iKramerica-1

It maybe deserves a 7, but the 6 helps balance the ridiculous 10s.

I was probably the biggest peanuts fan as a boy. I still have the snoopy dress up dolls that I gave to my son, had the snoopy boogie oogie oogie wallet, peanuts books, a worn out tape of race for your life Charlie Brown (still best kids movie) as well as all of the TV specials.

Does this movie capture the spirit of the originals? Yes but no.

Yes, in that all the elements are there.

No, in that only the elements are there. An entire film about not talking to the little red haired girl? That becomes tedious. And further, minor spoiler, CB wins in the end! That's a huge issue. CB isn't supposed to win. That's so out of character and off book. Snoopy is supposed to win. CB always comes close and fails. CB fails and Han Solo shoots first. Anything else is blasphemy.

Anyway, that's not the major failing. It's, again, lack of plot. If you want lots of vignettes watch the cartoon on boomerang. Movies are supposed to have stories. And please, Schulz knew this. His movies all had stories. He would have not approved this script.

Oh, and the Red Baron should have been a short before the film. It just slowed down an already slow film.

Signed, a disappointed super fan

It is obvious that many of the reviewers here did not understand the movie at all. Sad, as it's not particularly deep. But it is sublimely funny. It does not show how "cool" Hollywood is, nor is it meant to. It satires how godless, fake, self-righteous, pretentious and worthless most people in Hollywood are, and because of the choices they make in life, if the Bible is to be believed (that's the premise), they are ALL going South. Every single Hollywood person. No one is spared. So much so that the entire A/B list house party didn't even know the rapture happened because NOBODY attending was worth saving.

The judgmental and vapid conversations that take place are true to life. I worked there. I can attest. And yet they all believe that they are the best people in the world. I mean, they have to convince you they are hot even when they are cold at the beach in winter, after all. That's a hard job! That's acting. They deserve to get paid way more than us and to pass judgment on the rest of society... (that's a paraphrase from the film, but it's so true).

Let's make it clear to those who can't understand: these actors are not playing themselves. They are playing characters with the same name as themselves, but for the most part, are various stereotypes of Hollywood people, and are very, very accurate portrayals. From the rescue dog who's owner doesn't believe it knows how to bark, to the belief that gluten is a catch-all phrase that means anything bad for you except pot and alcohol, and the fact that no friends or colleagues challenges these stupid assertions lest they be seen as judgmental, it's an accurate indictment of what passes for intelligence in their business. It's a modern LA Story, except rather than learning how to love in a place where love is meaningless, this group has to learn how to be a selfless person in an industry that is 100% selfish.

Michael Cera is funny in his cameo as "Michael Cera", someone very different from who he really is, and plays the drug addled sex fiend with the lilly-white public persona quite well. Jonah Hill plays the "the more I tell you I like you, the more I hate you" phony perfectly, and only shows his true self when possessed by a demon. Jay plays the "I'm too good for Hollywood" jerk well too. And James Franco does a good over-the-top James Franco (he is like that, but less so in real life). Gotta give him credit for laughing at himself and admitting he's not savable.

Are there some slow parts? Yes. By the nature of the problem of the rapture, they must remain in a house for days while the world around them goes to heck, because they need to figure out how to be saved. And that can't be 100% comedy. But what happens does matter to the plot (and yes, there is one). And Emma Watson robbing them of their supplies was a pretty good twist.

Is this movie funnier to insiders than to people who don't know who any of the actors are and don't pay much attention to Hollywood? Sure, but so what? Not every movie is for everyone, and not everyone will relate to all subject matter. But that doesn't make it a 1 out of 10. That just means you don't get it because it's about something you don't care about. Nothing wrong with that. Just move along.

I hated Black Swan. Doesn't mean it sucked. Okay, maybe it does...

First, this movie is a very shallow comedy. No comedy of this nature should be over 2 hours. It means that the funny parts are far too spread out to keep momentum, and shines too much light on the generic, contrived story we've all seen before. There were a few funny scenes and lines (all of them in the trailer), and the rest was BORING. Watched with my wife this past weekend and we both were very disappointed as we had been wanting to see this movie for months. I'm certainly glad we didn't spend $25 on it, and even free (on the video player they provided on our United Airlines flight) it was still a waste of time. There were other movies to choose from and we feel duped into watching this one. We even stopped watching the lame Cars 2 to watch this, and I kind of wish I had watched the end of that one instead. Considering how bad Cars 2 was, that really says something. I'd give this a 1, but I like most of the cast and they all had their moments, but this movie answers the question: "what happens when you stick some of the funniest comic actresses of the year into one movie? You get a mess..."

Okay, maybe not a 10, but have to cancel out some of the bitter, boring people on here who give it a 1 and call it the worst movie ever. Hardly. Get a sense of humor! It was a fun film, a lighthearted view of what a superhero would probably be like in the sort-of-real world. Britt is the anti-batman. Yes he wants to help people, but he also just loves how cool it is to be a superhero, and all the stuff he can do. And he thinks he's better than he is, which is his fatal flaw. Some people find that annoying, but face it, we all know guys just like this, and if put in that situation, they might react just like Britt does. Takes credit when things go well, blames others when not, but always needs the help of others and is generally a fun person. If you Britt to be Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent, you won't be happy. But if you accept that he's NOT those people and isn't supposed to be, then you'll get it. Then you have the villain. Again, a lighthearted view of what might turn a crime boss crazy like so many supervillains in comics seem to be. Anyway, back to the film itself. Please don't hold the original radio show or the TV show up as some holy grail. They were both cheesy too, just in a take themselves more seriously kind of way. None of this is real, there is no comic book legacy to adhere to. The Green Hornet was and still is a ripoff/spoof of other more successful properties, and while I don't often like the comedy treatment of these remakes, this one works. Sure, you knew the badguy twist early on, sure you know that the GH and Kato won't get killed in any fight, etc. But the ride is fun, and the film is not generic. My wife and I both enjoyed it.

"Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." I mean, the author renames Blair, Bush, Condie, etc. but otherwise it's just a liberal construct where we are supposed to feel outraged that a Prime Minister would interrogate terrorists during a time of war, and as Americans, feel ashamed that we haven't agreed to subjugate our sovereignty to the International Criminal Court to allow Europe (who controls the ICC) to take control of US foreign policy.

As for the story, it's boring, contrived and silly in places. It's obvious in others. What's so funny was that even before half way I knew the ending, but by the end, I was so bored that I had forgotten that I had figured it out! And this is watching as a captive audience on an airplane.

It's also funny when European filmmakers try to make movies set in the USA. They get it mostly right, but there are subtle things that just make everything seem "not right." For instance, there would NOT be an immediate large organized protest formed on a remote island against "Blair" due to the rendition accusations. Just wouldn't happen that quickly, or possibly at all.

And the ferry wasn't American nor were the ticket options of "single and return" since we use "one-way and round-trip" in this nation, most of the buildings were obviously not American, the language and mannerisms of the employees weren't American, etc.

Maybe the producers shouldn't have hired a rapist fugitive from justice in the USA to direct a movie set in the USA? But I guess it was too important to make this political statement with a well known director to worry about what people might say about a rapist lecturing us on morals telling the audience to be concerned about the well being of a terrorist while ignoring the well being of a 13 year old girl? I don't know, but it struck me as hypocritical.

The film would have had more impact with a director who could have done a proper job and a script written by someone other than the author of the contrived book. But like most political or message driven films (be they from the right or the left), this film was not given the pre- production care it should have had.

That said, Ewen McGreggor was good in places but didn't have much to work with. Kim Catrell was awful (isn't she always?). Pierce Brosnon was like three characters, like he forgot who he was during shooting.

All in all, it might deserve a 3 or 4, but I give it a two to cancel out some of the politically motivated 10s this movie is getting. No matter how much you agree with the message, you just shouldn't give a movie like this a 10.

Okay, people, this movie is simply proof that this woman's Oscar was a sham. Had Megan Fox been cast in Juno, would DC have won the Oscar for the screenplay? Of course not. Juno was a mediocre film on the page, brought to life by the amazing performance of Page and direction of Reitman, with the quirky music and and the quirky acting of Cera helping it feel "fresh" when it wasn't. But what do the stupid Oscar voters do? They give DC the Oscar and ignore the fact that she was CARRIED by the others, while denying Page and Reitman Oscars. Probably because of DC's personal story of sex worker turned "genius", as Hollywood loves to reward the sleazy people, and DC had a sleazy life.

So now we have this movie, where there is no strong director, no strong actors, and we see that DC is a mediocre writer. Not awful, but not great either. Predictable and clichéd in places, just like Juno. Anti-men, just like Juno. Oscar nomination? Ha, not just like Juno. ;)

Contrary to what popular culture would have you believe, there are many men who believe just as the main character in this movie believes: that there is someone out there for them worth loving and settling down with. This story is told from that perspective.

First, the acting and film-making are both fresh. Obviously the two stars are "who they are" and act accordingly, but they were the right choice for the roles. Zoey D is always quirky but adorable and hard to ignore, and JG-L is his normal teddy bear likable, and that's good here. Because there is never a time in the film when you are supposed to hate these people, and these two are unhatable, so it works.

The style of the film is novel. It's linear in how it presents what you should know at the time, but non-linear in the time-line, showing outcome before setup, or various stages of a relationship in quick succession, using a day counter as a motif over a sketch of changing seasons/weather as a symbolic representation of the mood. Really clever, but not gimmicky in it's cleverness. An entirely different way of playing with time than in Momento, for example, but just as effective.

This isn't a movie where the male lead is a playboy and all his friends sit around degrading women all day. Nor is the male lead a loser simply because he's not a woman's man. Nor does he "get drunk and cheat" or any other cliché.

Because that ISN'T how all men are (player or loser or one drink away from infidelity), and this movie acknowledges that and celebrates it. In fact, nobody in the movie is like that. They are just real people. When happy, they are happy. When mad, they may call someone a nasty name, but they don't mean it. When sad, they are sad. It's what real people do.

And that's what's so good about this movie. Even though the situation isn't as deep as real life might be, it still resonated with the audience, especially the men, who were laughing at all the endearing parts and the true parts, because we've all been there, where the girl we love just doesn't love us back, but we are too blind to realize it and go through life in a happy daze until we crash and burn. It was almost cathartic to realize how many men had been through that same situation, and hopefully the women in the audience took a look around and saw that men are caring, sensitive people inside, despite what Hollywood usually tells them.

Now if only today's filmmakers could learn to pace things a little better. The only reason this movie doesn't get a 10 is because there were 5-10 minutes throughout the film that were slow/redundant, and if the editing were tighter, the film would have been more powerful. It's not as drawn out as an Apatow movie like Funny People or Knocked Up, with entire sections of the movie that should be excised, but it still could have been tighter.

Maybe it deserves a 9, considering what gets 10's on IMDb, but I think 8 is pretty damn good.

First 1.5 hours and last .5 hours are a solid mob movie with good story and acting. I'm not always the fan of these movies, but with history as a back drop, it's interesting in Casino. Well produced, interesting, multiple points of view, some insights into how Vegas worked before the corporations took over.

Then there's that one hour which is a melodramatic piece of junk with Sharon Stone over acting, DeNiro under acting, Joe Pesci being Joe Pesci, and a lot of divorce and relationship garbage that nobody cares about. Are the story points necessary for the film? Maybe. But they could have been handled in 5 minutes of scenes, not an hour of blech. I don't know what Marty was thinking here, but it keeps this movie from being one of the better films of all time. It's not something you can watch over and over because of this shortcoming. Well, I suppose you can just skip that whole hour...

That's the only way I can explain these rave reviews and 8.2 average. Because if you come into the movie actually looking for a great story with great acting and diverse, interesting characters, well, you won't get it. But if you've decided you like "hip, cool, wise cracking British gangsters" and Guy Ritchie's ADD style of directing before you even sit down, then you'll decide this is just what you thought it would be, and give it a 10.

That's the only way I can fathom how people thought this was a great movie, let alone a good movie. I mean, if you take every cliché ever put into a gangster film and rehash it with tommy gun rapidity, that's the first 15 minutes of Snatch. And it just keeps going, and going. I got so bored with it, I stopped watching. So maybe it's really great in the end? I doubt it...

This is not an 8.0 movie. The writing was horrible. It was if they just took the first draft of the script and said "eh, good enough, letz shoot it, no?" The first 15 minutes were so sappy/cliché it was frightening. You could even tell that Liam did not believe what he was saying. It almost looked like he was trying not to laugh at how stupid it was.

The Paris part was mostly good, but very unrealistic of course. How are all these people so bad at shooting guns? Seriously, it was worse than most action films in that respect. Machine guns at point blank range miss our hero over and over. Really, really silly.

If someone actually wants to see how eastern European (or Balkan) mobs work, see Eastern Promises. Once you watch that film, you'll find the structure of the Albanians in this film laughable.

But besides those short comings, it was an entertaining action film.

PS - maybe it's just the American in me, but shooting people in the back as they are running away, even bad guys, is not what a hero does, but it happens many times in this film.

Honestly, anyone expecting this to be a true Bond film or even a good film hasn't been paying attention.

The main talent is just not right for this franchise.

Director: Forster, with no experience in this type of film, in this genre, with very grim material to his name. He is NOT the right man to direct this franchise. Writer: Paul Haggis, who has an equally grim view of humanity. A scientologist with the typical view that mankind is unredeemable, that no "unsaved" person is worth anything, it permeates all his recent work. Writer: Purvis, Wade, just not very good writers. Craig: no charm. Bond has charm. Craig is not bond.

I was hoping that Casino Royale was a precursor to the right Bond. The end of the film seemed to introduce the Bond we knew in some of the films, like the early Connery and early Moore films where he wasn't so smarmy.

But I guess not, as they just took this into the wrong place. I don't like the Bourne movies because they stray from the books and are frenetic, and Bond is now even MORE frenetic and strays MORE from the concept.

Bond is supposed to be part spy, part action hero, part Columbo, part Don Juan. The powers that be are completely neglecting the second two parts of his character. Like Columbo, Bond always put himself into the belly of the beast and annoyed the crap out of his opponent, finally defeating him with by turning his own mechanisms against him. This new bond doesn't do that. And Bond also got himself into trouble by having an uncontrollable libido. This Bond doesn't do that, either.

Without those last two parts, the spy/action hero becomes generic. Like Bourne, or any other number of forgettable characters. He has not likability, no soul.

Oh well. This movie will make a lot of money, but it's just not James Bond anymore...

Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer are entertainment geniuses. There is nothing about this show that is predictable. Each episode surprises with it's characters, plot, comedy and outcome. In a world where no matter how "good" a show is, they end up doing the same thing every other show has done, with the same rehashed plots and jokes, or just pull plots from the newspaper headlines, this show is fresh. And that's hard to achieve when you start as a parody like it did. But at this point it's advanced far beyond parody. This show is so faithful to it's universe, the world Hammer and Publick created in season one, with such well drawn characters that continue to develop, each distinctive and layered with real personalities despite their comical stereo-archetypes, and with so much going on in 22 minutes, this show should be studied by all aspiring TV and film writers to understand the state of the art in screen writing.

I love animation. I love Pixar. I love the character of Wall-E, and enjoyed the relationship with EVE. Is the animation amazing looking? Sure. Not as great as last years wonderful little rat movie or even as enthralling as Finding Nemo, but still an achievement and better than what most other studios can even dream of.

But…

There was about 15 minutes of story here. Maybe 20. Much like a silent film of the past which doesn't hold up to today's standards, Wall-E just wears thin after a while. Yawning was contagious in parts, as was seat squirming. I've only experienced that once before at a Pixar film, Cars. Which also had a very shallow story, BTW.

Wall-E felt longer than it was, never a good sign for a film. That they can carry a film that long with almost no dialog is amazing, but the pacing could have been stronger.

But frankly, what you watch is a very compelling character basically run around in a video game environment. It's as if the whole movie was created just so it could be put onto an Xbox. "This is the garbage collections stage." "Now that you cleared that, here's an interstitial story element." "Now this is the run away from EVE stage." "Now the run away from the guard robot stage." "Now the run away from cleaner robot stage." "More guard robots, different floor" Etc. And watching someone play a video game is just not that exciting. How many chase scenes does one movie need? If you thought the end of Monsters Inc. was overly long due to the drawn out chase, you ain't seen nothing until you sit through the 40 minutes of chases in Wall-E.

A technically distracting problem was the mixing of LIVE ACTION footage of Fred Willard and Hello Dolly with animated humans. It made no sense from a visual standpoint, and I really don't know what Lasseter was thinking here letting this idea get into the final film. Why Fred Willard wasn't animated like everyone else is just beyond comprehension.

Another major problem with the movie is that Wall-E doesn't matter much to the story. He is not concerned with getting from A-B, which is kind of important. Without giving too much away, Wall-E is only interested in making EVE his girlfriend, which means that the "mission" that he is put on is not important to him. Which means he has no stake in the outcome. He doesn't care if it succeeds or fails other than it would please the girl robot, and even then, she doesn't really care either. And the resolution is full of deus ex machina moments. All of which reinforce the video game feel of the movie, where it's about clearing levels and completing tasks rather than a uniquely compelling story.

In addition to the lack of a layered story and main character who has any stake, the environmental message was heavy handed and logically flawed to the point of being laughable. Goes far beyond the most outspoken doom and gloom propaganda you've ever heard. And it's not an ironic extreme, it's just a stupid one. The opening of the film was annoying in it's stupidity, no matter how well crafted it was. (The wall-mart bashing was similarly stupid, but at least that was more ironic.) But in terms of the trash and the air, humans could not have survived on the earth they left long enough to create the technology to leave it if it was in that condition. And no matter what some would like you to believe, it would be impossible to reach that state in less than 100 years. Not to mention that if humans create a giant biosphere to live in until they fix the earth, why do they fly off into a far off solar system it it? There is no need. Just create it ON earth. Self-contained is self- contained. And this shouldn't matter at all except it is a film aimed at children (and simple minded adults) with the goal of indoctrinating them into an extremist way of looking at the world, and specifically the USA (the world was deserted, but there was no mention of any city or country other than the USA).

And I truly believe that the reason so many critics liked this film so much was this last point. It was anti-USA, anti-business, and environmentally alarmist, and fits perfectly with the Hollywood and media agenda of the last 15 years. I really respected Pixar for not falling into the "message film" trap, but I guess that combining Pixar management with Disney brought some of that influence into the fold, which is a bad thing for all of us.

This movie is now the new winner on my list of "worst film ever made." Yes, it's that bad. At least Plan 9 had some heart, and Manos had hands of fate. This movie has nothing. Well, it does have jiggling go-go girls, but somehow, they made that boring. I'd write more, but I can't. Since there is a minimum number of lines though, I could just duplicate this paragraph again. Or maybe just add parts of reviews from other movies, something they did in WWOB too. So… I didn't think Iron Man was as good as everyone else did, but I still liked it. Have you seen the movie "The World's Fastest Indian"? Now there is a great little movie. Oh, and if you want to see wacky German type characters running around acting silly, don't watch WWOB, watch Amadeus! That's a quality film. And that's 10 lines, so "There it is."

I'll give it a 6 because the effects were such that everything looked physically real. Nothing too shiny, gravity actually exists, things like that.

But honestly, this movie just drags in places where the director thinks he is developing character. But he's not. RDJr. is wooden, Jeff Bridges is phoning it in, Gwenyth (sp?) is simply awful with no personality (what's new?).

One more "evil corporation" movie in the books. And setting this movie in the pseudo real world just makes it confusing. What the heck is Jim Cramer doing plugging his stupid "Mad Money" show in this movie? He's a clown for one thing, and it takes us COMPLETELY out of the alternate reality universe, as does the whole Afghanistan thing (despite us not actually fighting Taliban or Al Qaeda there…).

But on the plus side, there were a lot of AUDIs in the movie, including my new favorite car the A5/S5, so that's a plus. And a modified Boeing BBJ digitally changed to have some weird tail section.

But considering all the hype and the positive reviews, I was expecting something, I don't know, great? Or visionary if flawed, like the original Tim Burton Batman. But we didn't get anything but a hack written, hack directed, phoned in acting movie with really good SFX.

Despite lots of character development, I didn't care about the main character and didn't know much about the others. Poorly written, badly directed, continuity errors out the wazoo. Everything was telegraphed, nothing was well acted, I'm seen that same Kevin Spacey character 10 times before, etc. The girl who was the "hottest" girl in school wasn't, actually. There were hotter in the background, and even "Kianna" was hotter when she dressed up in Vegas. But she wasn't white or blonde enough, I guess... ;)

Anyway, this movie really could have been good, but it needed to be made by different people, with different actors.

It's like two different movies, and not in the interesting Kubrick way. it starts out as intelligent and devastating, ends up so predictable and hack I can't understand the 10s and the critical raves. Acting is good, story is not so good, film making becomes Rambo and takes you out of the powerful ideas behind the movie. Turns into a typical "everyone wants the treasure" movie and that's not what I was expecting to see when I started watching. And it wasn't a happy surprise. Others may love the action, but it becomes stupid as more and more Africans fall as fodder but somehow Leo continues to duck bullets and bombs. Whatever...

I had only seen this film on television before tonight, usually as an ABC Sunday Night at the Movies as a child. But tonight I was lucky enough to see an original 1977 archive print on a 2.35 screen in a large theater as a special AFI screening, and it makes all the difference. There were details and images I'd never seen before, especially because of the numerous TV and special edition edits that distorted the pacing and vision of the original film.

What is fascinating about this film is it presents an image of alien encounters not seen before or since. The aliens are not out to kill us, nor are we out to kill them. There was no distrust at all (a far cry from the overreacting government agencies in ET). And in an era where audiences were used to cheesy space battles and moonmen with guns and pod people, it was brave of Spielberg to present a movie that's climax is a nothing more than two men completing a quest and one disappearing into the sky.

Held to today's standards, the ending is a bit slow and could be trimmed down (but not as slow as the extended edition they showed on ABC one time, with 10 minutes inside the mother ship). But put in context of the period, there was nothing like it at the time (Star Wars being entirely different). And I imagine the audiences at the time were so fascinated by what they were seeing in terms of imagery, it didn't feel slow. But it was a little self- indulgent nonetheless, so I can't give it a 10 because of this.

On a side note - Something else that always impressed me about the film and still did tonight was the way Spielberg, a young man at the time without a family, could really capture the family dynamic. In CE3K and ET both, he gets real performances out of children and parents from real dialogue and interactions, and creates real households (not the dingy "reality" of some filmmakers nor the plastic "suburbia" of others). He brings a level of humanity to the characters in this film that makes you feel for them and want them to find the answers. There are no stereotypical heroes, no overly witty children. Just ordinary people in an extraordinary situation, which is why so many people connected to this film and to ET. I think the later Spielberg lost this connection with humanity (too rich, too many years in Hollywood?), or maybe the actors he's forced to use by the studios can't make these character choices anymore.

PS - I don't know what movie Haradrim from Far Harad has seen but nobody was killed in the film, and it was only because of Neary's wife's unwillingness to believe him despite the evidence around her that split up their family and made him doubt himself, not a madness.

Tedious.

They make us write much more to have a review accepted, but basically that one word sums it up nicely. There is nothing new this movie offers in any way. Sure it's a remake (or rethinking), but even remakes can add something new to the material. But "Legend" isn't anything new, and nothing makes us think. It's heavy handed, uninteresting, lacks any psychological depth, has no character development, and has an only somewhat believable premise that devolves into unbelievable garbage by about 1/2 way through. I wanted to leave, but thought I'd stick it out and see if it got better. It never did.

Since I must write more, here's a major, major problem with the film (WARNING: my contain a spoiler). In a nutshell, Zombies are a fun idea, but humans don't instantly turn into super strong killing machines with powerful jaws, 10 foot vertical leaps, and the ability to screech like banshees. Muscles don't instantly grow, body fat doesn't instantly drop away, etc., etc.. Sorry, can't happen. And while in a typical Zombie movie, you might say so what? In this movie, one that is grounded in reality, sorry, you MUST maintain that level of reality. We are asked to suspend disbelief too many times in this film, and that's what makes it a bad movie, not just a mediocre one.

On the upside, 1/2 of the special effects were good. Anything mechanical (cars, helicopters, buildings, etc.) was amazingly realistic. Anything living (Zombies, more zombies, zombie dogs, lions, deer) was horribly rendered and over the top. I lived in Manhattan, and I was convinced they were there. They passed right by the entrance to my building, and it was completely real. But the lions and deer and dogs were not. Not even close.

Anyway, this movie will make a lot of money at first, but will drop away very quickly and in a year nobody will remember or talk about it again. There is no Wilson moment in this movie... ;)

Not according to this poorly paced, melodramatic movie that just never goes anywhere. I had it recorded, so I thought I'd give it a try, and no matter how long I watched, it just didn't get any better. It tries so hard to be meaningful, but I didn't care about any character in this film. People giving it 10s? I think they must find soap operas profound, too. For the rest of us, the 5.7 average this movie has is probably too high. It's at most a 5 (but I can't give it that), and that's because the cast is decent and the production value is high B movie. If only the writing or directing were any good. But they aren't... :(

I saw this movie in Cannes in May, and I'm still thinking about it today. It's the one film I've been recommending to everyone, no matter what kind of movies they usually like. It will stick with you, and that's often the sign of a good film. Few films these days have that kind of mental impact and sticking power considering how much entertainment is thrust at us. But I see commercials or previews for this movie today and it sends chills down my spine knowing what is going to happen.

Some will come away from the film with the negative reactions I'm reading below, because it doesn't end all neat and tidy the way a typical Hollywood film does. But somehow they think that it makes it unreal? Real life isn't neat and tidy, and despite the hyper-real characters the Coen's typically create, the situation and events seem like they real could happen, as could the outcome.

Beyond that, the film-making is superb, the acting (other than woody harrelson crap) is fantastic, the characterizations often chilling.

I've seen better movies in my life, but not so far this year, and based on what's left for the next 6 weeks, this movie might win the Oscar by default. Not that it isn't deserving, but it would be nice if there were some stronger competition out there. But with most "serious" Hollywood filmmakers obsessed with disseminating their views on politics and forgetting to create actual good films, this year is lacking.

So thank the Coen's for reminding us there is still good drama to be found out there.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but so many of the actors seem as if they barely know what they are saying, that they are reading lines phonetically the best they can, but are being directed and instructed in Chinese. It's like singing in Latin when you speak no Latin. But worse, the voice patterns and intonation were just so distracting.

Why not just get Japanese actors and shoot it in Japanese with subtitles, or get Japanese actors who speak fluent English and shoot it in real English. It is not hard to find these actors, so why disrespect so many cultures with this mishmosh of Chinese actors playing Japanese roles in broken English. Who does it serve?

At least in a film like "Teahouse of the August Moon" Brando's broken English was purposeful, as the sly conduit between the bombastic Americans and the tradition rich Okinawans, acting as a mockery of Asian stereotypes (he was smart for the audience's benefit, dumb for the Americans in the film). And the rest of the cast was Japanese, speaking Japanese, and conveying more emotion with a language I don't understand than the actors in "Memoirs" convey in "English."

In "Memoirs" the broken English serves no purpose but to detract and distract. No wonder so many feel the emotion is missing in this movie. Emotion comes from a deep understanding of the text and expressing it with nuance. But when you are stumbling over your dialog, it's hard to be nuanced with delivery.

Thus the best parts of this movie were the unspoken parts, where universal feelings like joy and despair can shine through.

The movie itself was lavish and visually entertaining. But it takes more than that to make a great film...

I think some people are being too harsh on this movie. I think it deserves a 7, but I gave it an 8 to cancel out a 6. :)

It's really fun most of the time. The characters are likable, there are no really scary parts to scar little kids like bambi's parents getting killed or the dragon in sleeping beauty or anything like that. It's got a lot of adult jokes hidden in there, but not sexually oriented like Shrek, and unlike Ratatouille (which I loved), I think little kids might enjoy Bee Movie more because it's faster and more colorful. And no matter how much you like the bees, when you see a bug bite the dust, it's just not that traumatizing... :)

Sure, Bee Movie relies a little too much on puns sometimes (mostly at the beginning), but they get over it and you really start to like Jerry's little bee character, and Rene's florist too. And the bee really seems like all he wants to do is make a difference.

The writers (Jerry, Spike, et. al) also know that the Shrek style of copying everything pop culture to create laughs is kind of cheap and old, and call it out during the Bee Larry King segment. They basically mock the entire foundation of shrek 1,2,3 which I suppose is fair because Shrek did the same to the Disney films. And many of the pop references in Bee Movie are far more timeless (like aping the Graduate swimming pool seen, for example). But the humor progresses more to observational/situational (which makes sense as the writers are standup/sitcom writers), of the "you ever notice" variety, and some of the observations are just hysterical.

While some might call the story meandering, and it is a little bit, it's that structure that allows the result to sneak up on you. You don't expect it to lead to where it leads, and when was the last time there was an animated film that is not predictable?

I think some people are confused by is the message of the movie. One thing this movie tries to demonstrate is that the path to "heck" is often paved with good intentions. I hear a lot about the so called environmental message here and how people won't eat honey ever again, but people seem to ignore the not so thinly veiled slavery/native American/holocaust reparations message, which is actually what the story is about. (heavy, right?) It's interesting that they show that if you take any of that too far (environmentalism or self flagellation if historical transgressions), you can hurt the people/cause you are trying to help in the first place, and damage yourself in the process.

There are three themes that make it a solid fable: every action has a consequence, swift/ violent reactions are usually the wrong ones, and a everyone needs a purpose to their life.

Those are really good messages people can talk to their kids about afterward. Or just take to heart as an adult if you have no kids. And best of all, they aren't politically motivated or shoved down your throat like everything else coming out of Hollywood these days.

Not as layered as Mystic River, casting was a little strange, but overall it was a darn good film. There were places where the shots were physically out of focus, and the middle of the film gets a little bit lost in it's story focus, but overall the movie doesn't spoon feed you opinions and makes you see by the end that in a world of imperfect people, there are no perfect answers.

It does remind me why I dislike Boston so much after having lived there... the people. Once you see the film, you'll know what I mean. Very realistic in the portrayal of Boston people from top to bottom. Not flattering in any way.

May contain spoilers, though I don't really think it does...

There is nothing really wrong with the idea of the film. But there just isn't much there. The story was honestly about as "deep" as a 50 minute story on Law and Order.

And despite what the commercials claim, this movie is PREDICTABLE. It didn't keep you guessing, as there was nothing to guess at. Where is the mystery? Where is the intrigue?

The writer/director (there's a bad sign these days) jumbled the timeline poorly. The movie tries really, really hard to be intelligent, important and interesting. But it falls short. This is quite typical of writer/director auteurs, because they believe they are being profound but lack the critical laser that a writer+director team would possess. And because the auteur gets the first cut, they are way too close to the material, without enough outside experience regarding pacing, rewriting and moving beyond the mundane/superficial.

And frankly, Michael Clayton is claimed to be the "best at what he does" and yet the writer/ director does not actually seem to know what MC actually does! It's never defined, you never really see him do "it" or if what we are watching is him actually doing "it", he seems pretty BAD at whatever it is he's supposed to be doing. It's not explained why he has no money considering his supposed job (and no, gambling doesn't explain it), or why the firm relies on him to do anything, and nobody really seems to respect or fear him, so what is his significance? His actions are obvious and clumsy. If he is who they claim he is, you'd expect him to be something like Winston Wolfe in Pulp Fiction. But instead, he's basically this impotent character who doesn't even know what is going on around him.

That is the fundamental flaw of the film. Everything else is somewhat forgivable, but that just makes it a mediocre effort at best, despite some great actors who occasionally break through the clunky writing to deliver glimpses of brilliance...