bptr-1

This was truly an amazing and deeply moving movie!! Little is said in this movie, yet the movie says everything.

We are all alone out there with "Our Man" and Nature the entire time, and experience it all with him. The music is also perfect for conveying the emotion of a single man lost at sea in all its glory and horror.

This movie made me cry at the end. It will be remembered as one of the best movies I have ever seen.

I also would like to give great praise to the director and technical team here for providing completely awesome special effects that I was totally unaware of (the ultimate goal) until I watched the Special Features and saw some of the elements that went into the composite shots. I normally cringe at CGI, but this application is really what they are for.

I loved this movie! It had absolutely all the elements of a great film. The acting was amazing and the cinematography was fabulous. It had many messages - all done in a really nice subtle way. The music was perfect too.

I really loved that last shot of Driss looking back in the window. That shot with his facial expression said it all and will stick in my mind.

The only thing that bothered me was the ending writing about what happened to them. I thought it broke the mood some and it would have been better left unsaid. But then I remembered that this was based on a true story, so that makes it more justified.

Omar Sy is loaded with talent. I will check out his other movies.

Why does Malcolm McDowell keep doing these bad movies playing a cheesy cliché villain? He has acting chops and could do so much better. Most of the other actors are mediocre at best.

This movie is like a bad play with five actors stuck in one scene. This has been done so many times before and it has been proved to require outstanding talent to pull it off. The premise of this movie is just ridiculous. Even the special gore effects look really fake like a joke horror film. All I enjoyed in this movie was the good looks and body of Katerina Mikailenko.

This movie is the epitome of the idiotic Republican thinking (ruthless amoral selfish philosophy, and corporate scamming masquerading as "Capitalism") which has ruined this country. I just hope that its message was ridiculing and not extolling.

Cartoonish with bad contrived forced acting (like a dry run-through of a script). This required a huge suspension of disbelief on the viewer's part. Why was Woody even in this? He is FAR too old to be a plausible parent - should have been the grandparent. He apparently decided to take the bold approach of having his usual stand-in little Jewish kid (Jesse Eisenberg) AND himself in the movie (some kind of existential paradox?). Having said that, I do still like Woody in his own films - but I want him off to the side as in Scoop. The only actors who were good were Roberto Benigni (outstanding), Alec Baldwin, Penélope Cruz, and Greta Gerwig. Also, Fabio Armiliato is a fantastic singer,

Here Woody Allen takes his own invented genre to its own cartoonist extreme. We, the viewers, are supposed to suspend all sense of reality to accept this. This is the new genre of Woody Allen totally using a city as a crutch to support any contrivance of a plot and script. It is like each actor is doing a Woody Allen imitation (are they that intimidated by his presence???). He also relies on his tired formula of having several unrelated story lines intertwined.

If you drop your critical eye and just enjoy this movie, it is entertaining. Actually the brilliant Roberto Benigni makes this movie on his own. He is hilarious. Penelope Cruz is also a lot of fun.

p.s. I can't believe that reviewer Grey Gardens called Scoop Woody Allen's worst film! I loved that movie.

This was a pretty good movie which was indeed original with nice visual effects (saw it in 3D).

Here are my problems with the film:

Why do we need present-day characters telling us the story? Are we morons?? Why do we need them to spell out the morals and spiritual points? This is really condescending, obnoxious, and pretty much ruins everything.

Why do we need the gay writer guy with his cute little shirt and beard? He was a bad actor and was totally trying to hide being gay (which is always far more obnoxious than being a flamboyant gay).

Old Pi looked NOTHING like young Pi.

The "connection" between Pi and the tiger was not explored enough.

The film hit few poignant emotional cords. While I was entertained throughout, I wasn't moved as much as I should have and could have been.

On a positive note, Suraj Sharma seems to be a gifted new actor and we will see what he is capable of in future films.

In conclusion, this was a pretty neat movie that missed on being great.

Nice movie with a sweet portrayal by Juno Temple (Danielle) and excellent acting all around. This movie did a really good job of making us feel what it must be like for a teen girl abandoned by her father.

I had a problem with the era. Was Oklahoma really 10 years behind? Because 1987 was much different where I lived (in Illinois) at that time. This looked exactly like 1977 to me (I clearly remember girl having that hairstyle in my High School). I watched the bonus DVD commentary with the director Abe Sylvia and he stated that the styles came from his sister's 1987 yearbook. I guess they were in some kind of weird time warp.

That aside, the movie worked for the most part. The idea of the narration coming from a sack of flour was cute and original too.

My main takeaway was the excellent work of Juno Temple.

This movie is almost a bad "made for TV" video. It tries hard to be artsy but has nothing real in that department except some nice guitar music and scenery. Aidan Quinn is one of those actors that seems to have the chops but just comes off as flat all the time. There just isn't much about him to hold your interest in any film. Why is Andy Garcia playing his really cliché Cuban guy who is always wearing white and smoking a cigar- tinted glasses too? (the usual problem with movies - giving costume people license to go overboard)? He is supposed to be Mexican. Gina Gershon was also silly playing his Mexican wife. The only acting in this movie that doesn't come off as hokey is Mario Van Peebles and Claudia Ferri (who played the prostitute and did the best job here). By the way, why was the wrinkle cream so important??? This is just a list of 'B' actors.

There were also some completely implausible things happening in this movie. How did the Russian mafia guys always seem to know where Charlie (and Garza) was? Why would all the bad guys just walk away at the end because one FBI agent had Charlie in custody (100's of millions of dollars were at stake)?

*** Also to the the above reviewer: Garza was clearly not out for revenge. This makes no sense - he hadn't even had any dealings with Charlie. He just needed money to pay back the people from Mexico City - they made that pretty clear over and over in the movie.

**** and a note to all you other reviewers for all IMDb movies: Where did all of you get the idea that a review has to contain a synopsis??? We don't need to read your long rambling re-telling of the story (with errors). It reminds me of people all learning that when you read, you have to talk in a special "reading" tone of voice. It just reeks of bad early teachers.

Seriously, most science-fiction books and movies are set in some alternate reality making it hard to become emotionally attached to the characters and situations. This film presents the science-fiction in a much more subtle way, set in a very real world - the damp and dreary English countryside. This makes the science-fiction aspect all the more chilling, since it hits home in a world we all know and live in. We are forced then to deal with it as a possible part of our own world and must consider all the moral and ethical ramifications that come with it.

This backdrop adds all the poignancy to a very bittersweet love story, which is what this story really is - an unconventional and very original love story. We see the tragedy of our own existence written across Kathy's face and in her eyes in every scene. And the ultimate fate that we all must face is what Kathy alone faces in the final scene staring out into open space.

I was blown over by Carey Mulligan's acting which, in my opinion, made this film as fantastic as it is. I am very surprised that it got no Oscar's or nominations.

I was totally stoked about this movie after seeing the preview (by the way I can't stand the "cool" industry insiders who insist on calling movie previews "trailers" just to prove that they are cool movie insiders. Do they appear before or after the feature film??? DUH!!!).

Anyway, this movie turned out to be cheesy and formulaic. The preview made Snipes' character seem totally invincible with far superior karate fighting skills (which would have been awesome and something I long for).

After watching the Special Features - which were not very good at all - I realized what the problem was. The Director was thrown into this project right before they started shooting with little preparation (and possible experience in this genre) and has a working style of 'just getting it done'. He did just get it done - with very unremarkable results.

I don't blame Snipes at all - his performance was very good with what he had to work with. He seemed to just go along with this schlock, just as he went along with the con artists (one was actually named Kahn) who led him into an illegal tax scheme to defraud the federal government that landed him in jail.

I also see how movie Previews are made by independent production houses and can be very misleading about the actual quality of a film. In this case they made a very good one. Maybe they should have produced the entire film!

Oh, one more thing. 100 millions dollars (in 100's) can be carried in just 2 modest-sized duffel bags? Wow! How dumb do they think we are?

I'm sorry, but it is virtually impossible to duct tape someone to a toilet. Even if I accepted that, there is no way I can accept Sara not simply biting the tape off of her hands (I understand now why Louise wouldn't do that since she set the robbery up - but even that wasn't known until the end and it bothered the hell out of me!). Sara had her hands to her face several times and Ian was sitting there for hours and hours but not trying to get free at all. I couldn't simply overlook all of that! This movie had some good acting (Tim Hutton had to do a whole long speech alone while the Louise character was supposedly passed out - listening I guess too). But it was a LONG way to go for basically one plot-twist punch line at the end. The script needed a lot more to make this movie good.

I can't recommend this film unless you really have the need for more forced Meg Ryan "cuteness" and you happen to get off on seeing her get her breasts fondled (twice no less).

This movie is a DUD.

Why do movie and TV people insist on hiring a costume designer? Unless it is a period piece with special dress, this it totally unnecessary!!! Invariably, some chick goes overboard and runs out on Melrose to buy all the cute outfits her budget will allow. This movie is the epitome of this error. Guys in reality just do NOT put that much thought into having cute little outfits!! What planet are you people from? This guy might as well have had a Pee Wee Herman bow-tie on in every seen. No guy wears ridiculous tight vests to work every day! And all the scenes where the guy and his two buddies sit around and talk about his girlfriend Summer are just some chick writer's total fantasy!!! No guys actually do this!!! Hello???? The friend was almost eating Haagen Daas.

This movie was the epitome of idiotic movie cliché's. We are supposed to just take for granted that this chick is so hot and cute and perfect (sorry, she is frumpy and annoying and inexplicably wearing June Cleaver dresses), then we have just to work on this guy. It's exactly like the fantasy that older sisters have when they dress up their little brother. The guy is just a little play doll for chick viewers to conjure up in their chick fantasy world. "oh isn't he cute?" Nevermind that he is scrawny and totally whiny and annoying too. This also just epitomizes the idiotic schizophrenia in the warped tangle-wired woman's mind who wants both a bookish muscle man and a scrawny poet renaissance man - both exist only in their bizarro world airhead.

You filmmakers are so obviously catering to the warped fantasies of young women who have their heads screwed on backwards. Do they forget that there is also a Date being forced to watch this schlock?

This movie is one giant P. O. S. In a shiny wrapping.

Someone needs to kick the crap out of all those idiotic characters and all you idiotic women or gay filmmakers.

This is one of the most annoying movies I have ever seen.

Oh, and what's up with the idiotic narration? We can't tell what is going on for ourselves? They couldn't afford Morgan Freeman so they had to get some no-name to impersonate him? He never said anything illuminating at all!

This movie had ZERO funny moments. Could the brother and his little friend be any more cliché Seattle 20-somethings? (the brother wears a shirt that says "college"? He has lockers in his apartment? Are you serious? Why do we need costume and set designers again?) The "Weather Girl" had no interesting or comedic qualities and was not even hot.

Mark Harmon with all his experience, looked like crap and was totally unfunny. The Weather Girl's two little friends - one a NY obnoxious Jewish chick - were also not funny at all. Why am I not surprised that John Cryer is part of this sophomoric nonsense? (are we supposed to be impressed that he plays a straight man dork?). The only one who was remotely funny and cute was Sherry and she was barely used.

Why am I wasting my time writing about this P.O.S.? By the way, why was there so much low-frequency noise from 1:13:37 to 1:13:47 ? Did anyone listen to the movie after they made it?

On the whole, I enjoyed this movie. What distracted and annoyed me throughout was the clenched-teeth nasal aristocratic east-coast accent and attitude that Juno (and/or Ellen Page has - I can't tell which). Is she Jewish elite? This doesn't really go well with the middle-class angst-ridden teen that she is suppose to portray in the film. I get that she is much smarter and wiser than her years (really the whole schtick of the movie). But it is a bit hard to buy.

And what's with the "geeky is cool" boyfriend? Are we supposed to accept that he would wear velcro headbands and short shorts (ala 1970) in 2007? This is contrived stupidity - not hip.

I did enjoy the performances of Jason Bateman as the adoptee father and J.K. Simmons as Jumo's father.

Nice blip of a movie to forget later.

I think everyone is missing it here. This isn't a deep heartfelt moving disguised as a silly comedy. It IS a silly comedy AND a serious movie both - ala Being There with its requisite suspension of disbelief. You can see any particular part as funny or serious - your choice. The overall joke is the preposterousness - just as in Being There (which I think inspired the makers of this movie).

But also remember IT IS A MOVIE. I think everyone is taking this movie far too seriously. Personally, I didn't feel moved at all by this film but I loved it because of its originality, continuity, and ability to work on more than one level. I think that is the key - its ability to work on more than one level.

By the way, notice what Lars says when Bianca receives flowers after church: "Those are nice. They're not real so they last forever. Isn't that neat?". That says it all.

I also think this film just might be a glipse into our scary future with more and more weird people living in virtual reality with more and more Avators, Lolicon, life-like virtual reality girls and such.

It's funny. The first 3/4 of this film is pretty mediocre. But it works so well as a set-up for the very powerful last part of the film which just knocks you over! Really. I was watching most of the movie just trying to enjoy the Malibu and China scenery because the rest seemed, as another reviewer said, like an after-school special.

I was not prepared to cry uncontrollably for the last 10 minutes straight. Watching the transformation of Katie before our eyes makes it all worthwhile. This girl (Mika Boorem) gives a very fine performance. Cheri Oteri is perfect for the part too and the father daughter (Luoyong Wang and Yi Ding) are great (although the English is a little unbelievable).

I still don't know if the first part of the film was carefully crafted to achieve the end effect, but I guess it doesn't matter because I left feeling really good.

Very entertaining film. And, yes, it IS breezy summer entertainment". As for the person who said that it is "boring and lackluster writing", all I can conclude is that you are insensitive and not very bright. It is a ROMANTIC piece, with original and insightful writing. I DO agree that the "speak in English" over and over was a bit annoying. Woody Allen certainly has a few flaws.

The main thing that bothers me that I notice in most Woody Allen films is the actors doing a Woody Allen imitation. It really stands out for me. Why is it that no one else notices this? Both Vicky (Hall) and Cristina (Johansson) do it very noticeably - especially Vicky. They stutter and stammer and over-analyze exactly like him. Does he direct them specifically to do this? I have seen this in several of his films. Weird.

Aside from this, I really liked this film. It was a nice exotic Summer escape for the viewer just as it was for the two girls living out a Summer fantasy in Spain.

This was a very touching movie. This movie made me cry upon thinking of it the next day. Very few movies have done that to me. I was particularly struck by what a sweet and pure performance that Sondra Locke gave as Mick. And the loneliness that Alan Arkin portrayed as John Singer really resonated with me. I really liked how Mick dealt with this and the snobbery too. Why no one received an Oscar for this movie is beyond me.

My only criticism with this film is that is seemed to try to hit too many emotional chords in too short a span of time. It tried to do too much all at once and I noticed myself being left with a slight disappointment and rushed feeling that points were left undeveloped. The loneliness and snobbery were quite enough to deal with without all the racism too. It seemed like a whole other movie was somehow lurking in the background. Perhaps this is the fault of the book. I plan to read it since I think it will develop these points much better.

Although all the racism had a definite impact, I can't help thinking that the movie would have been simpler and sweeter without it. I suppose longing for a simple and sweet melancholy resolution and being left with an unsettled feeling was what Carson McCullers may have been after.

Still a great and timeless movie!

This is a very nice film with an original idea and some fine acting. I also thought that is had some great surreal visual effects and beautiful textures. The only thing that bothered me was (once again) the overuse of hand-held cameras. I don't know why so many directors think that this adds realism to a film. It is distracting and just draws attention to the camera work and detracts from the pure acting, which should never be done in a film. That aside, I thought the three main players were brilliant and the direction and writing were excellent. This film captures the shear escapism of Summer in a wonderful way.

Some ugly weirdo who had three families, cheated on and neglected all of them, built ugly useless buildings all over which are now unappreciated and crumbling. His bastard half-Jew son runs around interviewing random Jewish senile people who we care nothing about and shows his dreadful narrating and writing skills while tragic piano music plays. This goes on for almost two boring hours and amounts to nothing.

All you shallow hippie people who watch these stupid documentaries, eating salads and yogurt, think all this crap is so important. It's not. Save the whales. No one cares.

I can't help thinking that this film thought it was a much better film than it actually was. I just couldn't connect with it. It came off as pretentious. I also couldn't help but notice a heavy stylistic influence from Woody Allen of all people here (editing and music style, but done clumsily) which didn't fit at all. Also, what was with the Spanish guitar music? This whole film just seemed incoherent. The acting didn't work - little really worked right in this film. Maybe I missed the point because I was too asleep to follow it. I found it even difficult to enjoy the San Francisco scenery. This movie was just work to watch.

=by the way, what's so beautiful about Jacqueline Bisset? Anyone else notice that every time she said the word "idea" it came out as "IDEAR"? - very annoying.

This director is going nowhere.

I think people are missing it here. Maybe you all are too young to know. But, this isn't so much a parody of Dirty Harry as it is a parody of all those Quinn Martin production cop shows of the 70's set in San Francisco. Listen to the theme music - it's a dead giveaway. Also the way they title each episode. The only thing missing is the "a Quinn Martin production." phrase at the end.

I loved this show since it first aired. It is classic goofy escapism. It just makes me feel good watching it. Maybe it appeals to my inner machoism like all those Bronson movies but it is also so funny. The preposterous nature of it makes it totally work. I remember this series barely making it to a second season and I can understand why. It has a pretty narrow appeal but those who like it, just love it.

By the way, I was surprised to stumble across all of season-one on DVD at my local library. I would like season-two but I don't want to be disappointed since I can't remember if they kept up the high level of silliness.

Anyway, I am watching the episodes as we speak and I am glad so many others love this series too.

Enjoy!

An excellent movie. I was particularly impressed by the acting from Emily Mortimer.

As for the other reviews, I don't understand why people find it necessary to go over the plot in detail. That is not a review, it is a Synopsis.

Also, I feel like everyone missed the point with the Roy character. It was subtle. Of course he was supposed to be the stereotypical unsophisticated tourist, goody-goody church guy from Iowa. This was the source of their marital problems since his wife Jessie had a wild past, settled with him, but still felt the yearnings for adventure. We, and she, are surprised to learn later, when they are on the run, that he has much more depth, brains, and savvy and that maybe he just chooses to be happy, fascinated with trains, and to live a simpler existence with his Hardware store in Iowa. When Jessie recounts their first meeting in the hospital and him making the dopey doughnut statement, you just think of him as kind of simple. At the end, after we find out that he is really not, we learn that he meant the statement as a silly joke to cheer her up - this was pointed to us, the audience. Roy's underlayers are kept subtle in the movie. She has a revelation about him and their life together at the end. She knows that she has had enough adventure and now wants to settle down with her ideal guy and finally have kids. Emily Mortimer says so much with her subtle expressions.

"Back in the 90's as a teen, I never really got in to Biggie's music or lyrics. I never knew the correlation between HE and all these artists like "Puff Daddy" Faith Evans, Lil Kim all came up together. I never understood how the East Coast West Coast feud got started.

The correlation between HE? Where do you people learn English? Adding another name doesn't change anything. HE is a SUBJECT, not an OBJECT - ALWAYS !!! "I love that line in the move "If you wanna change the world, First you've got to change yourself"" This quote means nothing! Of course you can change things without changing yourself. I can change my tire on my car without changing myself. Idiotic quote by a stupid person for stupid people.

Hip Hop and Rap are listened to by stupid people who think at Level 1.

Lot's of these reviewers completely missed the point!!! It was SUPPOSED to be REAL. That means that Demme intentionally did not edit long scenes and make things "tight" (story line or scenes) as one reviewer wanted, because real life is simply not like that. I DO agree with the objection to overuse of hand-held camera and one reviewer's assertion that this does not make films ever seem more real.

Another reviewer had a problem with the mother not being there more. This made me laugh! Hello? That was exactly the problem with the mother - she was aloof and had disconnected herself from the family since she couldn't deal with the emotional pain and guilt of losing her son. This reviewer also didn't understand why, just when the real drama got started (the explosive scene with Kym and her mother slapping each other), it stopped again. Hello again ???? Life doesn't work like that! These things explode then go away for a time. WOW

I think this was a pretty good movie all-in-all. But I couldn't help feeling that the whole thing was forced. Supposedly subtle expressions and reactions were not subtle at all. I just felt like everyone (director, camera people, and actors) all tried too hard.

On the good side, I was left with a touched, sweet feeling toward Kym and her plight - that string running through the movie kept me connected to her closely and falling in love with her. I liked that it was too long and awkward since this made it seem more real.

And I do applaud Demme and company for trying to do something different and stretch the formulaic movie boundaries.