Theoriginaltruebrit

How many other actresses out there can express so much with one "hhmmmmh" than can Emma Thompson? In "Love Actually" she expressed volumes by saying nothing (the I've looked at love scene) in this film she can express a world of thought by simply saying "hhmmmmh" Her screenplay is wonderful and her title character is spot on. Colin Firth is perfect as the bumbling dad and it is a delight to see so many A-1 English actors in minor roles just having the time of their lives. Imelda Staunton throws herself into the classic pantomime dame role of the cook to the extent that one wonders if she was actually doing it for the money or for the sheer joy of being able to throw off the classical training and just having fun. It also has to be worth the price of admission simply to see Derek Jacobi involved in a bun fight. This film gave me a sense of the Harry Potter ONLY because it appears that Emma and crew managed to snag so many A list British actors into the film for the sheer joy of making the film. The sets, with their bright pinks and greens were wonderful, and the final scene, with the snowy wedding gown was magical. I have to admit though I was entranced by Emma Thompson's performance, she is without a doubt the most wonderful and talented actress on the planet she has yet to perform in a film where she has done anything less than her best. I am pretty positive that Emma is heading for Damedom, her contributions to the arts are such that she is a shoe in to join my other favourite actress Dame Judi in the annals of the best of British actresses. (Oh and while I am at it let me put in my vote for Helen Mirren, Julie Walters, Maggie Smith and Imelda Staunton)

So let me ask you who is smartest - a) Keanu Reeves who consistently gets paid millions to make movies that people want to go and see or b) people who obviously loathe and detest Keanu Reeves with an almost rabid irrational passion and yet who keep forking over their hard earned cash to watch his movies in the theatres so they can then spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet composing what is basically a "Keanu can't act and has never been able to act" diatribe completely ignoring the movie itself. Hmmmm, I am a little stumped here, I don't understand it personally, if you hate the guy so much why do you keep going to see his movies, or are you all just closet masochists? That having been said Constantine both intrigued and disappointed me. I was perhaps expecting a little more action dare I say. I think that it will need a second watching before I catch the nuances of the film and begin to really appreciate its quality. I thought Keanu was excellent as Constantine, sullen, miserable, couldn't really give a toss about the world or what is going on it in other than his quest NOT to go to hell. Rachael was as always perfect in her portrayal of the tortured detective. I must have blinked and missed Shia LaBoef (spelling sorry) in I Robot but here he was an amiable and amusing side kick a/k/a apprentice. I loved the "Q" character living in the back of the bowling alley, right down to his grimy fingers which had obviously been poked into too many grimy places in his quest for unusual objects. Tilda Swinton was as usual wonderful as the asexual Gabriel, with the perfect touch of angelic and demonic (not sure I ever knew that Gabriel was a half breed though or did he/she become one after being de-angelified? - thereby hangs a question). Both Bathazar and the Devil had more than a little longing for Constantine and that was portrayed beautifully by both of the actors. The FX were top notch, and beautifully done. There were some slow spots, which I wondered with a more skillful editor might not have ended up on the cutting room floor but all in all an enjoyable movie that I will enjoy seeing again to fully appreciate. One has to admit though, it was Keanu's movie, and I believe he will gain many more fans as a result of it. You don't have to eat the scenery to be considered a good actor, you have to embrace the character and be unselfish with your fellow actors. In all respects Keanu fit the bill. And for those who are so rabidly Keanu haters please do me, the world and yourselves a favour, stop going to see his movies, it really is not healthy. And by the way, if you want to really know what a truly gifted actor and wonderful person he is just check out the comments from his fellow actors, to a man (or woman) they praise him to the skies. Watch Constantine it will have you thinking and wanting to see more.

"there was no original music to set the mood" WHAT? This is a movie about Beethoven..... you were imagining a soundtrack by Barry Manilow perhaps...? This movie is utterly brilliant, not only because of the quality of the acting, not only because of the intriguing storyline but MAINLY because of the soundtrack..... the underlying theme of Beethoven's music is what makes this movie worth watching.... the performance of the 9th is brilliant (well we are talking Solti condudcting here)..... oh please people, kick off your shoes, lay back on the couch, and even close your eyes, just the soundtrack alone is enough to make you want to put this movie on for background music..... a brilliant rendition of a nice story, I don't care if its true or not, but a movie jam packed with the compositions of an absolute genius is fine by me.... watch it, crank up the surround sound and just revel in bliss. If there is a person in the world that can listen to the 9th Coral without feeling the hairs on the back of their neck stand up then I feel very sorry for them....

I would sit through a 24 hour long movie about absolutely nothing to see the Emma Thompson scene after she has opened the CD. If that scene doesn't rip your guts out then you are basically dead... Yes okay I am an unabashed Emma Thompson fan.... I think she is utterly brilliant in whatever she does..., but come on that scene... it displays all the best that is acting, it wrenches your emotion from you, it makes you cry with her, it makes your heart want to reach out to her, BRILLIANT. As for everything else I loved it, I could have done without the shy porn stars... (with a teenager in the house it was a little too much to watch in his presence) Hugh Grant was as usual perfect as the single PM..., and his longing for his tea girl was just precious, his speech at the press conference made me want to jump up and scream "Rule Britannia" (okay I am a brit, forgive me). As for the other love stories I was heartbroken that the American girl (forget her name) had to choose her mentally ill brother over the love of her life, kept thinking that perhaps she should TELL HIM ABOUT IT perhaps? I mean if he loved her he would understand right? As for the English guy going to the US to get sex, I can confirm that he is probably right. You have no idea what a British accent does to Americans, I get really good service in restaurants you know:) Anyhoo see it, if only to watch Emma Thompson at her absolute best, I would watch her read the phone book, but in this movie she is superb. "you mean there was more than one lobster at the birth of Jesus?" Brilliant.

Ever heard of a spoof, or a parody perhaps... why is everyone taking this movie so seriously when it should be obvious to one and all that the director intended it to be a parody of all the old horror movies... comparing this to the original Frankenstein, Dracula and Wolfman movies is like comparing Airplane to the original Airport or Posidon Adventure... it is great, it is funny, it pays homage to so many of the old horror flicks that you almost get dizzy keeping up with the references... if anyone for a second thought about taking this movie seriously you only had to see Kate Beckinsale's outfit to realize that the director was thinking more of Zena than he was of a transylvanian maid... duh why do you think Van Helsing was wearing a fedora, for style perhaps, no cause you were supposed to think of him as Indiana Jones..., and the ballroom scene was a perfect lift from "Dance of the Vampires".... and the Q character could not have been more in your face "I am a complete parody of Q in the James Bond movies" if he'd have tried... come on folks this is not rocket science, noone is going to be cured of cancer by a movie, this is entertainment pure and simple and all of the actors had a blast overacting their pants off in this wonderful parody... if I have one problem it is that the CGI was a little too much sometimes.... I think the stage coach scene would have been much more fun if we had seen Hugh Jackman (or a stuntman) actually jumping from horse to horse rather than seeing a CGI character do it... however a couple of scenes scared the poop out of me (particularly the stage coach scene where they are driving along the edge of a cliff - read scared of heights anyone - also read plucked straight from the Bram Stoker's Dracula of late)... oh btw I am very confused at the people who want to know more about Van Helsings past..., were you not paying attention? It is stated quite clearly, VH is the archangel Gabriel, he originally killed Dracula... which is what turned Dracula into a vampire... sorry if you didn't catch it, perhaps you were too busy comparing to the lighting to that in Nosferantu..... oh and as for the princess's death.... well Dracula was dead, she could now die in peace knowing her entire family would be going to paradise her family's mission was over..., sorry you probably missed that too cause you were too busy comparing the lightning bolts in this one and the original Frankenstein... come on lighten up folks turn off your damn critics brain and enjoy this movie for what it is damn good fun. I loved it and will watch it again and again to catch more references that I may have missed the first time (I am sure there are loads of them). Can't wait to get it on DVD.

So let me set the scene here, I was in a motel, in the middle of nowhere, and was flicking through the channels of the limited cable that the motel offered... I spotted Jim Caveizel (or however on earth you spell his name) and put down the remote as he is an actor that I admire and respect. Of course JLo then came into the scene and my instinct was to pick up the remote and flick the channel but I didn't and I am glad that I made that decision. Not being a fan of JLo I have never seen Angel Eyes and had no reason to seek it out either on video or on the TV but hell when you are in a motel with limited cable options you don't have alot of choice right? Nevertheless, I was thoroughly delighted that I left the remote where it was and watched this movie because in the end I loved it. I loved it more for the subtle points than the big "hollywood this is a romance you better weep points." "Hang up and I'll call your machine" in this day and age how relevant is that? how many people (if they would be honest) would much rather talk to a machine than the person because it is impersonal and they can save face? The teeny tiny aspect of him playing the notes of the trumpet on her back as they were dancing... okay so I am married to a musician so that resonates with me but it spoke volumes, no matter how much he had tried to block it out, his soul was still there, and in his soul was his music. I thought both leads played their roles with skill and conviction. I was never quite sure (until the end of course) if Catch was a good guy or a bad guy, and I liked the fact that it kept me guessing. As I said I am not a JLo fan, in fact I could be described as quite the opposite but in this movie she played her part beautifully, with conviction and totally believably. Jim Caveizel as always was understated, calm and played his role with a sympathy that is rare to see. Loved this movie, and cannot wait to see it again. I will agree with everyone however about the advertising hype that surrounded it, they ended up portraying it as a psychological thriller, if they had stayed true to the story and advertized it for what it was, a beautiful romance, I think it would not have died as it did. Shame on the publicity people for burying such a fine film.

As someone else said when I want to think I will watch something else, when I want a simple, funny romance I can always count on something with Hugh Grant in it. I saw this movie on pay per view the other night and loved it so much I had to watch it again right afterwards. Lovely premise, lovely lines delivered in such an off the cuff, throwaway manner by Grant that you wonder if he was actually ad libbing (isn't that the sign of a good actor you don't realise they are reading lines?) Grant and Sandra Bullock are perfect foils for one another, I particularly liked the lunch scene, he nonchalantly spoons ice from his glass into her water, she absent mindedly removes the bread "innards" from her roll and puts them on his plate, she takes the garnish off the top of his salad and he removes the beets from hers all the while carrying on a conversation about something else entirely. They do all this without asking and without comment (until Grant misses a beet).... like an old married couple they know exactly what each other wants, in fact without either of them noticing they have become an old married couple. The ending is I agree a little rushed, but the final scene with Grant striding about the apartment "I can walk from one side to the other in six seconds watch.... one" is perfect. Watch it, it is fun.

So my husband turns on the tv this morning as we were lying in bed trying to decide when to get up (aaaaaahhhhh saturdays). This movie is on and he begins to watch it. With a sort of morbid fascination I watch it with him and am just enthralled by how utterly bad it is. I turn to my husband at periodic intervals and state "this is utterly pointless" but like watching the aftermath of a car wreck you are almost compeled to keep watching to see how bad it really can get. It became screamingly obvious to me during the final scenes when hero leaps through a glass roof and the wires holding him up are CLEARLY visible in the shot, then of course it just gets worse. The gold pouring scene, the fighting scenes.... (I mean what did they do put out an ad "really really bad extras needed for a film - most extras are pretty good, the extras in this film are to be honest pathetic). I completely lost it though when the "bad queen" does a flip and lands on the "bad guys" back, did they just throw their hands up at that point and say - "hell don't hide the wires or anything just leave the damn thing as it is" As I said to my husband as the credits rolled "I think that is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen in my life" it is worth watching for the sheer horror of watching stars like Richard Chamberline, Sharon Stone, and James Earl Jones act in what appears to be a high school production with a budget of $1.75.

I have this on video but have not watched it for quite some time, the other night I watched it again and was of course entranced. The director has captured perfectly the life of the cub. If I have one gripe it is the use of a "human" voice for the emotions of the cub, in many scenes it is fairly obvious that it is a human being trying to express the emotions of the cub at the time. Secondly, while I understand the storyline of the hunters being integral to the film to be honest I felt that every scene with humans involved was boring beyond belief and I couldn't wait for it to be over. Overall this movie is a sheer joy to behold and the final scene where the cub finally goes to sleep without nightmares is pure bliss. You have to live with animals and know animals to realize how impressive this movie is and I firmly believe that the director has captured pure magic on film. Don't miss it.

I have commented ont this movie before but there are some wonderful scenes that were cut from the movie that are in the DVD particularly the scene in Duffy's Bar which is worth its weight in gold for the acting of both Keanu Reeves and Diane Lane. The scene itself explains alot, and explains why the eulogy scene is so powerful. If you love this movie (as I do) do yourself a favor and get the DVD, check out the deleted scenes.

There are not many movies that can get me to the movie theatre, which have become miserable places for me since they banned smoking*S* (the last movie I went to see in the theatre was The X Files) so it was with delight that after seeing "Sorcerer's Stone" on HBO I was chomping at the bit to go and see "Chamber" at the theatre this weekend. I was not disappointed, and despite the length of the film I never once felt the need to sneak out for a quick inhale. The initial delight was seeing the changes in the young cast, how they had grown and matured between the two films. How Ron (Rupert) was now slightly taller than Harry, and how his voice is apparently in the throes of breaking (and would "crack" occasionally). Harry (Daniel), slightly taller and a little fuller in the face and also with a voice a few octaves lower. And Hermione (Emma), I shall quote Roger Ebert on that one "on the road to babedom". I will not be at all surprised if in ten years these three (Daniel, Rupert and Emma) are not the new Leonardo, Brad and Jennifer (albeit more than likely much better actors). The film itself is a joy to behold and I was actually disappointed when it ended. I genuinely laughed during the funny parts and the scary parts were genuinely scary. It amazed me when the lights went up that I was in a theatre (it was the 7:15pm showing) that was packed with "grown ups" not a child in there, it says something about a "kids" movie that can pack a theatre with adults. My husband and I had a long coversation over dinner afterwards about who they will cast to replace Richard Harris, as it would appear that we have already lost most of the "elder statesmen" of English actors, John Hurt could pull it off but he was in #1 as a different character and I think the kids are too savvy these days to let that one by them, Ian McKellen would be ace, but he is too busy being Gandalph and that would be too damn confusing, Anthony Hopkins (IMHO) is too short and stocky, Dumbeldore needs to be tall and willowy. Perhaps the suggestion of another earlier that Sean Connery is the best choice should be considered. Personally I would rather roll around in nettles than be the casting director with that thankless task right now. I have a few minor problems with the movie (and they are minor) I really wish we had seen more of Mrs. Weasley, (I am a huge Julie Walters fan) when I heard that Harry goes to the Weasley's house I was looking forward to seeing much more of her, but just as soon as he was there he was heading up the chimney. Jason Isaacs performance was, as always, beautiful, but I often wondered why on earth he was there, he appeared to "appear" simply for the point of appearing menacing. Kenneth Branaugh, while (as always) BRILLIANT was to be honest a little too understated, perhaps he was trying hard not to go over the top, whereas I think with the character he played, over the top would have been the way to go. Finally, the spider, being one of Hagrid's pets, I cannot imagine that he would allow his "sons and daughters" to eat a human, so that to me was a little unbelievable (I know its weird calling something in a Harry Potter movie unbelievable!) All in all it is a thoroughly enjoyable movie and I cannot wait for it to come out on video so that I can watch it again and again.

I had wanted to go and see this in the theatre but husband didn't want to go, I had wanted to rent this on video but husband didn't seem interested. Well on Saturday it was on HBO and we sat down and watched it and guess what? We both loved it. I cannot tell you how much of a joy it is to see a blockbuster, big dollar movie that contains an almost exclusively non-american cast. Richard Harris was wonderful as Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane a pure joy as Hagrid (I shouldn't have said that I really shouldn't have said that), Maggie Smith all stern and in her best "Jean Brodie" mode, and even the supporting characters were an absolute joy, I mean lets face it John Hurt in a bit part? (I can't wait for #2 when I believe Mrs. Weasly comes into her own, more power to Julie Walters). The child actors were such a wonder, even though, I admit that Hermione was a little irritating at times (but perhaps that shows what a good job she did, I mean isn't she supposed to be irritating?) The entire cast was wonderful and I cannot say how much I enjoyed this movie. I have not read any of the books, (shame on me) so I am not in the unfortunate position of having a "vision" in my head as to how things should be. I must admit having read many things about it I am dissapointed that Rick Mayal's turn as a poltergist was cut, oh well that's life, perhaps we shall see him in the future. Excellent movie and I await the sequel with baited breath.

I tried very hard to like this movie but unfortunately I failed. While it appears to try to be a "black comedy" it simply appears to be "black" with very little comedy attached. The performances are good for the most part, but it is really difficult to like a movie when every single character in it is so damned unlikable. I mean really, not one single character in this movie had a single redeeming characteristic. Isn;t the purpose of cinema to be our ability to relate to the characters on the screen, in this case the characters are so awful we couldn't care less if any of them lived or died. I watched it once, and then rented it again to watch it again (perhaps thinking it would grow on me the second time) but I turned it off round about the "motel blow job" scene when I really got very bored with the whole thing. Apart from the fact that the actors act their socks off in this movie there is very little to say for it. (and is it just me or does Keanu Reeves wear that same damn suede jacket in EVERY movie he is in? I mean do these movies not have wardrobe in their budget?)

My husband watched it for the first time a few days ago (over the long Veterans Day weekend). He then watched it for a second time the day after. He did not have a happy childhood, in fact some childhood memories for him are downright painful. We have been married 11 years and I know very little about his childhood and what went on. However, after (and during the second viewing), he began a waterfall of childhood memories that I had never heard before. Of long summers of "sandlot" games with him and his cousins (they were known as "the cousins") they could play baseball and football and kicked the butt of most of the teams in town, during the movie his memories spewed forth as if they had been bottled up and just needed to be set free. His friend actually did the "lifeguard" thing, pretended to drown to kiss her, and like the movie they were all banned from the pool. They also had a "scary guy" in the old house that everyone was terrified of (in fact so did I as I recall). He assures me that this movie is as faithful a retelling of a childhood in the 60s as he has ever seen, and he revels in it. I think that is the greatest compliment that anyone can ever pay a movie and I am grateful to the director for uncorking the well of my husbands memories for me to share.

I have to admit that Gabriel Byrne is one of my favourite actors and it was a joy to see him play so well in this movie. Ditto Jeremy Irons who was superb as Aramis..., John Malcovich played, well John Malcovich... and unfortunately Gerard Depardui was terribly miscast. I have said this again and again and perhaps one day directors will get it. When French people are in France speaking French they DO NOT HAVE AN ACCENT.... so it was hugely inappropriate to cast Depardu as a Frenchman... cast among English speaking actors he appeared to be a foreigner in his own country (ditto the girl who played Christine and the woman who plays the queen). Either have EVERYONE with accents (however hugely inappropriate that may be) or No one has an accent. Despite that Depardu was wonderful in his role and hugely funny (although I am not sure he was meant to be). I would have perhaps cast another American or English actor in the role. Leonardo DiCaprio was more than passable after the awful "Titanic" and the rest of the supporting cast were wonderful (although I think Stephen Rea sometimes thought he was in a Christmas pantomime and was just waiting for the boos from the crowd). Needless to say the entire movie is worth watching for the pure beauty of Byrne and Irons..., classic acting, understated, brilliant with beautiful, beautiful voices, it is very sad how underused these wonderful actors are in the business today, they can act the socks off just about every other actor in Hollywood and yet they just don't get the parts that they deserve. (just try and catch how many voice overs both of them do on American adverts - you will be surprised). (Byrne fans by the way should as I do rejoice in "Stigmata" a truly wonderful performance in a wonderfully enegmatic film) I could listen to both Byrne and Irons reading the phone book. It is a joy to see them in the same film.

There is the moment when Nelson is stood in the street, watching life around him and suddenly realizing that this is what he wants out of life, there is the moment when Charlene is playing with the poodles, there is the moment when Nelson is walking around (to the beautiful music of Enya) figuring stuff out, the brilliant moment when Nelson realizes that the cross-dressing freak next to him is actually his biggest rival in the advertising business "you're that Chas?" and of course there is the moment when Nelson pays the kid to sabotage every other kids boat in the regatta. Other than that the movie is pretty dire. It makes no sense and it is a shame because without the obvious STUPID plot holes it would have been good. Why does Sara take her groceries into the DMV exam when she has a perfectly good van sat in the parking lot? Why does Nelson go the house of (and ultimately have sex with) the crazy woman who in most cases he would have had arrested for stalking? Why does Charlene's character give up a hugely successful business to live such a bohemian life (it is never explained other than it "got too complicated") Why does the gay friend have to automatically be a cross dresser? There are lots of nice things in the movie, there are lots of good messages in the movie (I particularly like the scene when Nelson is in the restaurant with "advertising exec from hell" (Frank Langella) and he sees the way the guy treats people and decides he doesn't want to work for him.) This could have been such a good movie and it wasn't the fault of the actors...., Charlene and Keanu were great with the limited material they were given... Chas (I wish I could remember the actor) fresh from his role in "The Patriot" was utterly brilliant, and Frank Langella in his tiny role gave us the right amount of evil so that we hated him. We shall forget the totally implausible pieces of Nelson dragging a DISHWASHER up the fire escape and the fact that a man lives with a woman and doesn't notice that she is taking approximately 200 pills a day. This movie could have been far more than it turned out to be and I am guessing that in the hands of a more skillful director it would have been. Shame, because the premise is actually fascinating and could have shown us so much more. Kudos to Charlene and Keanu for making the most of a bad attempt.

I am amazed by the amount of people who have discussed this movie in the terms of being about "mental illness".... it should become clear by the end of the movie that this is a fantasy, Fred is not an imaginary friend he is "real" he exists and his sole purpose in life is to help children in a dark place and bring them out of themselves. Imaginary friends do not move on to another child, imaginary friends are the property of those who imagine them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if I saw a review of "Gremlins" on here by the same people who said "nasty little creatures who create distruction around them are not funny". This is a funny movie, plain and simple. Rick Mayall is outstanding as Fred and Phoebe Cates gives the perfect performance as the downtrodden daughter and wife. Anyone who says bad things about this movie has obviously never seen a fantasy movie before and taken it for what it is. I am surprised that they didn't call Demi Moore delusional in "Ghost" because she was refusing to let go of her boyfriend and "imagined" all the stuff that went on. This is a fantasy folks, a pure unadulterated fantasy and it is a bloody funny one at that. Watch it, it will make you laugh, it will make you smile, and it will make you chuckle.... what more can you ask and again Rick Mayall is brilliant.

My husband and I have discovered that the only way to watch the three movies that will make sense is to watch them out of sequence. Highlander, Highlander III and THEN Highlander II. If you watch them any other way then they do not make sense whatsoever..., and as other people have said Highlander III pretends that Highlander II never happened. However if you watch them in the sequence suggested above it all makes sense! I have no clue (other than money) why anyone would put such a disjointed sequel (II) into the mix but they did, but by messing with their minds and following the above sequence it actually makes a nice trilogy. (We shall forget the IIII because that was just a way to make money out of the TV show)......

Unlike most people who have commented on this film it came out when I was 26... and I fell in love with it then and love it still today. I like many can recite line for line the dialogue... (indeed I am known for the "allo" "did you say hello" "no I said "allo" but that's close enuf".... lines) It is one of my favourite movies of all time, a perfect fantasy with a perfect cast and perfect story. I cannot imagine anyone else in the world being cast as Jareth..., David Bowie IS the goblin king... I managed to get it on video several years ago but then my dogs ate it (don't ask). I am now 42, and it is still one of my all time favourite movies. I am now actively trying to acquire a copy so that I can show it to my neighbours kids, (6, 5, and 4 respectively) cause I know they would love it. It is a childrens movie with a brilliant twist it can be viewed and appreciated by adults. I could wax lyrical about this movie for pages but you have all heard it before. Needless to say I shall merely quote "come on in meet the missus" "it is so entertaining being your head" "Ludo smell" "Did I hit anything, yes? no?" "would anyone like to play scrabble" "Ambrosius this is so embarrassing" ""no one shall pass without my permission" "well then may we have your permission" "hmmmmmm wellll, errrrrr, yes"..... buy it, rent it, borrow it, steal it if you have to (joke) but see this movie... your inner child will thank you for it.

My husband loves this movie, he watches it every time it comes on TV and I have to admit I find myself sitting down and watching it every time he does. It is very silly, it is very stupid, it is chock full of stereotypes, chock full of politically incorrect jokes and chock full of laughs. I have to admit I STILL laugh at several parts of the movie including (but not limited to) Colonel Sanders getting hit on the head with the "thing" that Henry Winkler's character throws out of the window. Bobby's girlfriend holding up the sign at the window when he is taking his exam "do you want me to kill them?" This is not rocket science folks, this is good old fashioned slapstick humor, based at the lowest level possible and it still makes me laugh. If you cannot stand base level humor then this movie is probably not for you. As it is I can always manage to switch off the critical portion of my brain and enjoy something for what it is, a good laugh.

I haven't bothered watching professional football since Joe Montana retired but this movie got me interested again. While I can appreciate the comments of other reviewers that it is a formula movie and has many inaccuracies when it comes to the football action it is pure and unadulterated fun. The bottom line is this movie is downright funny, from start to finish. The cast are absolutely wonderful and the casting director did a brilliant job of bringing this gang together. Gene Hackman of course is perfect as the coach.... "I'll pull you off the field you spoiled son of a bitch".... Rhys Ifans absolute perfection as Gruff (after a **** you remark from Jimbo) "You'll have to find your dick first Shamu", to the shoot em up bros from the hood, to "get me the ball, get me the ball" The acting was absolutely wonderful in this movie. I have to admit I didn't like the guy that played Martell but perhaps that's because I wasn't supposed to like him, perhaps it shows what a good job he did. And Keanu, dear, sweet, so maligned Keanu, I read a reviewer once who said of Keanu's acting that it is "almost transparent" and in this movie it is, he doesn't eat scenery he just does his job, low key, perfectly in character, and for those who know anything at all about acting all you have to do is watch his eyes. He has a Harrison Ford like quality of being able to express a wealth of emotions with his eyes and in this movie he pulls it off perfectly. I also read somewhere that during the making of this movie it was discovered that Keanu really did have "an arm" and at one point threw a 69 yard pass. I have seen this movie in excess of 20 times and will no doubt see it 20 more times, it is the best feel-good movie I have ever seen. When I want drama and suspense I will watch "The Green Mile" when I want simple, comedy that just leaves me with a huge grin I will watch the replacements. Oh yeah and I just want to kiss the person who put Keanu in a No. 16 uniform *S*

At the end of this movie I was so emotionally drained it was all I could do to look at my husband and say "oh my god". It is the most gut wrenching film I think I have ever seen. The performances by all of the actors are without a doubt top notch, not one of them fails, not one of them lets the other down. The story is riveting, and brings a Stephen King novel to life like many others have failed to do. It took me several hours to recover from watching this because of the emotional upheaval which one must go through watching this film. It is not fluff, it is not light hearted entertainment it is a soul searching, defining moment in film that will not be equaled for a long time. One piece of advice, do not watch this movie if you have something else you must be doing, don't get up to get a drink, don't read the newspaper, make sure you have 3 hours to dedicate to watching this masterpiece. It is worth every second of your time and will leave you with images and emotions for a long time after the tape has finished. Perfect 10/10.

While obviously not completely historically accurate (and after all what is none of us was there so we have no clue)... this film is a brilliant depiction of the rise of a girl to a queen. My mother loved this movie, and she is a major history buff (who hates any reference to Richard the Lionheart cause in reality he never visited England and couldn't speak a word of English). Anyhoo, Cate Blanchett is a revelation in the role of Elizabeth...beautiful, believable, and solidly cast. I agree with many other reviewers here that she was robbed of the Oscar when it was given to "Hollywood's little girl" Paltrow (not that she didn't do a good job but compared to Blanchett puhlease.) The remainder of the cast were equally perfect, and I am a little unsure as to why the criticism of Joseph (why does everyone keep referring to him as Ralph's brother?)... as Dudley... I thought he was perfect. I have not lived in England for 11 years and therefore was totally unaware that the French Ambassador was being played by a football player, personally I thought he did a nice understated job of the role. Of course Rush, Geilgud and Attenborough are utterly brilliant as usual and are a joy to watch. The supporting cast were equally stellar and fleshed out the entire movie and made every second worth watching... (especially Norfolk's "wife" "female" her expressions and inflections were wonderful). While I have to admit that a couple of the camera tricks had my head in a mess, the overall look of the film was rich and voluptuous... I adored every minute and the final scene where Elizabeth announces that she is "married to England" is perfect. My husband (not one for costume dramas unless there is a great deal of killing ie Braveheart...) absolutely loved this film and demanded that we buy it. One of the reviewers further down made a comment (and I paraphrase) "this is why the United States became a greater power than England we know better than to put teenage girl anywhere other than high school ruling a country?" (or something like that). For that reviewer I have two comments 1) where the hell do you think that all the people that made the United States great came from? (answer Europe) b) sorry we disturbed your viewing of Buffy the Vampire Slayer....

I saw this on opening night, I was first in the line at the cinema. I have watched it numerous times since because I own it on video and now have found time to comment on it. I loved this movie because I am a confirmed "X-phile" however, I was disappointed with the obvious plot holes (or perhaps plot devices) that appeared. To begin with Scully and Mulder FOUND the bomb, in the wrong building to be sure, but they FOUND the bomb, and because they did they saved countless lives, so for that "departure from procedure" they are punished? Why aren't they getting medals for their initiative? How did the "fake" ambulance crew know that Scully was going to be bitten by the nasty bee and arrive ahead of the "real" ambulance (did they have a fake ambulance and crew on standby 24/7 on the offchance that something was going to happen to Mulder or Scully?) There are several others that I will not go into here but those particular one's irritated me because Chris Carter and crew KNOW how closely "philes" follow a show, they know how minutely "philes" dissect a show and its meaning, therefore I am disappointed that in the movie they would try and slide by such obvious potholes as they did. Despite that I loved the storyline. I loved the FX, I loved the performances by Duchovny and Anderson. I think the entire movie for me was "made" by the brilliant scenes when Mulder and Scully are driving through the desert at sunset and the theme is playing in the background and the final "alien" scene, with Mark Snow's beautiful, beautiful music, when Scully says "I saw it".... as the alien craft flies off into the distance. I think this is a "fans" movie that can also be watched by non-fans as a stand alone two hour flick and enjoyed for the story line and for the FX. I am looking forward to the next one. (and my guess is so is David Duchovny's bank account.)

Being a "true crime" addict I was looking forward to a pure telling of Ed's story without the unecessary gore which, for instance, Texas Chain Saw Massacre brought to the tale. While the film for the most part achieved that aim I think what was sadly missing was an "overview" of Ed's madness. The average person, who knows nothing about Ed at all, would have watched alot of the movie not knowing what they were seeing (other than the faces on the wall and the heads attached to the door). us "in the know" knew that the strange bowls that he served up his pork n' beans were half human skulls on nice little feet of bones right? We knew that, but the uninitiated would not know that, nor would they have even caught upon the table lamp made from a human spine or that the lampshade itself was human skin. There is alot that is missing from this movie. Yes we are told that he keeps faces on his wall, keeps a box of noses to try on and dresses up vaginas with little red bows but the movie in no way shows the extent of Ed's madness. Perhaps the director was hoping that everyone just "knew" about the lampshade, would just "get" the beans bowl? I believe that an "overview" (perhaps in the form of a "police film" of the entire house shot in black and white of course with perhaps later shots of the items on an evidence table) would have help the uninitiated to understand the extent of his madness and understand WHY he was the inspiration for TCSM and Silence of the Lambs. As it is we see (and therefore the uninitiated will assume) that at best Ed was a lonely grave robber who goes on to commit two murders (hardly a major serial killer that inspired so many movies). While I understood the entire context of the movie with my prior knowledge of Ed's crimes, the director cannot afford the luxury of assuming that everyone knows what happened and therefore neglect giving an "overview" of the extent of Ed's madness. Movies can never afford to be an "in joke" unfortunately this one attempts to be and misses the mark.