars passes me by. And there are many reasons why I

find them tedious. But the main one - and this is what friends of

mine who are afficianados cannot understand - is that I find them

so slow!

Yes, every time one come out I go and see it. I think it's just to

make myself annoyed that I can be so gullible)

I even gave the original a second chance in 1997 when it was re- released and.....what heresy!.....I couldn't handle it, I walked out...in

a near trance.

In 40 years of cinema going I have only ever walked out on one

other movie - Spielberg's 1941)

But - and this is why this post is on this page - when it comes to

mind numbing tedium, Attack Of The Clones is in a league of its

own. On and on it grinds away, lumbering towards some sort of

conclusion that surely anyone with half a brain could not care less

about. Who was fighting whom and why? Could someone tell

me?... only kidding.. I'm too tired to care.

At least Star Wars had the (wholly admirable) challenge of a low

budget film being created by an adventurous and brave young film

maker fullfilling his dream against all the odds.

With Attack of the Clones we see the result of someone who

doesn't have clue, and has $150million available to prove that

point.

Finally saw Monsters Inc and in the right company; a ten and

eleven year old. I was in awe; an utterly magical film. The whole

movie - story, characters, acting, animation - was perfectly

realised.

Many people (including myself on other postings) moan about how

movies used to be so much better (and I think we are often right!),

but when you see something like this...well the expression "it's a

pleasure AND a privilege" can never have been more true.

Much, much better than Shreck - funnier, cleverer, warmer, much

more ambitious animation. This is how it should be done.

Monsters inc should, if there is any fairness, win the first animation

Oscar, but sadly I suspect that the industry insiders are gong to go

for Shreck, come what may.

I do like this show very much and I look forward to each new one. I agree with all the comments; to get good actors talking about their craft makes for excellent and interesting TV. But......! Does Mr Lipton have to be quite so sycophantic (perhaps he does otherwise the guests won't appear), and the incredible build up he gives to individual movies..... well, a tad overdone. And the questionnaire!! why does he invest these rather banal questions with such cosmic significance? In truth it is much like the sort of questions fan mags used to ask David Cassidy or Donny Osmond.

Gosh! I am sounding grumpy! And I do really like the show. Perhaps what I am criticizing is all part of its quirky charm.

I don't know what impulse drew me to the Multiplicity comments pages four years after I had seen the movie, but here I am and I have got to put in my two cents worth. The movie didn't really work and in places it was quite tedious, but fair is fair it contained two of the funniest scenes I think I have ever seen.

The restaurant scene ( which I see a lot of comments on), well I nearly lost it in the cinema. I was choking with laughter, I nearly had to get up and find oxygen.

Also (my memory is a bit faulty exactly what happened) the scene where the caring clone (clone 2?) shows Andi McDowell how to cut and wrap some food. Andi's expression. Priceless!

In fact, now I'm thinking about it , there were some other good scenes as well. All in all, a bit underrated.

There are two types of people in this world; those that think The Searchers is Ford's greatest movie (I think Scorsese is in that camp), and those that don't. I have the temerity to be in the second group.

I have seen The Searchers four times, but I haven't seen it for over ten years, so I am expressing a view and feelings that have long been in the back of my mind and have been reminded by reading the very interesting (and usually laudatory) comments posted here.

If I saw it again (and I must), I might re-assess my view, but I suspect not.

I love John Ford, and I love the movies he made, but I have always felt that The Searchers falls short of greatness because it lacks the deep emotional understanding of character and behaviour that all his great movies possess.

Put to one side such wonderful films as The Quiet Man, Grapes of Wrath and the Judge Priest stories, and just think of the Westerns. These movies are full of characters, sometimes heroic, sometimes flawed, who work out their conflicts and uncertainties and come together in a sense of reconciliation and hope.

Ford combined story and character like no other director, and for that alone he can be called great. But what makes him a genius is his belief in the essential goodness of people, the way he resolves their problems, and leaves us with a sense of uplift and good humour.

John Ford believed in America, and the characters in his films are the people who made America. He made so many great films, but for me, I think, My Darling Clementine is his finest.

The Searchers lacks this humanity. It has great moments - Wayne's first appearance, the Indian attack on both sides, and the wonderful last shot.

But it seems to me it is mechanistic in its construction, it is almost as though he was going through the motions. Also it has to be said that the episodic structure, covering a what....a ten year period is it?.... works against the development of real character.

The trouble is I don't really believe the story. I don't like the structure and too many of the characters (including Wayne) are synthetic and two dimensional. A few truly wonderful scenes cannot compensate.

Wagonmaster.......that is a John Ford movie!

Just seen The Limey. At the end I had to offer a little prayer of thanks that someone, somewhere can still make a movie for people above the age of twelve.

I can enjoy films like The Sixth Sense and Enemy Of The State or The General's Daughter, but basically they're all kiddies' movies, whatever their superficial subject matter or quota of sex or violence.

With The Limey you feel you are in the company of adults, people who are tough, uncompromising, but very flawed. People you might actually meet. And people that ultimately you do care about.

The story is simplicity itself. There are no twists or surprises. The story plays itself out to the end. That ending could have been done differently, but why should it?

No, what you have got here is a group of film makers, in front of and behind the camera, with total confidence in the integrity of their story and the sure belief that the strength and believability of the characters is enough.

For me, the backwards and forward cutting was not a gimmick. The way the film was put together, draws you into the story and in fact helps the viewer understand the motivations and thought processes of the characters. in other words, just like in Point Blank, it's there for a reason.

And as for Stamp and Fonda. As my old man, God rest him, would have said, "A pair of diamonds!"

This is such a funny film! It's a clever plot which owes more than something to the old "warhorse" Brewster's Millions, and is filled with the eccentric lunacy which characterised so many British films made after WW2.

Alistair Sim is THE truly great British comic actor, even more so than Alec Guinness or Peter Sellers. To watch the scene when he tries to get arrested for shoplifting in the department store is to experience sheer comic inspiration.

I am no fan of remakes (have you seen the Thomas Crown remake!!), but funnily enough I am amazed that Hollywood hasn't had a go at this. In the right hands it could be made to work again.