Wallace_the_Windows

Peter Jacksons' Lord of the Rings trilogy is likely to be the movie event of my lifetime. I may never see anything to equal its combined ambition, scope and cinematic invention in my days on this earth. People who carp at and critizise little individual facets of The Return of the King are surely missing the boat - it's like looking at the Statue of Liberty and saying 'Oooh, see there, I think there's a flaw on her elbow.....' For heaven's sake - these film-makers took on a vast, multi-plotted fantasy that defied being told on a screen. The fact that they didn't turn out a stinker is credit enough - that they told the entire story coherently and well, with every moment brimming with drama and visual imagination beggars belief. The project is the cinematic phenomenon of our time and anyone who doesn't see that, whether or not the genre of which it's a part floats their particular boat, just isn't looking.

Having said all that, the Extended Editions of these movies are, for me, the definitive versions, so I await with huge anticipation the Return of the King box-set, where the sub-plots can be leisurely played out in all their glory. Maybe I'll post a full-scale review then.....

Odd that there should be so many negative comments about this film on iMDB when the average vote is so high. Not surprising, however, that most of the disgruntled viewers should have had no real idea what to expect from a Robert Altman film when they went into the cinema. This was never going to be a straightforward Agatha Christie-type murder mystery, in fact it went some way to subverting 1930s country-house whodunnit conventions, not least, as someone else pointed out, by making the detective a clueless duffer and thereby avoiding the climactic 'we shall all convene in the drawing room at eight o'clock when I will unmask the murderer' denouement.

At the same time, I disagree with the notion that the murder mystery element of the film was almost an afterthought, tied up as it was with everything else the movie was trying to convey. (To say more would warrant a spoiler warning.) Those who worked it out before the truth came explicitly to light and criticized the film as a result are obviously better at sussing out detective fiction that me (and I admit I've always been lousy at it); to them I would simply say that you can understand a murder plot without beginning to get your head around a subtle study of the intricacies of the British class structure. And to fail to appreciate as large a gathering of British screen and theatre actors working at the height of their powers as you're ever likely to see again is a very sad thing indeed.

9/10. One of Altman's best.

I'm one of the ones who really liked the film a whole load of much.

I'm resorting to the 'list of main reasons for liking it' format to avoid being tedious after all that's already been said.

1. The way in which the ring itself became the central bad guy through very imaginative filming and screen writing.

2. The savvy and sheer dynamism of aforementioned screen writing.

3. The degree of affection portrayed between the central characters.

4. The black riders scary-factor.

5. ALL of the touching/disturbing scene between Frodo and Bilbo in Rivendell.

6. Elijah Wood's performance from happy-go-hobbit to brave, tortured soul.

7.Ian McKellen's Gandalf, particularly the 'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' surely-soon-to-be-legendary cinema moment.

8. Arwen's enlarged role - a brave choice and a good one.

9. New Zealand.

10. Weeping hobbits newly emerged from Moria.

11. Sean Bean's heartbreaking, hugely sympathetic performance as Boromir.

12. Lots of other stuff.

As I said, I'm one of the ones who really liked this film a whole load of much.

To be honest I had to go have a stiff drink after this film; I felt drained and my shoulders were knotted. I also had to talk the whole thing out with the friend I saw it with for a good half hour. Whatever else this movie is, it's not dull - you have to have respect for anything that produces such a visceral reaction, even if you couldn't claim to have 'enjoyed' the experience. (Anyone else I've talked to who's seen it has responded in much the same way.)

The reason the film is so powerful is not simply because it deals with unpalatable subject-matter like sado-masochism and violently dysfunctional relationships - that on its own would leave no defence against a charge of exploitation. It packs a punch because whatever her deeply ingrained character flaws, however reprehensible her behaviour (and at one point that's VERY), the piano teacher Erika always retains your sympathy - you never forget the type of influences which might have made her what she is, while scenes as subtle as the one where she walks down a street of shoppers, being casually bumped into without apology, remind you of her utter isolation. Isabelle Huppert's performance is as brilliant as it is uncomfortable and I can't even imagine how she might have wound down after a day's filming.

Appalling, compelling, horribly funny at times, but ultimately deeply despairing look at how people damage each other. View with caution.

The hype and the merchandising were always going to add to the cynicism with which some people approached the Harry Potter film itself, as was the overly-reverential preciousness with which certain adults treated the book. (It's excusable in children and young teens, but let's grow up, the rest of us!) So if you set all that aside, you're left with two related questions: does the film capture the essential spirit of the book and is it a successful screenplay it its own right?

My opinion: yes and yes. There were countless moments where the delight I had experienced in reading the book (I'm an English Literature teacher who's excited to see some of his younger pupils reading of their own volition for the first time)came back to me with force. At the same time I was hugely impressed by the way in which Steve Kloves' writing had pared down a potentially vast screenplay to the story's essence. (Yes, it's still long, but that's inevitable with the involved nature of Rowling's plotting.) Comments about favourite bits being left out are understandable, but a film is not a visual book - it has to work in its own terms. WHICH THIS DOES - and the non-Potter-reading friend who accompanied me to the movie agreed completely.

Art design/performances/realisation of Quidditch - it's all been said, so I'll just mention my two favourite bits - The Mirror of Erised: very moving, the final confrontation: as unsettling as in the book.

Well done. Keep it sharp for Harry's second year.

I saw this film a month ago and it instantly took a place as one of my all-time favourite comedies; the enthusiastic feedback of most of the other IMDB reviewers begs the question, Why hasn't it got legendary status on a par with, say, Bringing Up Baby or His Girl Friday?

The core of the film is the amazing chemistry between Eddie Bracken and Betty Hutton; they summon up extraordinary levels of endearing daftness as Norval and Trudy, out of what was obviously very edgy material for its day. Presumably it was the sheer ludicrous charm of their repartee that drew the censors' fire. The early proposal scene, for example, combines pathos and ridiculousness like I've never seen done before and the result is immensely funny. William Demarest and Diana Lynn provide top rate support as Trudy's curmudgeonly father and smart-alec kid-sister and the entire film sprints along as a delicious combination of verbal dexterity and outlandish slapstick.

Now how do I get hold of some other Preston Sturges classics?