two-cents

First of all, perhaps this would have been a better film if another actress had the lead. I don't dislike Audrey Tatou in general, but contrary to the love notes that other reviewers have written, I think she was very flat & boring in this rol. She is simply is too old for the story, which is the story of Chanel in her late teens and early twenties. Audrey T. is 33 years old in real life. The spark of that dewy youth isn't there. (I am not saying 33 isn't young, it's just that if you saw an actress of 20 next to her, the difference would be palpable. Or maybe it is the director's fault, because most of Coco's charm seem to be from these long, lingering close-ups of Audrey's big eyes---but her character was somber and brooding for a large portion of the film. Anyway, I think of Anne Hathaway's collegiate youth in the Devil Wears Prada, and that same youthful charm & energy just didn't come across in this film, albeit it was attempted to be conveyed with various different scenes, such as riding a galloping horse without knowing how to ride, etc.

Secondly, I agree that it was a very two-dimensional and simplistic movie. It could have been a Hollywood script, rather than the fact it was a complex biography of a real person in an important era of history.

But lastly, it was fun to see the fabulous clothes of an era, the lush settings and French ambiance. For that, it was fun to see.

I had two great insights into Vogue and the fashion world. The first, and most important insight is that assuming the Vogue target audience is 25-45, the people who make the most important decisions are well above that age. Anna Wintour must be in her mid 50's, similarly or even older, Grace Coddington, Karl Lagerfeld, Jean Paul Gaulthier, Giorgio Armani, Oscar de la Renta, etc, etc. And what was also relevant about this "discovery" as seen in the movie, is that these people are NOT wearing the ridiculous outfits they are foisting on the public through magazines such as Vogue--which sets the fashion dictates of a season. Anna Wintour wore only the most feminine, attractive, figure flattering, AGE-APPROPRIATE outfits throughout the movie---which are damn hard to find in the stores! (unless, perhaps, one is paying top, top dollar for designer prices which may cater to an older crowd) But the fashion designs that are being interpreted for mainstream America is following the latest trends as written and photographed by Vogue. Secondly, this is a movie that attempts to humanize Anna Wintour, and does so simply by showing that she is an obsessive human being, whose obsession is her magazine. She does show some warmth with her daughter, but otherwise she is simply driven and clearly makes no attempt to ease the palpable discomfort of others in her presence. She's not evil, nor bitchy, but she does seems to take some pride her in tabla rosa facial expressions--which clearly raises the anxiety level of those submitting work to her. It wouldn't hurt her professionalism to attempt more empathy, but I guess she doesn't see it that way. Overall, it's a very interesting movie and shows the business side of creating the largest fashion magazine in the world, complete with casual references to using Photoshop to enhance an already beautiful woman, or the promotion of fur in fashion due probably to the large amount of furriers who buy advertising. Great eye candy throughout!

I heard this movie was great, exciting, and gripping...and therein I was set up for disappointment. It was beautiful, cinematic, great sound track--but simply exhausting trying to understand all the relationships. After 45 mins, I stopped trying so hard to remember names and connections, the gestalt took over. That helped, but nevertheless without any familiarity of Italian politics, one really had to remember closely the framework that was outlined in the first five minutes. And similarly, there is a scene when his secretary describes what his hand movements mean--if he is tapping his fingers together, you will be dismissed within 5 mins, if he is playing with his ring, it means he is interested, etc....And then throughout the movie it shows his hands--but I couldn't remember the different meanings. It wasn't important, but what I am saying is that it's hard to know the forest for the trees--what IS important to pay attention to, and what isn't really essential. We found it very long because the storyline was rather vague and very gradual. The last 15 mins were excellent. This is a film made at a very high caliber, I just think the writers could have structured it a little differently. But this is 10 stars compared to most of what comes out of Hollywood. It was challenging but special.

Predictable, definitely a chick-flick, but surprisingly hilarious, interesting and accurate. I went alone, my husband having informed me that I had no chick-flick credits left for the foreseeable future! But frankly, I think he would have liked this, as it had some very funny lines/scenes and it was very much a movie from the man's point of view.

I saw on the Message Board that some people didn't think the casting was well done, but I found the characters very well cast--they were all stereotypes that we recognize. The movie isn't a documentary! but it is very insightful as to the cultural morays that are familiar...I thought it was surprisingly accurate about how relationships play out (or don't).

More interestingly, I think the framing of this film, using "chapters" and "real people" out-takes is influenced from Woody Allen's archives, particularly Annie Hall. Overall, it was a fun few hours.

I really liked this movie--mostly because it gave me insight and understanding for the world of hip-hop. I don't love the music, although by now I don't really notice it, and even some of it has likeably good rhythm. But the point here is that the despite the misogynist & violent lyrics, I now have more tolerance for how they came to be.

I think the movie is a bit slow at times, the characterizations a bit stereotyped, the relationships a bit simplified--nevertheless, the humanity involved does come across.

One point made in the movie is that Biggie was smart--(the scene in the math class when he solves the problem no one else wants to tackle and he has even been cutting class). But the question that I ask is, was he the huge success because he was sufficiently smart and then lucky to partner with Puffy? Or was he extremely smart and missed his chance to become something more traditional and still be successful --like a senator? (not to mention, President!)

Talking about smart, I think what comes across in the movie is that Biggie's mother had Emotional Intelligence, and Biggie didn't--but he did have Musical Intelligence. It's a good movie, perhaps even a better movie for those of us who have very little knowledge of the world it portrays.

Lastly, I was disappointed that the movie didn't play the song that Puffy & Faith Evans made for Biggie, a remake of "I'll Be Missing You". For years, I have listened to this rap version with Faith's gospel voice interweaving-- a truly beautiful rendition, but I never knew the significance of this song. It would have been a perfect song to use during the final credits.

A beautiful story of honor, ethics, hard work and the American Dream. I believe the true story was a bit more complex; read somewhere that Kerns had at one time 12 lawsuits going simultaneously and several law firms on them. And I think his mental health problems were sanitized in the film. Nevertheless, the thread of maintaining integrity comes through in this film. And as far as being a true story, I wonder what role his victory has had for victories we occasionally read about today. (probably too few that end in victory but at least some do make it). Kerns certainly gave hope to many, and it seemed like the American justice system worked back then.

The film is interesting. It lacks the usual Hollywood melodrama--which I was glad some plot twists that I thought were so predictable did NOT turn out to happen, and it lacks the pace of fast action, special effects and sex. All of which contribute to a quieter, more thoughtful, and ultimately more touching film. It stayed with me throughout the next day.

I highly recommend it, for reasons of believing in what we were and what we can become again....maybe.

I wish this movie was required viewing for anyone who lived through the era of the Vietnam War--just to remind ourselves what a senseless war that was, and perhaps to ignite some more activism against our current senseless war. This is a superb movie--which starts of lightly, perhaps a bit silly--because all the characters are so two dimensional. But the total mass of all these characters gives the movie a greater depth. And the subjects it begins to tackle--the draft (and avoidance of draft), activism, USA's mission in Southeast Asia--without European support, drugs, sex, bisexuality, rock & roll,Detroit riots, police brutality, and more.

Three comments: First, the music is great!--and surprisingly not cliché in the choices and placement. Secondly, a good portion of the movie is visually fantastic. And lastly, great casting--one feels the loving chemistry between the characters. Bottom line--this movie starts like a chick flick and ends like The Deer Hunter.

Possible spoiler---I haven't read the book, perhaps the characters were more complex, but in the movie version we "get it"--and not a whole lot changes in the characters. The plot moves along with some twists and turns, but it's a long movie to come to the outcome that seems inevitable after the first half hour. Where was the editor? The only thing that kept me sitting there was the reminder that this story is in fact, a true story.

What was worth the price of admission was the "au naturel" makeup treatment. It seems that the movie was filmed showing the actresses in their natural state, seemingly without makeup. One can really see what these famous actresses "really" look like without the Hollywood treatment. Even gorgeous Gwyenth Paltrow at age 33 looks so much older & tired compared to Evan Rachel Wood (age 19)--which is interesting because normally when we see Gwyenth in magazines or at events, she radiates youth. And Annette Bening, one can see her age spots, her droopy eyelids, etc.--she seems to have resisted the Hollywood trend to be tightened up--which when she is photographed on the red carpet, being made-up and dressed to the nines, one doesn't realize. That alone, was worth the price of admission and the tedium of a plot dragging along.

This movie could have achieved treating Marie Antoinette as a tragic figure in history had the casting been better. Marie Antoinette was 14 years old when she was cold heartedly shipped off to France, but Kirstin Dunst-already in her 20's, trying to project the inner feelings of a 14 year old just wasn't credible. Franco Zefferelli made film history when he cast two 14 year olds as Romeo & Juliet. They gave what felt like the authentic aura of their youth. Kirstin Dunst, a veteran actress since she was a child, absolutely did not project that innocence or youthfulness, or loneliness particular to adolescents. Hence, from the get-go, Marie A. is not a terribly sympathetic character. And as the movie progresses, and Marie Antoinette's situation of being sheltered, spoiled, bored, sexually rejected, etc. she is still not a sympathetic character, because we don't feel the character of a child scarred early in life. (by being taken from her home to a foreign culture, etc) Jason Schwarzman was also a terrible choice for Louis XVI. He was simply too goofy, and his sexuality made no sense as it was portrayed in the movie. Overall, a better cast of actors (and better performances) could have saved this movie, as there was a slow moving plot, but if the characters are not believable, then the movie is lost.

I agree with many of the more thoughtful and knowledgeable comments re: Woody Allen redux. However, given our depressing world situation these days, this movie was a pick-me-up.It's fresh,humorous, great scenery, great looking actors and funny Woody--great role for himself this time. My advice, don't expect much and you will be well entertained.

Regarding Woody Allen in general, it is surprising that with such talent , there are big holes in the plots. SPOILER discussion to follow:

There are dangling clues of sorts--clues to people's characters that never get followed up (Peter Lyman's mother was unfaithful, and had short brown hair; Betty G had blond hair that he made her dye brown--and Sondra has blond hair, etc.). And then there are developments in some of his plots, such as this one, that simply contradict part of the original plot. Going back to the original scoop--given to Joe at the beginning of the movie, Peter Lyman is supposed to have poisoned the secretary. But it turns out that she is dead before P.L. commits his murder (Betty G). Etc. Wonder why no one catches these inconsistencies before the movie gets made?

First of all, by the 12th episode I was ready for wrap-up, and truly the writers had to contort things ridiculously in order to stretch out those last 6 episodes. However, I watched the video--2 or 4 episodes at a a time..I cannot imagine waiting a week for so little action in each episode. The other thing that is most prominent is that lots and lots of innocent bystanders, guards, secret agents, etc die in the process of protecting our main character's two family members. What about the families of these people? Spoiler: the basic premise of the plot is silly because the criminal Druzin is a hard boiled mass murderer, hence unlikely to be quite so sentimental and revengeful for losing his wife & daughter. And Jack takes ridiculous risks and puts others in danger to save his own wife & daughter--thereby disregarding the integrity of his dedication to the counter terrorism. Lots of plot surprises--which are fun and hold one still.

I loved the music, costumes and cinematography--however, in spite of what I read that the main characters all truly sang their parts, all 3 main characters seemed to be lip syncing. Perhaps they sang their parts in a sound studio, later to be overlaid on the film. I say this not because their lips moved differently than the music (although that did happen to some small degree) but because just their body postures and lack of blood in their faces, straining facial muscles, lip 'contortions', made no visual sense during the very passionate music. It just didn't seem credible.

In fact, the only one who really looked like she was 'belting it out' was Minnie Driver, who I believe was not a singer in real life! But clearly the best actress for the part because she gave it her all, not holding herself back and being reserved. Otherwise, if you turned off the sound track, you would more easily believe that Christine was whispering her lines rather than singing with desperate emotion and power. And so, in the end, this 'technicality' to make the main characters seem cool and visually beautiful at all times, actually made them lose their dynamism.

After reading other viewers' comments, I realize that this movie is more of an interpretation of the novel, than an exact replica. The real Becky Sharpe is made kinder, gentler--and one is left with a different feeling about her because of this. Overall, the acting is mediocre--and Reese W. is definitely miscast. She is certainly a very pretty and appealing young woman--but doesn't evoke any of the powerful mystique that such a powerful and manipulative woman should muster. Her sexiness is too wholesome, and her manner is too straightforward. The character needs a little more Bette Davis/Ingrid Bergman subtlety or Sophia Loren sexiness. And in general, the passion is fleeting and mostly unconvincing. Anyway, it is an entertaining visual treat--and according to my husband, "definitely a chick- flick".