I love fairy tales and do not mind raunchy humor. I am the target audience and this did not take itself too seriously and was a kind of silly fun fairy tale. You would not take your kid but people might like it if they are sick of fantasy and know all the tropes so this is fun. It has stuff thrown in it from the Highlander to the tales of King Arthur and Greek nyths in a jumbled package wit some good acting.
This is pride and prejudice light. Kierra Knightly is pleasant but not up to the task. The new Darcy is actually fairly good in his part. You can understand that he loves her. Southerlan's part as father was rewritten to be more bland.
The original was a treatise on marriage and the many reasons for it in her day. Daddy married for lust and does not repect her mother. Her best friend marries for practicality and is materially content and spends a lot of time encouraging her husband to do tasks that would remove him from her. Her sister Lydia marries because her husband has a taste for young girls and he was bribed to marry her despoiled bride, but she does not understand he was bribed into it. Her sister and Bingly are both in love but influenced by others. She has the perfect marriage to a man Elizabeth loves who loves her and neither care about the opinions of others.
In this version the point is that they have a romance and marry which is of course dumbed down to sell. It is not badly done. You should see it once. But you are not going to watch it over and over again. It is pretty and trite.
A few great actors and many bad ones with an awful director
Mr and Ms Churchill were great. The father of Emma was great. Harriet Smith was beyond great. The aunt of Miss Fairfax was fine. But Emma was awful, her cousin was fair, Frank Churchill was awful. These characters were the worst I have seen in version of Emma and they and the diurector ruined the film. It lacked tension. I have seen this plot fourtimes and never did it lack everything before. The music was great but inappropriate. In short every version is better than this though the good actors were great but they did not make it worth seeing this worthless version.
I read people saying it is a satire. Of what? I read people think it is witty. There is no wit in tired platitudes. It is not a comedy. It is not a drama. It states it is not historical and it is not. Some like the photography and the clothes. It may be the intended audience does cosplay and it appeals to those in the creative anachronism, crowd. Other than that I just hated it and I liked Reign. There was nothing of the period, or funny or good drama. I am one of those who did not get it and frankly unless someone explains why it is good, think less of those who rate it well.
Nice, original but stops a bit short on weirdness to be a cult classic
This was a nice film. I think it does not deserve a bad rating. It is very original. Its main defect is that it is too pleasant and though the themes might be gritty it is filled with clever lines but nothing jarring. It is meant to be a pleasanter and perhaps less strange version of Repo Man. The characters are very likable, all of them even ones who are supposed to be unpleasant but in a way that is the charm of the movie. I think it just doesn't go far enough in the weirdness to be a cult classic but is the sort of movie you might want to watch again for the mood.
A very funny movie whichshould be seen as a series of skits not a movie.
I was honestly really shocked by bad reviews of this movie. It seemed like it was intended to be a series of shorts strung together like Monty Python and everyone else was trying to see it as some story. That was just the excuse. The spoofs are very funny taken for what they are, scenes that make fun of things and that is it. The movie makes fun of stereotypes from the dumb blonds with exploitation shots discussing politics to silly scenes where a helicopter crashes and no one is concerned about the pilot as they discuss the tomatoes. It is not unintentional humor and it is making fun everything. In fact there is nothing serious about this movie and those who thought the jokes were unintentional or that it is dark- I wonder what world they live in. It was born to be a cult movie.
Happy movie - sweet - good music- handsome guy - nothing more but OK
I really liked this movie because sometimes you really like bad movies. He was really cute and she was not good in her part at all and you had to wonder what he saw in her and what was lacking in his life that he needed. Was it stability. She was really dull. Did he like neurotic girls? Did he secretly think he was a fraud and she made him feel like she saw through his facade? Ok it was just a dumb movie. But it was sweet and happy and reminds me of being 13 again with the world in front of me.
The critics saw this as the story of Freddie Mercury. It was not a documentary of his inner life or even the events dealt with by Queen.
It is the story of Queen as seen through it's most interesting member. But it is not the tale of his suffering or what it was like to be gay in 1980. It was how they worked together to get some great songs which is why I loved it and it got great reviews from the audience. The songs were great and everyone it is was well cast. The events were rearranged to be more dramatic but that is what a movie is supposed to do. It is good story telling. This is the tale of a very competent man overcoming the odds including the challenge of being a ostentatious gay man with an audience (us) who love him. That is what Remi Malek said about the character, that he was unapologetic about what he was and we love him for it.
Those who hate this were looking at the wrong thing. There is a greater truth told in fiction than in events. They were looking for events.
This was a terrible movie. No one was complex. There was no emotion. They depended on good vs evil and that was too bad. There was plenty of room for complexity in this story. First Robert the Bruce was very ambitious, ruthless but successful. He was excommunicated by the church after spending two years as the right hand man of Edward for killing his rival in a church. This was not an accident. He had nothing to lose when he took the chance and saved Scotland. That would have made a more interesting character, strong, ruthless ultimately a victor and than the milky toast here.
His enemy was gay, a great fighter and a terrible ruler killed by his own nobles in a plot his wife might have been behind. That would have made a complex character.
His second wife was caught between her husband and father and she was married without her opinion at a young age. That could have been a complexity.
Instead they did the cliff notes version of Braveheart Part II light. It was badly written, and directed as tale of good vs evil and very little else.
There are many good lines in here. The main character instead of delivering them in his own way does an imitation of Hugh Grant, but sad to say lacks something. They are good just not as interesting. And why not - this script was written by the same person who wrote Notting Hill, Richard Curtis. The acting is good. The script should have been rewritten a few more times. He wanted us to learn about life, to live everyday carefree, and instead it becomes somewhat pointless and at the end instead of crying I wanted it to end. On the other hand it is not upsetting, has good scenes and is a good movie to put on before you go to sleep.
I loved this movie and have watched it 3 times. It is a pretty Russian fairy tale about beauty and the beast, except she learns what real love is. Her destined husband is beautiful but she learns to really love. At the start she was a spoiled young thing and then she develops into a real person. You admire her. So if you like fairy tales and Russia this is beautiful. It is not Hollywood and it is not modern.
This is about two people who are highly functional, meet each other and fall apart. They and we want to know why. It has a satisfying ending do not worry. But it has an anti-science bent that irritates even me and does not need to be included. It is like over explaining something. This makes it trite since it is also bad science from someone who does not understand what they are talking about. But it is not the fault of the actors who are good. The director who is also the writer tries very hard to make a mystical atmosphere and does a good job. It is not a great movie but it is worth seeing. The premise that we have met people before whom we know from a past life is intriguing enough and well done.
This is a good movie, lyrical with strong performances everyone is not what they appear and the meek inherit the earth. It is slow at the start and as the movie goes on it draws you in so that as you find out the truth you are honestly a bit repulsed. It does what a classical mystery movie should do, it starts with the present and tells the past in bits and pieces that come together at the end. Some of it you can guess but some you cannot. It is set in the mountains in what is supposed to be the wilds of Patagonia. Most of this was filmed in an isolated cabin with the three main characters. No actors were frozen in the making of this movie which was filmed in Andorra in the mountains and for some scenes snow had to be imported. The end is somewhat subject to interpretation. What is clear is now that his pregnant wife who has more sense than anyone else will be running the show.
I like the genre of romantic comedies. This has some good lines and good actors. It also has profound defects. The first is that the man she is marrying has no defects and is not a good actor. Here are some flaws he could have had: He was rich and could have been used to things going his way and thought he would get married and pull all the strings making her character and wants of secondary importance, he could have been hiding his use of steroids, addiction to pills or addiction to alcohol caused by his relationship with his rich father. They could have played more on his sense of entitlement which they only touched on. In short the enemy was without fault and you got the feeling the author of the film had an ax to grind. Complex villains with whom you identify and understand are the best. Second you had a hard time seeing the stalker as something other than annoying. He was supposed to be someone who "got" her and that is why he is not a standard crazy person, but that is not made clear enough. So it could have been a good movie and instead it was pleasant with moments. Catherine O'Hara was great.
The advertisers for this movie made a terrible mistake. It is a good love story with a moral dilemma. It is not good hard science fiction and that is the crowd giving it awful reviews. People who like science fiction do not want love, they want plausible science. This movie was short on that. The explanations are haphazard and thrown together. The situations are just not hard science as in her rescue a la the Martian without the edge of that movie.
On the other hand if you want a love story it asks the question if your personal happiness was going to damn your partner would you do it? That is original and that is who this movie is intended for. You really do not know what anyone will do until the end. My daughter who hates science fiction loved it. My husband who hated love stories hated it. I liked too. It is a good love story and that is the point.
It was only bad if you liked the first Disney version. Great if you hated it
If you liked the first Disney movie perhaps this movie is not for you. I fell asleep during the first.I am a major fairy tale geek and what I wanted was to be swept away by the enchanted castle. I was. I would have stayed there with him looking ugly for a great library, no noise and a wonderful partner. The servants were great talking inanimate objects who were calm and pleasant. In fact the real prince was kind of wimpy. It would have been harder to live with him. The actors were all good, especially Kevin Kline and the songs were quite fine if you like that sort of thing. But if like me you wanted a breath taking castle which is why you went to the movie - if you liked the French version of Beauty and the Beast and hated Disney, this may be your movie.
A good show that was accurate to the motivations and spirit and Versailles
Great and I mean great acting that is so good it is better than the reality of Louis XIV. People may complain about it being historically inaccurate but what they tried to do was take the most interesting parts of his reign and make them drama. They communicate basic accuracy in his motivations and in the atmosphere. They go a bit far at times in his personal role as to my knowledge he did not beat up anyone himself. Those who want to paint him as a liar should also note he was a genius in designing both Versailles and setting the trends in all European courts, even down to having a mistress. In his time even men who preferred their wives in Germany were forced to imitate him and maintain a mistress. He invented etiquette and put out cards with codes of behavior. He did all this to control his plotting aristocrats and keep them busy at Versailles spending money on clothes as it was the place to be. Peter the Great used him as a role model in building St. Petersburg. I found the show fantastic and addicting.
There are dramas and documentaries. On one end of the scale is Reign which is supposed to be about Mary Queen of Scots and the other the Tutors. The real Medici's were bankers and that is not particularly exciting. What is exciting is that families were like the mafia of today, the political machinations and acceptable levels of corruption, as well as the beautiful cities. What is soap opera like are sexual relations that in real life were macho and boring. So they played up those parts that they could and added a few. It is beautiful and interesting. I found most of the actors very good. So if what you want is accuracy alone than see a documentary. There are some very good ones on the Medici family.If you want to get a feeling for the times and places than see this.
This movie was very interesting and I truly believe this generation has no idea what it was to be a servant in 1890. The problem is the ending leaves the movie pointless. It is clever in the Jeanne Moreau version done in 1964, and sweet in 1948 version, hint each has a different ending, but this is just pointless and makes her look like an idiot and is the opposite of "liberated" and in fact feels like it was tacked on. The entire film is ruined and no one is interested. I guess the director thought it would be interesting to take a perverse S&M take on it but had no clever twist. As for the acting, I thought it was very good. The movie is beautiful also. Strangely enough the original ending of the book, she has no man in her life and becomes a bitch who runs a cafe is a much better ending than this.
The series had good and and points. The good is that the series communicates how cruel it was to be emperor in a position that everyone wanted. He had a great life until he had to rule. There are very few people you can trust and his father who was a good emperor told him this. The lead is handsome as Commodus was. You actually get to feel sorry for him as he seems young, spoiled and not terribly bright but wanting the love of his people and to be a good emperor. But he is so naive that he falls into scheme after scheme, then comes up with one of his own that fails miserably. The bad side of this series is that it is hard to identify with someone who is not terribly bright and fails at everything though he tries, including posterity. You would like something to cheer for and you are given nothing so the series became for me kind of painful and like him you trusted no character.
This was very well acted maybe spectacularly well.That is its strong point. It kept you watching. Rhys Ifans was fantastic as the former completely burned out rock star and producer. Juno Temple was too. You actually wonder about his past relationships and how he must have been now. His only real relationship is with a boy who is a substitute for his real son. His real son is a vanilla nice person who does not understand his father but is always good to him which makes him the most boring person in the cast, or perhaps it is the way he chose to do the part. You don't think of him a whole lot. At any rate I think they made the most of the material and if you like complex characters more than an action plot you will like this movie.
I thought this was a very good movie. First it showed how homosexuals have their own community in Havana, free health care where the care is good and you have to bring your own food, what it is to be poor in Havana, what it is to turn male tricks on and on. The music was good and the performances of the drag queens too. The actors were good too.I did not understand why he let his train wreck of a father stay but someone who had no father when they were growing up said it was clear to him that any relationship was better than none. So I am going to have my son watch it. I am not sure why anyone would say it was run of the mill father son stuff as I found it unpredictable. Maybe they were unhappy that the end was not miserable.
Picky, picky, picky. This is a great movie. I saw it twice. It takes on the question of whether you should ever lie. To make the point every character is extreme. She is a very good person and an elementary teacher. She does not want much and this is the only bad thing she has ever done in her life. Her mother is a religious Christian-very religious. Her father is very rigid and her fiancé is a waste of space but kind. Her brother is so bad it is beyond bad. She is told by everyone to be honest with her fiancé without knowing what she wants to be honest about and she is. As a result everyone hates her and she learns her lesson. In short the sum of a person is not one act but some things are better not left for the world to judge. Much better than The Invention of Lying but I loved that one too.
I loved this movie but it is clearly for those who like a romantic movie. It is not marginal it is great in that genre. The basic story is very old, that two inadequate people do better together. He is very confused and his own worst enemy and she is going toward the life of a nun. Guy Pearce was better at this in A Slipping Down Life where he was younger and not playing a grotty character. But he is fine. However the movie is about Kristen Wiig and she is fantastic. She plays a some what stunted type character unlike any character you will ever see her play again, who wants very little and is very happy with what she gets. That you identify with her is a sign of great acting.
This movie is reminiscent of Wetlands but lacks the biting power and extremes of humor. Therefore it is a worse movie. The woman who is not extremely beautiful loves men who are not also which I suppose is realistic. Her father is as odd as she is. She is her own worst enemy, neurotic and needy. She also can be creative and fun. But she seems to have an over whelming need for love. The plot is minimal but it starts that her boyfriend who she fauns over is sick of her and she changes into a loud hysterical bitch who throws her computer at her boyfriend. It goes through the window and thus begins her search for new housing and a new boyfriend. She grows up a bit. Since we don't like her it is hard to feel a lot of concern. Had she ended with the fat unlikely man who loved her and was made whole it would have had a point. It barely did. But if you like German films about adolescence, well it says a lot about the culture and is well made.