david_kravitz

I am a great fan of musicals, I own over 700 of them on DVD and lecture on the subject all over Israel. I eagerly anticipated this film which arrived in Israel on December 16th. I am disappointed.

In parts this film is good, the opening sequence on the freeway superb, but parts of the film were, simply, boringly slow. The music and songs were good but not outstandingly memorable. The "hit" song City of Stars was not allowed to be performed fully and the marvelous and colorful dance sequence towards the end was cut shamefully short. The jazz sequences were terrific, if you like jazz as the dialog points out.

Ryan Gosling is a revelation as a singer,dancer and pianist but everyone else was average. The constant panning of the camera was a distraction but the long, continuous, single takes work very well, particularly Emma Stone's audition song. The dance sequence between the two stars into the clouds was poor, not even in the same class as as Woody Allen and Diane Keaton.

The film is described by some as a tribute to Fred and Ginger. Hardly. And I wonder how many of the current reviews from such limited distribution are from actors and luvvies from la la land?

Yes, this is a good film, one I might watch again but the advance hype is not supported by what I saw on screen. The audience seemed to like it, with the odd exception and, maybe, I am being too critical which is likely reflected in the "likes" for my review. But this is not, in my opinion, a musical that will stand the test of time as a blockbuster.

To quote the critic of the Daily Mail, "The best live film of a stage show that I've seen". And I fully agree with him. I am an avid fan of musicals with a DVD collection over 700+.

Having had to wait 25 years since my late wife and I saw it at Drury Lane, London, I have had to be content with the CD.

This production and the DVD are worth more than 10. If you buy only one DVD of a musical, stage or screen, it has to be this one. From the two showstoppers at the beginning and end, The heat is on in Saigon and American Dream, to the beautiful duet, The last night of the World, the score and the performances are fantastic.

After Les Miserables, still the best musical ever, Boubil and Schonberg came up with another smash, this time based on Madame Butterfly. And thanks to Cameron Mackintosh for his foresight in producing both shows.

Bringing this show to a smaller stage than Drury Lane created several problems the least of which was the helicopter and the number involving the statue of Ho Chi Min was more cramped.

There are two extras with the DVD, one giving a history of the musical and the other, the after show performances from the original cast which reduced me to tears of joy. Each member of both casts and the production team deserve a huge amount of applause, which they duly got.

The close up singing shots strongly suggest there were so many cameras, that many were on stage and thus part of the performances were filmed not on the night. If you love musicals, this one totally without fault with a dream cast and incredible production values. Enjoy.

This may well be the worst movie I have ever seen and, most certainly, the first I walked out of since Modesty Blaise in 1966.

It is simply not funny and is completely childish. The lead actors seem to think that anything that comes out of their mouths is hysterically funny when actually five-year-old's speak and behave infinitely better. Beyond the scenery there is nothing but nothing to recommend it. How such famous actors became associated with this rubbish is beyond me and, at least, Susan Sarendon had the commonsense not to have her name included in the cast list.

Nominated for a Excellence in Title Design and also as a comedy(!!!) by some teen choice award lot, simply avoid this film at all costs. In fact, simply avoid Ben Stiller who not only starred but co-wrote it.

This production went out live on a giant stage in London. It was not simply great, it was magnificent. Incredible production values and a wonderful cast. It follows the original stage show (almost) which means that the two deleted numbers from the film version are restored but "something good" written for the film is added. The original sequence of songs and orchestrations are there as well.

I will not single out any of the cast as this would be unfair, they all perform to perfection and never once do you yearn for Julie Andrews or Christopher Plummer. There are no silly English accents with a German/Austrian twang.

The kids are good too, again I single out no one.

I think that an audience might have helped but this would not be possible, technically given the size of the sets. And if you want to see how it was done, there is a documentary "The making of ....".

I presume that this will be available on DVD if you didn't record it live. Go out and buy it - and play it over and over again. Well done ITV.

Possibly the worst film I have ever reviewed and, most certainly, the lowest mark I have ever given. Watching paint dry for 91 minutes would be more exciting.

I have read the other reviews, the positives and, even, superlatives are a bit like the king's new suit of clothes; you have to rave over it because it is arty, well-acted and has Philip Seymour Hoffman. No it isn't arty, the acting is so-so and yes it has PSH, but so what?

The stats say it all. Hardly any form of theatrical release, finally reaching Israel in April 2015 and most other countries not at all. In Israel, most films have an artificial popcorn, drinks and you-know-what intermission in the middle. I wonder how many stayed for part two? We gave up at home. And its takings over the past five years confirm it a flop.

Can I say anything positive about this film? Not a one.

The actual story and acting throughout this film were very good but what was definitely not was the lighting. Producers seem to believe that 100+ years ago the world was almost black and white and the sun was much dimmer.

The night scenes (the majority of the film) were so dark that you could really only see shadows at time and even the daytime scenes were poorly lit. Pre-1950 was not a sepia tinted world so, come on, directors, switch on a few more bulbs or, in this case, light a few more candles.

If number 2 of this series is just as bad I, for one, will not be watching.

I really suppose we should have not watched this in the first when it was billed at 90 minutes. Previous episodes at 60 minutes were often quite boring too. But we gave it a try.

The basic premise of all JC stories is a death in a locked room near the beginning and Creek works it all out at the end. In between there is a lot of padding and all the way through far too much very loud music. A terrific cast clearly thought they were hamming it up, I hope Joanna Lumley was very made up, she looked awful.

Ric Mayall and Nigel Planer played it all very much for laughs, the former doing a Peter Sellers from that film about a bomb, or Goldmember. The whole thing drags along and by the end we simply did not care and rued the fact we did not switch off earlier.

I do not understand the rating of 5.4 (at the time of writing) nor the very poor review of one of the contributors. My partner and I saw this film last night and found it one of the funniest films in years. And, judging by the laughter, most of the audience agree. Bear in mind that for a majority of the audience English is not their first language either.

A word of caution for prudes. There are three scenes of a highly sexual nature that are extremely funny for those who are not.

This is another in the growing trend of using mature actors and it is good to see Diane Keaton and Susan Sarendon in starring roles where some years back they would have disappeared from our screens. Robert De Niro is excellent, as ever and Robin Williams in the smaller part of the quartet of Oscar winners, made this a foursome of very funny performances.

The rest of the cast also turned in fine performances and I think they must have had lots of fun making the film. We go to the cinema for one reason only - to be entertained. I heard no complaints from the rest of the audience as we left. No Oscar winners here but high marks for fun.

The scenery is also quite magnificent.

After a very weak series 6 which suggested that this series is running out of steam, the first two stories of series 7 suggest that it is back on track, albeit there was precious little of Hathaway in story 2.

Another criticism of both this series and its stablemate Midsomer Murders is that I could guess "whodunnit?" from the credit titles, usually the guest star. A further niggle is ITV's decision to split these stories into two parts a full week apart. I get around this by recording both and I can then fast forward through the adverts as a bonus.

This story was well written by Lucy Gannon and moved along smoothly after a shaky start with too many characters. And two of the minor regulars had much bigger roles. Plus, after a near miss some three or four four series back, Robbie finally got hooked and found love. It brought a smile to his face, the other main characters and to us watching.

Well worth a watch with it murders and a clever idea of an incinerated body to make it difficult to identify victim or killer but with some humorous touches thrown in. Just a pity I knew the killer before he/she had said a word.

This is yet another gem of an Irish film. I saw it last night at the Israel Irish film festival in Tel Aviv, in the presence of the director, the writer and the lead actor. One Gerard Hurley, although, as he admitted, he is not a professional actor at all. In fact this film, set in County Cork, has only three professional actors.

The story is simple. A sick father "cons" his absentee son in New York into returning to his hometown to help him recover outstanding debts. The interaction between these two is central to the film and Gerard confirmed to me after the film, that the actor playing his father, Karl Johnson, is actually Welsh although sometimes fathoming out his west Cork accent was sometimes difficult.

Along the way, our hero mets a divorcée from New York and a platonic relationship develops until she returns home. A simple story never bores and many of the other players, presumably locals from this small town in Ireland, add to a typically delightful Irish story.

The scenery is fantastic and the whole film, made on a shoestring with help from the Irish film board, was made in 8 days filming in Ireland and two days in New York. Perhaps the only give away is that it never rains once in the film. Its a pity that IMDb does not list all the players because I would like to single out the angelic older little boy.

The film is unlikely to get wide distribution. Its an Indie and it does not have big names or any money for promotion. But if you get the chance, see it, provided you don't find the regular swearing offensive.

One thing I would like to add is about the Hebrew subtitles. Some of you might know the word eejut (idiot for the rest of you). Clearly the subtitle writers did not and could not find it in a dictionary. So there it was in Hebrew, phonetically spelled as eejut!

I saw this film in Tel Aviv as the opener to the 2011 annual Israel-Irish film week. Only the Irish seem to be able to able to produce this type of film, or fillum as the Irish say, and there is a long line over the years. This one is based on a true story and is set in the 1980's. A nine year old boy, Paco, sees a plane come down in forest land near his home in a small village in County Cork in southern Ireland. The pilot, who speaks only Spanish, it later turns out he is Colombian, follows the boy home and hides under his bed. The boy is learning Spanish, his absentee father is a Spaniard, but not enough for him or the pilot to really understand what each one is saying to the other.

When the plane and the pilot are discovered by the town-folk and following a hilarious meeting "interpreted" by the boy, the local councillor and the men of the town agree to rebuild the plane so that Ernesto can fly off. How they achieve this is the central part of the story and the incident involving a bull is very funny. They need to acquire 1400 gallons of aviation fuel and enlist terrorists to provide it. The ground the plane came down in is too soft and they need to build the runway of the title. (How much tarmac did that need from the "cowboys" who provide it). Each of these story lines is a gem.

I will not reveal anything of the ending beyond revealing how this nine-year old uses newly taught skills to drive a van but Ernesto being Colombian, you know where the story is going.The story is totally improbable but, apparently, the runway still exists to this day and is used for various events.

I don't suppose this film will get the wide audience it deserves but if it comes to a screen near you, or is released on DVD, or is shown on TV, you will be richly entertained for 101 minutes that simply fly by. A wonderful cast of mainly Irish actors deliver great performances, as does Mexican Demián Bichir as the pilot. The musical soundtrack delivered by a local radio DJ adds to the joy of this film.

See it, enjoy it.

In the space of just six days I have seen (arguably) the best film of 2008 (Changeling) and the worst (this one). Where to even start? A nonsensical plot was matched by some very poor acting. Loose ends everywhere and four actresses using the same peroxide bottle that made them difficult to tell apart.

The main story concerns a bimbo who tells a wife she is going to steal her husband. There are side issues such as another wife murdering her husband and a daughter, who just mumbles her lines, with boyfriend problems and a mother who appears in just one scene (I think) for no good reason. Many of these stories are left unresolved at the end and you wonder just what the film was all about.

Then there is the acting. The daughter who mumbles her way through is matched by the rest. I do not know any of the actors or actresses from other parts but I presume they may come from cheap daytime soap opera.

As I write this, my apartment is being decorated. Watching the paint dry on the walls is more exciting than this film. Could someone at IMDb explain its rating for this film?

Here in Israel, most movies have an interval inserted at some point so that they can sell more popcorn. It was significant that several people left at the interval and did not return. My girl friend and I discussed leaving too, but didn't. This movie, and its critics on this website, demonstrates the different perceptions to what is funny and what is not, on different sides of the Atlantic.

Yes there are funny moments in this film, some very funny, but not nearly enough in its 107 minutes. It was strangely quiet in the cinema we saw this film in. Perhaps the best fun was trying to work out who was Robert Downey (a great favorite of mine) and Tom Cruise. Others have commented on the story so I won't repeat it.

Just be warned. Unless you are a great fan of American humor, you will not find it very funny at all. And, I assume, the three "trailers" before the film started were spoofs.

Sorry Mickey Knox and a few others but this is a charming and very funny film. I live with a lady from Dublin and a great many of my friends, here in Israel, are Irish as well.

There is no point repeating the plot, others have done so better than I could. It is very funny, it is beautiful to look at and I itch to visit Ireland again so that I can visit the locations. Even in winter Galway looked green and magnificent.

The acting is superb throughout. Anything with the Milo O'Shea and David Kelly just has to be. But I am unfair to single out any actors, they are all great, as was the script and direction. True, the story could have told in an hour or so, but who cares, we went to bed happy. I only recorded it from TV one night we were out because it was Irish, no way I will ever wipe it.

Let me single out one scene. That in which the Senator is introduced to his "family". Absolutely priceless and should be in anyone's top 100 funny film bits. When the boy enters from the left and says ......... but, no, that would be a spoiler. Just see it for yourself.

As for the swearing. I was not offended, it just added authenticity. And the matchmaking really does happen in a small village in Ireland.

Another gem of a movie in the same mould as Calendar Girls and Ladies in Lavender. The Brits have the total knack of turning nothing stories into films that simply make you feel good. A simple plot. A group of prisoners at an open prison are encouraged to take up gardening as a way to prepare themselves for the outside world, bearing in mind that many of them were murderers. That they succeed and go on to win prizes at prestigious flower shows in England makes for a pleasant hour and a half, or so. The acting is great especially from Clive Owen, Helen Mirren and David Kelly. It was a little disconcerting to listen to Warren Ckarke with a "posh" voice though. The film is base on a true story and is beautifully photographed. Its also great fun to watch. Go rent or, better, go buy it and enjoy it over and over again.

A marvelous must-see film. It was shown here on cable television and what the Hebrew speakers made of it I do not know. I understand that it was never released because the makers went bust so search for it on eBay, DVD from the far east or Amazon. This is British humour at its best. And, no, you cannot borrow my copy! Set in Liverpool with stunning photography, it oozes Liverpool humour and wit. I worked there for 18 months a long time ago (30 years) and it rolled back the years. The acting is uniformly brilliant and it would really be wrong to single out any of the actors, even a personal favorite Tom Georgeson, a knockout in a small role as a priest.

At only 90 minutes, it flies by and leaves you wanting more. A simple story of a wooden Madonna that the church does not want and is rescued by a richly comical Catholic family headed by Ricky Tomlinson as a bus driver. There follows a series of very funny incidents that culminate in spectacular aerial shots of Liverpool.

My own favorite scene involves the boy of the house and his mother's mail-order catalogue but I will not spoil it, nor might IMDb allow me to elucidate. But how can I leave out the raid on the Rastafarian home? Or the bus driving scenes? A special mention of the singing. If that was Imelda Staunton in a very good Scouse accent, a pure revelation.

Kill to see this film. If you appreciate British humour, they don't come much funnier than this,

SPOILER: Where to start with this fillum (it is Irish) is the most difficult part. It was shown as the closing event of the 2007 Irish cultural festival in Tel Aviv, Israel. It is 1952 in the midlands of Ireland some 30+ years after the war that led to Independence and when feelings still ran high between families over which side they supported. It is set in a rural town immediately prior to the coming of electricity and is the story of two families, one a poor widower (Donnelly) and his teenage son who scrape a living by fishing for eels in the local lakes and the other family a little better off with a daughter and a son who has gone off to join the US army in Korea (hence the title), where he is killed.

This is simply about two relationships, the main one between father and son that is intense with a domineering (but loving) father and a simple love relationship between son and daughter. The father wants to break up this relationship by sending his son to America because of his hatred of the Moran family. Its a simple story, well told and brilliantly acted. At less than 90 minutes, the screenplay is exactly right being based on three short stories.

The scenery is magnificent. Bleak countryside, often raining, with terrific cinematography. The colors are washed out to the point that it sometimes appears to be in black and white. The darkness of much of the film adds to its passions. If you get a chance to see this on DVD or a television channel without advertisements, do so.

Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.

This is way above the general standard of TV movies. Beautifully acted by the two likable leads as well as terrific baddie who reminds me of an actor from years ago who always played baddies but I cannot remember his name (Barry something?). An unusual plot, identity theft and a very credible storyline apparently based on truth, albeit probably a composite, it moves at a cracking pace grabs you by the throat from the very beginning and does not let go until the last frame. Throw in the odd bit of humor and crisp direction and cinematography and you have a movie that could easily have been shown in movie theaters. My only criticism is that these guys are postal inspectors and you just have to wonder where all the real policemen were. Just sit back in your armchair and enjoy.

I saw this show on Broadway just after Nathan Lane left the cast. I saw this show at Drury Lane, London, the night Nathan Lane hurt his back and did not appear. Now, at last, Nathan Lane, and he is good, very very good. And so are the rest of the cast in this transfer to the large, widescreen.

This is Susan Stromen's first appearance on screen rather than stage and she does a fine job of direction and choreography. The screen lights up for the big song and dance routines. And Matthew Broderick is a revelation as a dancer as well as a pleasant voice.

Mel Brook's humor is good, most of the songs are tuneful, particularly the title song, but one or two seem vaguely familiar from other sources (La Cage aux Folles for one). Some of the Jewish humor, so evident on Broadway has either gone or been watered down, for example the deletion of "King of Broadway". This is, I think, a mistake as it makes the first 20 minutes very wordy and, lets not mince words, boring. But with "We can do it", followed by "I wanna be a producer" all is forgiven. This is like the old brash Hollywood musicals of yesteryear.

The deletion of "Old Bavaria" cuts a very funny sequence from the stage show with the pigeons, partially redeemed later, and the "Keep it gay" is splendidly over-the-top and politically incorrect. But, then, that's Mel Brooks for you.

I have the DVD of the original Zero Mostel movie, I have seen the musical twice on stage, once in the cinema. I have the original cast CD bought in Times Square straight after the show. And, soon, I will have the widescreen DVD of the musical. Am I a fan? You betcha. My favorite bits? The brilliant and spectacular "Springtime for Hitler" that must rank in the top ten of everybody's best moments in cinema history, and the show titles at the end. She shtups to conquer. Pure Brooks.

Go see it but if you get the chance, go see the show, its even better.

I have definite rules for all television series. Do they hold my attention? Are they well written? Are they well acted? In the case of this series, the answers are yes, yes and yes.

Starting with the writer, nobody seems to mention him. The stories are well crafted, the different strands of each episode are seamless. I assume that Newman either has some knowledge of the law or access to those that do as the words of John Deed make sense to the viewer.

The cast is attractive with a large number of regulars who have stuck with it for some years, always a good sign of their belief in the project. Martin Shaw is always good value for money. The beautiful Jenny Seagrove, (what did she see in Michael Winner), Sir Donald Sinden doing his Donald Sinden act, Christopher Cazenove et als, all turn in quality performances.

Some have seen fit to compare this unfavourably with Rumpole of the Bailey, I cannot see the comparison. This is not played for laughs though there is humour a-plenty. This does not have the "clever" endings. This is a good attempt to portray English justice. At 90 minutes an episode, true things have to be tidied a little. A sub-plot is added and we see the human side of the characters' private lives. Each episode I have watched has held my attention, wholly and completely, to the credit titles at the end.

A better comparison than Rumpole is probably the late, great John Thaw in Kavanagh QC. This, I know, was based on a real character, latterly elevated to the bench before his untimely death, the real Kavanagh was a friend of mine. I do not know if Deed is based on a real judge, or judges, but I would guess at "probably".

I have seen some of the episodes more than once and they do not suffer from repetition. Yes I am a fan, long may Judge John Deed sit on the bench. And at only a handful of episodes a year, this viewer always yearns for his return.

This is a beautiful film made in Dublin which I have just seen in Tel Aviv at the Israel Irish film festival, in the presence of the director. At first I did not think I would enjoy it, it is, after all not an endearing subject but the longer it went into its 83 minutes, the more I enjoyed it. This is the story of two homeless heroin addicts called Adam and Paul but which is Adam, which is Paul, you never find out. Similar to "Waiting for Godot" but filmed in a great number of locations rather than a single room. Although its a sombre subject, you follow a single day in their lives (and the death of one from an overdose) but the film is much filled with humor in a style reminiscent of Laurel and Hardy. The dialog is simple, in very short sentences, which is accurate of these folk, and there is, I warn you, much use of the word f**k which gives the Hebrew subtitlers a lot of grief. All the characters are believable and are based on the lives of real Dubliners. The script was written by the taller addict. How do they eat, how do they go to the bathroom, how do they survive? You follow their lives and ultimately you yearn for one of their scams to survive in order that they "earn" some money but then you realize that it would not be spent on food but drugs. They meet a varied collection of other losers on their travels and I could add a spoiler by revealing the funniest one-liner in the film - when they meet a man they think comes from Romania - but I won't. Another funny sequence is outside a gas station where they are supposedly watching for the police during an attack on the station by two men with baseball bats, pure L & H. The photography is superb, stark, revealing of slums, the direction brilliant. The director was forced to take jobs making commercials to earn a living whilst making the film. As to which one is which, the director confirmed that they were interchangeable and, probably, a single entity. This is the sort of film most English-speaking film-making countries could not make, they lack the observational powers of this writer and director. If you get the chance to see it, don't miss it. And better in a cinema than on television where it will lose much of its qualities.

Did I enjoy this film? Well maybe yes, maybe no but we did leave the film with some level of satisfaction. It starts off quite well with an interesting development of some of the characters, then gets bogged down in the middle. With the arrival of the other sister it is very funny in places. There is a problem with the film that may be localized. It seems badly edited with many unexplained bits. I also question if the ending was cut in Israel because I cannot remember an ending of 12 months later having seen the movie less than 72 hours ago. The scenery (and the snow) were quite beautiful but not one actor stood out as great (I confess to being a Diane Keaton fan) but it is certainly not the "worst film ever" quoted by another writer. Did it entertain me? Yes. Did I feel like walking out? No. Did I feel a little confused? Yes. Would I rent it on DVD or watch it on TV? No, and 6 out of 10 is the lowest score I have ever given on IMDb.

This is an English TV movie made by the BBC and it is clearly made on a limited budget. Nevertheless it is very well acted by the three main characters and holds your interest until the end, which is a slight disappointment. The other issue was that I clearly felt I had seen it before (which I hadn't), Two small children murder another child and they are locked away until being released years later with new identities. One has married and raised a family, the other has had a disjointed life. She traces the married woman and cons her way into a job within the family business of the married woman. Slowly she ensnares the husband (who has no knowledge of his wife's past) and he moves in with the single woman. How this is resolved I leave to your viewing of the movie, The version I saw (on Hallmark) ran about 95 minutes. I think the two hour version may tie up several loose ends involving the more minor roles of the married woman's father and the business secretary both played by former British "names" but wasted in this version.

I was a little sceptical about seeing this film. My partner and I are wrinklies (OK, pensioners) and we had never heard of any of the cast. Another teenage sex movie or something plastic like you get on planes? Not a bit of it. Simply put, this was the funniest movie I've seen in years and years. The last time I laughed so hard and loud was for Blazing Saddles. The cast is superb and I will not single out anyone for special mention. The writing is crisp, the one-liners superb. The language is very rude but not offensive, The sight gags are great and the ending unexpected. Steve Carrell reminds me of Robert Morse in How to Succeed in Business but was that hair real? And I think we were the only ones in the packed cinema that were around when they first sang "Let the Sunshine in". A very very funny movie and to miss it would be your loss, But keep an open mind, its not for the prudish.