As other people have pointed out here, the book gives you more layers and background information and the film would probably work best if you read the book first, that way, you will be able to understand what's going on much better.
The acting was wonderful, the casting spot on. The children were delightful and not over the top.
So many aspects of the book had to be stripped out in order for a relatively linear story to survive and make sense in just 97 minutes. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the film immensely, watching it in Swedish with subtitles. The way the Swedes talk to each other, e.g. very simple, bare, stripped down reactions, underlines the emotional intensity. They might not say much, but there's a lot bubbling inside them - and this would be better understood if one had read the book first.
Throughout the film, I was rooting for Britt-Marie. I adore films where repressed and downtrodden characters slowly unfold - like a chrysalis turning into a butterfly.
What I would like to read now is a book called "What Britt-Marie Did Next". I feel there is more potential in that character.
Nice enough, saddening in places (possible spoilers)
This film could have been a lot better. It dragged in places - 2 hours long!!! 90 minutes would have been sufficient.
The major problem is Charlotte Gainsbourg. I'd like to like her, given her parents, but she seems to have only two expressions: sulky, bored face and wan smile. She doesn't seem to be capable of emotions. She whispers most of her words.
In a lot of the scenes with her and Omar Sy the characters didn't say much. Sort of along the lines of: *cough* "Did you say something?" "No. No, I didn't say anything." "Oh, you see I thought you had said something." "No, not me." "Oh, I thought you had." In places like this, the film drags.
Fortunately, there are plenty of laughs along the way.
However.. as is often the case with French comedies, there are sad bits, too. What is shocking is to see how the 'sans-papiers', those without the necessary papers, actually live. It's a dangerous and precarious life, never knowing where your next bit of paid, but illegal, work is coming from. I know it's a film and so not a real-life documentary, but it does make you think. It's sobering.
Even a funny character like Wilson makes you realise just how hard the life of an illegal immigrant is. He's generally a happy-go-lucky character, but you can see how desperate he is to keep his charade going. Poor guy.
Or take the scenes where the women in the immigration centre are trying to help all the immigrants. They are funny scenes, but you realise what a hard task they have.
I'd watch the film again - but it could have been a lot better with a tighter script and a different female lead.
This is absolutely awful. I've managed 17 minutes of it and it is PAINFUL.
The artist, Conti, sounds bored out of his mind. The words he is speaks are supposed to bubble out of him. He is ENTHUSIASTIC about his art and the portrait he has painted. Instead, he sounds close to suicide.
And what is with the lying and writhing in the ground with the Prince? And why on earth do we have to see his naked backside in the first five minutes? Lessing would be spinning in his grave.
I could weep. They have murdered the play. But this is typical of German-speaking theatre directors today. This is why, although I actually studied German at university, although one of my specialist subjects was The History of the German Theatre, I simply cannot go to German theatres.
James McAvoy - didn't like him at first but he was perfect for the role.
Julie Walters - since when did she start playing mothers??? James Cromwell - so good to see his craggy face again.
Great supporting cast.
And oh boy oh boy.. that cricket scene.. I suddenly realised that THAT was the age when men looked best dressed. Great fashion for men. And all those straps and buckles.. like presents just waiting to be unwrapped.... pass me the smelling salts.
Not so great for women though.. gosh they must have had constant colds...
I really would recommend this film for a great way to spend a couple of free hours in a genteel way.
I saw this in German today and be warned - the jokes are fast and furious. I think it could well be impossible to get them all - there are that many.
I laughed and laughed - starting with the little introduction right through to the end. The characters' voices were some of the best I've heard - fantastic delivery. And the puns! I've only just realised who the two hunters were meant to be parodying - the two pirates from Pirates of the Caribbean (Mackenzie Crook/Cook and the one with the beard). Visual jokes, slapstick, gags. Very funny.
If you're in a bit of a bad mood - go for it. I did and I didn't regret it.
The plot is simplistic and relies on coincidences and it's a bit patchy in places but what the heck. If it makes you laugh and you come out of the cinema with a smile on your face, then it's achieved what it set out to do - it's a comedy after all.
Once again, there are some spectacular stunts - and most of them done with precision but also fun. I sit in the cinema with my mouth open most of the time. And there were times when I slid as far down my seat as possible and almost hid my eyes completely - I'm scared of heights.
It was a good evening and I forgot my worries for as long as the film played.
I've just come back from watching this film in Germany. Germans to the left and back of me, a Chinese couple to the right and Russian and Spanish-speakers in the row in front and heaven knows how many other nationalities in the rest of the auditorium - but it was wonderful to hear so many nationalities all laugh together. Better than anything the UN could devise.
Excellent film if you like the silent film comedians of ages past, a bit of mime, and social ineptitude. It's a bit of an old-fashioned movie.
Mr Bean is rather socially incompetent but not without feeling. And his feelings are writ large across his face. He goes to the rescue of damsels in distress and lost boys. He takes delight in simple things and manages to come up with all sorts of solutions to sticky situations.
I think everyone managed to recognise situations they've been in - the horror when faced with food you don't know how to eat.. especially in a posh restaurant, the missing of trains, linguistic misunderstandings.. the way you grasp at a couple of words and use them ad nausea in an effort to communicate with someone else.. just to show willing.
It was good. And the scenery.. ahhhh the scenery. It was good to see that again, too.
William Dafoe is also excellent for his role that pokes fun at actors and directors that take themselves too seriously and think they are 'artistic'.
Max Baldry - the actor playing the young boy - is also excellent.
I came out in excellent mood - and that was after a big bust-up with the boyfriend so that's saying something.
It's a homey little movie with some nice songs, and the toy-taker's explanation even had me with tears in the eyes (but then I do get sentimental over old toys).
Ah drat... the ending.. just watching it. Awwwwwwwwwwww. So cute.
So what if it's not of the same standard as Shrek? Does everything have to look the same? Just accept the graphics they way they are and go with the flow.
I liked some of the characters very much - especially the dental elf. And the way that misfits can fit in. Maybe I'm just easy to please.
It'll be great for the smaller children. I know young children who get upset by Bambi's mother's death or the death of the father in the Lion King. I mean .. REALLY upset and distressed. This should be a film that won't scare the little ones and keep them entranced for an hour and a quarter.
And I liked some of the soupy songs - I don't find them any worse than the usual Disney stuff.
For those that pan this film - I say... let the children enjoy it - you can go off and watch The Matrix.
There are enough films around to please everyone's taste.
Right ... let's get the worst bits out of the way. The ending - I didn't like. Too much slapstick. A little bit like the ending of Benny Hill's show where everyone just runs around after each other. It just wasn't my cup of tea at all.
The beginning - the scenes with David Niven and his house and the castle in Scotland - well, that just didn't gel with what came afterward. The next scenes were too much of a jump from the opening scenes. The bit in Scotland was okay - it just didn't fit in with the rest of Scotland. I did like Deborah Kerr's character though. So different from her usual films.
The idea of training a Bond to be able to resist women but being irresistible himself - nice idea. But it wasn't followed up.
The rest was fine. I haven't read all the comments on IMDb but of those I have read, no-one seems to have mentioned Mike Myers and The Spy Who... films. This film, made in 1967, seems to have predicted a fair few things to come. It's predicted the Mike Myer films; it's predicted the gadgetry of Q and how preposterous some of it became; it's even predicted the slight tongue-in-cheek attitude of some of the later Bond films; and it's set the style of most of the later Bond films.
I liked some of the scenes just by themselves. I loved the interaction between Ursuala Andress and Peter Sellers. She is GORGEOUS and he's amazing too - the scenes where he dresses up show off some of his other facets of mimicry. But just the chemistry between the two of them was great.
And seeing Ronnie Corbett in a completely different role was a real eye-opener. A bit sleazy - rather like the compère in Cabaret.
It's a real film of the sixties - the scenes, the fashion, the music and even the film sets.
So .. if you can stomach the beginning and the end.. the middle bit's pretty good.
I did enjoy this film a lot. It's a very stylish parody of many different films and types of film, including The Matrix, The Silence of the Lambs, westerns, film noir - especially the Edgar Wallace black-and-white films.
I liked the gags - even some of the more puerile ones - and there were a few twists and turns in the plot, too. I'd even consider going to see it a second time.
The acting was well done, the scenes were well set up and the casting was great, too. I was quite impressed with the opening credits. The only criticism I have is that the out-takes during the end credits weren't as funny as those in Jackie Chan films.
I went along knowing nothing of this film, but came out utterly amazed by it. I thought it was as good as Return of the King - and that's saying something since I'm such a fan of Lord of the Rings I actually went to New Zealand and was in Wellington for the premiere of ROTK.
Although I didn't shed a single tear for ROTK, I was in tears within five minutes. The cause? The sight of a whole school of dolphins leaping out of water. It was such a beautiful sight. I cried three times in total.
The camera work was breathtaking. They must have taken years to get all the shots.
The cast was in the thousands. The orca whales were the Uruk-hai of the sea, the sharks were the orcs. The jellyfish get the award for best costume. The penguins are like the hobbits - they supply the laughs.
There is so much drama here. There is a scene with sharks and fish and the fish hide under rocks and I was literally screaming (in my mind).. 'Stay where you are! Don't move!" It was like the scene where the hobbits are being chased by the Black Riders.
And if you're interested in geology there are fantastic shots of the mid-Atlantic ridge. Breath-taking shots of it. And hydrothermal vents. Wonderful
I am still incoherent with amazement at this film. Worth even a second viewing.