DAHLRUSSELL

This excellent program is really two biographies in one. We get side by side biographies of both Lincoln and Mary. Both of these biographies are then put into context of their societies and the politics and ultimately the war that had an impact on everyone's life and broken families... Just when things seem to be settling down, there is a visit from Mary's confederate half sister.

The pace is methodical, which some might find slow, but it has a real payoff in the moments when we can really savor the richness of Lincoln's words and the choices he makes in the moment. Holly Hunter was a really poor choice for Mary's voice, her lateral lisp is too distracting for voice-over work, and her choice of breathy delivery was off putting. She's a fine actress, just a poor choice for voice-over work, and wrong for this role. A "name" is not always a good solution for a difficult voice casting choice. David McCullough's narration is seamless, as usual, Mr. Morse as the voice of Lincoln really fit perfectly - his voice seemed to be Lincoln and it was "unnoticable" and that is great vocal casting.

The variety of historians is the highlight here, they create a great window - from the Mary Lincoln historian who breathlessly relates Mary's side of things, to the writer who talks about Lincoln's choices as a writer, to the African American historians, one who thinks Lincoln didn't do enough, the other who appreciates that Lincoln evolved and had a good sense of how much and where he could push.

An excellent series, it would make an excellent gift for repeated viewings.

This is a dark, riveting drama of two Americans who decide to part with their group and take the TransSiberian railway on a leg of their trip home from China. Woody Harrelson and Emily Mortimer are the couple returning from a mission trip, who decide to do something different from the normal plan to relieve the dissonance within their marriage.

They end up sharing very tight sleeping quarters with a younger couple, a charismatic Spanish man and an emotionally guarded young American woman who seem to spend their lives traveling free. Somewhere between sympathy, conniving, and shared language, their paths grow together and then someone ends up missing. This is Kafka territory in both the literal and figurative sense when the young wife sees the police beating up a young man on the train with impunity.

The bleak locations, the language and cultural barriers, the police investigation that opens the film, and the really excellent individual character through lines make this film marvelous and riveting. The thriller tone is maintained with great editing and story twists. In some sense, you've seen every element here before, and while individual points may be trite, they are put together in a very fresh way.

It shares some impoverished Russo-Euro feel that Hitchcock's TORN CURTAIN had, and they are the high points of both films. I share with many IMDb reviewers the feeling that "it is so good, why does it feel as if it missed the mark? What is it?"

The strength and the downfall of this film is casting Emily Mortimer. This is a fantastic role, and she is up to every single moment of it. Her performance is really excellent. The irony is, if you really look at the character "on the page"... Emily Mortimer does not look old enough for this role. Isn't Harrelson in his 40s? A woman who APPEARS to be his age, his partner, would have given this entire story tremendous dimensions, in the romantic tensions, in the empathy with the younger girl. It's really hard to feel Mortimer is an older version of the girl when she looks only about 3 years older. (Looking younger is not always an asset for an actress.) It's hard to believe their marriage is that stale when it has to be pretty recent given the details. I admit, I DO usually feel an older, less "cute" actress would be better for almost any role, but this is a specific case where the script REALLY seems to need it. After seeing this film, just imagine Kate Nelligan or a character actress in this role, and THERE's the beef, baby! (By the script details, this is a lead role for a seasoned character actress.)

Amazingly, the other casting problem is the always excellent Ben Kingsley. The role doesn't cover new territory for him, but he's always tops. But when you put him in a small role, immediately we know something is going to happen with that role, and it hurt the film... despite my ADORATION of The Kingsley, this role needed an unknown face (like the actor playing his sidekick).

It's definitely a good thriller, and I highly recommend it... definitely NOT a date film! It has all the mistrust and antipathy of many of last years award winners, but a more human story. Fantastic direction, and the music is so well integrated that you are completely unaware of it! Worth seeing in the theatre while you can.

If you want a little more in this vein, rent VAGABOND by french director Agnes Varda from the 1970s. The American film THE DEAD GIRL was based on VAGABOND, and while it is also a good film, the themes are very different, more sensational and outre. VAGABOND, like TransSIBERIAN is very "slice of life."

---Who was the target audience of this film? People who were really interested in Parker would have to find this disappointing.----- so...

We spend a lot of time indoors/While Leigh suffers from lockjaw/With boozy loud insufferable boors /That self-indulgent Parker saw

The costumes great, production high,/ But what is that she is saying?/ Parker did drone, but diction, sigh,/ Is needed above the other's braying.

Paltrow, so often wan and fey/ Shows marvelous character actress prospect /She towers above this teeny fray /But her humor and tartness are not lost yet.

Leigh is lovely, dewy and luminous /Her vocal imitation comes and goes/ Will someone unclench her jaw for us /So we can decipher her character's woes?

Leigh's smaller than a umbrella stand/ Matthew Broderick is a lovely pairing /The story only starts when he enters, grand /And sexy and strong and stirring.

Cambell Scott is the backbone of this /Screeching brood, he doesn't contest a fraction. /He calmly settles back in bliss/ And steals every scene, every action.

Parker fans, I think, would largely not/ Feel compelled to this trendy casting spread. / With this posey art, we can bet on spot/ That she's now even more happy that she's dead.

This is a really lovely TV/film version of this book, and of course... the script is by master adapter Andrew Davies. He is just magnificent. Carey Mulligen (Bleak House, The Amazing Mrs. Prichard) is a young actress who really understands period drama, and can bring her full self to it without seeming modern. She is excellently cast as the "bad" friend of the lead.

Catherine Walker gives us an excellent interpretation of the "good" friend, and JJ Field gives us the most charming Henry Tilney. He is handsome and smart and fun and good. (The stuff of a girl's dreams, as he is supposed to be.)

Despite the short running time length, everything is here that needs to be here, and the costumes in this are gloriously beautiful, and tell us a lot about the character. We have only to look at the neckline of Isabella & Eleanor's dresses to know all we need to know about them.

Felicity Jones as our lead Catherine is just perfect... all the right notes. I did enjoy the version done in the 1980s?... even though the fantasy sections were very modern pop-punk with music by "art of noise." It worked... but this current one will be much more enjoyed by the purists. ENJOY this masterful adaptation!

This series is an excellent presentation of the complex lives of our founding fathers with the focus, of course, on John & Abigail. The extra feature of "facts are stubborn things" that presents additional historical detail while watching is an excellent feature, and it answers many questions that may arise as you view.

Giamatti does not look at all like the portraits of Adams, and this is disconcerting in the beginning, but he is such a fine character actor - and this role a character actor's dream, that he is completely believable. I usually find Linney too bland for my taste, but her reserve here is excellent, and this may be her finest acting work on film - where she has this role of such depth - social restraint with great intelligence.

This is a real high point for HBO that shows that they can match the quality of BBC miniseries in historical accuracy, fine scripting, no prurient sex scenes, glorious costumes, and the casting of many British stars. But really, when it comes to period dramas, Hollywood has always preferred to cast Brits over the thousands of capable American stage actors that they don't have time to audition. Meow.

I love that this is one HBO film that makes the marital bed seem much more inviting than an affair. This is excellent. I'm buying the set for my father!

For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed "Cliff Notes" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.

Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.

Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.

One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.

Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.

The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable).

ROMAN DE GARE has a lot going for it. Start with one of France's biggest stars, "jolie/laid" (beautiful/ugly) Fanny Ardant. Add Domique Pignon, the brilliant and quirky circus performer turned actor who starred in DELICATESSIN, CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, and AMELIE. Add Audrey Dana as Hugette, a lovely "rocker chick next door" type & hairdresser wannabe, who gives a knock-your-socks-off performance in one of the most interesting victim roles written for a woman in years. Add a fantastic, complex, multi-layered mystery-thriller script that holds your interest and is tight-as-a-drum.

Toss in a serial killer on the loose, a husband who has walked out on his job/wife/and child, a ghost writer for a famous author, a handsome policeman in love with an overweight housewife, a murder, and a brother/sister magic act. Finally, the core of this film takes us to the kind of French countryside we never see... French "hill country" that is like a ramshackle farm in West Virginia, where education is poor, and the house a modified stable.

Instead of being a mess, all of these elements pull together so simply in a way that feels everyday and natural; because ultimately this film is about the complexity of modern life.

For those who like to look deeper, we have the significant, meaningful themes of "wanting to run away from your life," and the modern inability to know who anyone really is - the essential modern mistrust. Ardant's character doesn't even know who she is herself, and it is shown in persistent yet such subtle ways throughout.

For those who don't like to look deeply, the good news is that you don't have to. ROMAN DE GARE glides along and keeps you engaged throughout. It keeps you guessing... we know we are seeing one of the books being talked about, but we don't even know for sure which book we are watching.

The film SWIMMING POOL mined similar territory in the literary world and has a mind-bending ending that alters your perception of the whole film. We are set up for that kind of ending here, and I left feeling disappointed. It is only now, several days later that I feel this is one of the most deft and well orchestrated films I've seen in years. We go from a yacht in Cannes to a highway rest stop, and there is no "comment" on the social contrasts, it just is. To have it all feel organic and natural is the real magicians art - the work of a confident and mature filmmaker.

The production values are as high as you would expect with big stars in the leads. The costuming touches say so much. The hairdresser's trashy trendy high-heeled boots, Ardan'ts frankly fake wigs and obvious foundation makeup are the touches that speak to the inner personality. The fact that "Hugette" is the smallest woman is worth noticing.

Really modern. Really complex. Really entertaining. Really Real. See it.

This Pre-Psycho British thriller (that was banned shortly after it's release and now seems quaint) operates on two different levels, and it deserves it's reputation.

By today's standards it will be considered very tame, but it was groundbreaking in it's day. Like many Hitchcock films, we see the inner working and reasoning of a serial killer in such a way as to understand his motivations, and Carl Boehm gives an excellent and subtle personal portrayal of a soul tormented by his own desires.

On the surface it is a creepy psychological drama - rather kitsch-y by now with the "pin up girls". But when you have Moira Shearer giving possibly her best performance, lively and humorous, as one of the murder victims, you have something special, and something deeper.

This film has a lot to say about the voyeurism and destruction that persists within the industry. About how the industry chews up young women to suit the various perversions of Directors and producers... the purveyors to the public; and how the sickness feeds on itself. Powell's brilliance was to include himself as the demon father in the "home movie" sequences of the child being psychologically abused that caused.

It was ahead of it's time in anticipating how the pornography industry would infiltrate and become accepted within the mainstream media. (Think of the glossy gore movies being produced today by major studios.) It was also ahead of it's time in how "documentary" (think "news reporting") is used to excuse uninvolvement. "I can only film the action," I'm not responsible for getting involved and stopping the horror I'm filming.

This was also an extremely strong indictment of the idea of casting non-actors to achieve "reality." The rage of the new wave cinema of the time was to cast non-actors, and then put them in uncomfortable situations to try to evoke a "real" reaction from them. (Invariably what was - and still is - produced was fairly leaden performances of people who were uncomfortable being on film.) Powell's film uncannily makes the subtle point that a good actor can do a better job with half the effort. Of course all this enraged critics at the time. No one wants to be reminded they've been sold a bag of "magic beans." More shocking then was that it is also an indictment of how psychology - in studying human emotions as a subject - also alienates people from each other as "objects of study" instead of feeling for them and relating to them. Brilliant, and still deeply relevant.

If this is your kind of film, is a film that is worth seeing in the theatre. If you remember the old film GIANT with Liz Taylor, Rock Hudson, and James Dean, this film is similar in the huge vistas and visual scope that is so effective on the big screen. It also covers the span of twenty years or more. Like Giant, it also has some performance unevenness (but Giant was much better balanced than this). This is also the story of an oil man in late 1800s California, a real scrapper and wheeler-dealer, so it is very much one man's story.

Daniel Day Lewis does his usual searing portrayal, but it is seriously marred by his vocal choice to imitate John Huston. It is very distracting, and I and many others found ourselves thinking "whose voice is that" throughout the film. It is such a specific voice to imitate. It's a big role, tempestuous and cranky and on the edge, and that takes it to the edge, and at least one friend found his performance ultimately too hammy. I thought it was pretty true to the character he and the director had created. But his is a bravura stage performance while everyone else is doing this modern blasé under-acting. (That is a directing problem of balancing performances.) Weaker, commercial actors in supporting roles.

Several actor friends and I agreed that this is definitely best picture worthy. As for Lewis, an Oscar worthy ROLE, but maybe not an Oscar worthy performance. (I JUST figured out why... his character doesn't change! We meet him fully formed and the same as the end.) An American actor doing this same performance would have been slammed by every critic – he gets an award.

The film is long, 2.5 hours, but it breezes by and never felt long to me. One friend thought it dragged, but she doesn't like to sit down. It actually feels as if it should have been a longer film that was cut down, because near the end, there seemed to be a few pieces missing. Perhaps it shouldn't have been cut, but, like GIANT, it needed an intermission?

What is great here is that while GIANT focused on the melodrama of the family and the emotional workings, this film is much grittier. With almost no dialogue in the first twenty minutes, we have a grimy, working man's view of the way these early oil men worked alone and in small teams in the holes, in the mud, in the oil. This is a working man's film, a man's film, and I recommended it to my father. There are almost no women in this film, and they are completely tangential. Pretty true to life for the 1800s. (That's Hollywood in 2007... the only significant female role is under 14 years old.)

The art direction and cinematography here are top level. The exacting detail of the working conditions, the lifestyle, the problems of the work, is what raises this film up as if it were a documentary of live history. It says volumes without words, and that is great film-making. This also has a really interesting score that grows and changes throughout. It incorporates "noises" in a musical way that is surprising but makes organic sense and I think that is part of why the film moves so well.

The film is based on a novel by Upton Sinclair, and it is really surprising that this is not being made more of in the publicity. I guess they're afraid our national literacy is so low that people would just say "upton who?" Sinclair had a very dark world view, and it shows especially in the portrayal of religion. Unfortunately, I think the casting of the role of the young pastor is very weak. This actor doesn't seem to understand his role; no glimmer that spiritual refection and humility can come from a position of strength and passion. Again, no real growth in the portrayal of this character (and no age makeup at the end… he still looks 16). This all throws the strength and focus of the film back to Lewis.

The middle of the story has some nice twists, and perhaps the strongest interactions. Not for everyone, it is a natural fit for the folks who liked 3:10 to Yuma, or classic westerns. If this is your kind of film, it is worth seeing on the big screen.

This film enters with a spectacular high speed tracking shot matched by the hyper circular theme song by Michelle Legrand that sounds both like spinning and falling, and which does indeed represent both the spinning of the roulette wheel and falling in love.

Here we have the side of Jeanne Moreau I don't care for, posey, game playing and artificial... the kind of woman men like and women hate... and that made her perfect in this role. (And her performance her is Infinitely BETTER than in EVA, same type role.) What I like a lot about her casting here is that she looks quite a bit like Marilyn Monroe, but is as different internally as anyone can possibly be - which a lot of the world was doing at this time, being bad Marilyn Monroe wannabees. I love that the platinum hair makes her look much more harsh, older, and very false, and that is, of course, the essence of the character. And this film is mainly a character study, with little story and little explanation.

Our leading man is the young naive everyman sucked into her world in all respects. We feel for his every bad decision, and this is a true and real representation of both the allure and the tawdriness of the gambling world.

Without giving anything away, the ending feels contrived, but in this time period, films wanted "endings"... today a truer ending would just go on spinning like the roulette wheel. Michel Legrand's score is great. Like many of Demy's films, this is a dark story of the current day told with musicality and attention to the games we play with ourselves.

This film is not one I would sit through if I were not voting on it, and it is a film that I truly regret watching. There are memorable moments of psychopathic cruelty portrayed here that I never needed in my memory. I don't ever want to see a snuff film, and I don't ever need to see viable facsimiles of them. (And NO, memorable does not mean it is a good film, it just means that film images are very potent.) My father is a huge fan of westerns and of Tommy Lee Jones, hated this film. He watches most films multiple times and will not watch this again.

This film IS completely relevant in terms of history, border wars, drug wars, illegal immigration, and the impotence of our law enforcement to deal with ingrained attitudes of immorality and an insane level of escalation.

The acting is why I gave this a 2 instead of 1(awful): Javier Bardem is not a supporting player, he is a lead - he causes all the action throughout the film, and he DID deserve any acting award for his excellent, nuanced portrayal of the gradual degradation of this disturbed individual. Excellent lamb-like performance by Kelly Macdonald in a thankless role. (I love her. She starred in "Gosford Park." But come on... we have hundreds of brilliant American stage actresses who could have done this supporting role.) Josh Brolin does a great job with a well-scripted role of an ethically bankrupt everyday "hero." Tommy Lee Jones does what he can with a very impotent role. It had to be a star of his gravitas to make anything memorable of that role.

But relevance and accuracy are not enough to make something "art." Nihilism is no answer, and it certainly is NOT entertainment. Folks - with all the power and potential of this medium, is this really the best we can do? Imitate the worst of humanity?

Not Debatable: RECORD low numbers watching of the Oscars this year; even with all the additional news/publicity &the hype about the writers's strike potentially canceling it.

Debatable: This film and the morally blank and hope-deficient films of this year are directly accountable for the lack of interest in the Oscars or film in general. Of course something else that turns people off the Oscars is this kind of "positioning" a lead actor as a supporting actor to help ensure that he wins the supporting award.

There are real problems with this adaptation of P&P, and they have to do mainly with the Director's dislike of "bonnet films" and the choice of leading lady. The Director says he set out to make a film that did not have women in bonnets. The problem with this is that this IS what women wore, this even a recurring theme in the language and dialogue of the book, so essentially he set out to make a film that was NOT the book... so it is especially wrong to call this "Jane Austen's" P&P.

This is a deconstructionist retelling of the story, and, as such it has it's own modern charm. The mumbling leading model/actress and everyone with greasy hair and rumpled clothing undeniably appeals to a "WB" teen show generation, just... not true to the book. (Rosamund Pike... such a marvelous choice of Jane... talented, beautiful... lost in this production as second fiddle to such a poor leading lady.) One lovely by product of NOT following the book is a completely different interpretation of Lizzie's parents as loving and fond - a simply marvelous and fun relationship created by Sutherland and Blethen here.

The cinematography is excellent and reminiscent of French paintings of country life like "The Reapers." (If it needs to be mentioned, this art direction choice is EXACTLY what is wrong about the whole Directoral choice.... Brits in Austen's age would have cringed to be portrayed similar to the French peasants.)

By far and away what lifts this whole film up far and above is the magnificent romantic, lilting, emotional piano score by Dario Marinelli. (The piano sheet music has been selling like hotcakes.) The film will become a dated oddity. Buy the CD of the score.

I really liked this story when it aired on TV because I really like this particular period of music, and there is quite a bit of music in this TV play. This is a story of a young girl from a small town who has a real gift for music and who has to decide between a normal life and an exceptional life.

This PBS/Mobile Exxon theatre production unfortunately suffers a bit from both the casting and the performance tone of many Hallmark theatre productions… the writing and many performances are on the sweet side, even if the story is not. This hits a perfect tone for a teen audience, , and makes for a special that is very family friendly (although the story line is more teen than pre-teen).

There is a subtle undercurrent of older men "helping" the lead a long in way that is neither entirely savory nor entirely honest for our leading lady – it is clear in the performances in of the men, but impassively ignored in the performance of the lead. That's a nuance that older audience members may find a bitter aftertaste.

The production in general feels a little studio bound. This makes it feel a bit less than some of the BBC adaptations from the same time period; but it does suit the story. The major message here is "be all that you can be." And with great production values, nice costuming, and uniformly nice performances, it is a nice family dessert. Churchy parents or musty grandparents will like this quite a bit, too. (Probably nothing here for Dead Head or hippie type parents.)

It is worth mentioning that Lori Stinson, who does the singing for Allison Elliott, does a marvelous job of singing for a role that grows from "a raw natural gift" to an enthralling trained voice. It's a difficult and subtle task and she does it beautifully, and that aspect alone takes the whole program up several notches.

I am so torn. I wanted to see this because I think Polly Walker is magnificent and underrated, and I'm so glad she has this, um, forum to shine in. A magnificent production design, art direction, costumes, sets, lighting, all magnificent and not "honorific." You can really believe this place is "lived in."

I'm glad someone else mentioned "soft porn," because it often is and I think you can omit "soft" from that description. I would not mind that aspect, if we were truly being shown all of the Roman vulgarity and brutality, but we're shown a lopsided view. In the extra features they talk about how all sexuality was on the table. Do we see homosexuality or bestiality? No, we see only Hollywood's delight - lesbianism between a slender attractive older woman seducing a slender pretty young thing. How banal! Do we see vomitoriums? No... we see nude female priestesses. How do you spell selling out? Lots of blood, brutal killing and gore, of course.

They talk about using all roman extras being so important because only they can move like Italians, interact like Italians. If that were true then why were all the lead actors British? As much as I like some of these actors, it was a caste system. Only Brits in leads, please. This couldn't even be called an international cast without really stretching it. It's the loopiness and hypocrisy of the current production mindset. It couldn't possibly be that Italian extras were cheap because they lived there? and might not have a strong union?

These irritations are subtle but they pervasively mar, yes, an otherwise really great production. Beatutiful Indira Varma steals the show she is really the "heart" of Season 1, and is the only lead who doesn't look completely Anglo. How historically accurate is it, if the lead actors have British accents? This is faux accuracy... but still probably the best we're going to get for a long, long time.

A completely entertaining film that has just about everything in noir/thriller story. The magnificent pairing of Jane Russell and Robert Mitchum in a strong script, adds Vincent Price doing a brilliant job as a fatuous, self-satisfied (Eroll Flynn send up) actor, and Raymond Burr, young, beefy and sexy, lending his magnificent gravitas as the mob boss.

This film has music - Jane Russell singing (her own voice) catchy songs, lovingly photographed to bring out her sweetness in closeups, Vincent Price's goofiness, snappy noir dialogue between Mitchum and Russell, boats, gun play and some creepy torture.

Say what you might about Hughes... he did know how to make an entertaining film.

This film really demonstrates that Jane Russell was a talent, and deserved being made a star. She holds her own with Mitchum for depth and timing, and matches Price for variety. This enjoyable film is worth many viewings.

This is a really moving and marvelous western. Robert Duval (also Exec. Producer) said he considers this the third part of his personal western trilogy (Lonesome Dove 1 & 2 being the first parts)... but the story here, and his character is different. (I didn't care for Lonesome Dove, BTW, it was too hard-hearted for me.)

Like most great westerns the real battle here is between corruption and ethics, even if they are wild west ethics. Duval and Church give 100% perfect performances, but Gwendolyn Yeo as the sweet strong mother figure for the Chinese girls is the heart of this piece, and she gives us brilliant moments of heart wrenching confusion, relief and joy. It is her smile which brightens this dark tale, this, and the Director's vision that true goodness does actually exist, and has strength and power. That mindset is what makes any western great.

In the traditional trail drive, non verbal male atmosphere, we have 5 kidnapped Chinese women ( rightfully not dubbed, so seemingly non-verbal as well) and this mix lifts the story far above the ordinary.

Greta Scacchi - looking beautifully her age - later comes in as a woman whose life has let her slip far downhill, and we have a truly great, restrained, mature, romantic scene between Duvall and Scacchi.

Through all of this is really beautiful and majestic cinematography, used to to it's best to highlight and magnify the whole story. Even in a genre known for landscape, this one is near the top for scenes of raw, expansive, natural beauty. We see why Duvall's character feels most alive on the trail.

This is a smart western for men and women, a western that is also a date movie... one of the greats of the genre.

Madame Bovary is a difficult piece to translate to film. It is very easy for the heroine to become either dislikable: either willfull (the PBS version with Francesca Annis) or peevish (the Isabelle Hubert french version).

What Minnelli so masterfully and ironically captures here is the "dream machine" that drives Madame Bovary (and society) to be dissatisfied with their daily lives, to want and need more and therefore to be perpetually unhappy with what they have. Of course, Minnelli was part of that machine for Hollywood, which is the irony. Here he uses the period-correct analogy of romance novels and magazine ads (and to a lesser extent operas and plays) as vehicles that feed and drive Bovary's dissonance with her reality. (James Mason as Flaubert, too!)

The irony that Flaubert was faulted for denegrating the french woman is fully captured here as well. This version still doesn't get to a real meaty statement of realization that men were not considered immoral or corrupt it they have affairs and forget about their children; but women were. Personally, I think that may have been one of Flaubert's real points - this same behavior would have been tolerated and venerated in a male.

Where this production succeeds so brilliantly over the others I mentioned is in the writing and performance of Emma. She is clearly delineated as being a victim of the commercials of her time - the ultimate consumer, and therefore very identifiable. Jone's own personal charm also factors in here. Her fresh innocence and desire to be liked and to entertain come through the role and make her sweeter. Annis is often a bit self satisfied and Hubbert ice cold, making their Emmas less likable, although perfectly valid and well performed roles, just the difference that writing, production and acting bring to the role.

Minnelli liked women and identified with foibles. He gives a very nice slant to Dr. Bovary, too. (Gives him a little more self knowledge and honor than Flaubert did, which also colors the relationship and the film.) Louis Jordan as her dream man is also colored very nicely here, as being sincerely in love with her and very conflicted. Something he does very well, and this all creates a marvelously satisfying production and package. When you add the great score, you have a very fine film indeed.

One of Fellini's most accessible films (his use of color really helps), he once again plays reality against an active fantasy life... fantasies that combine memory, fears, fleeting desires and the way we imagine the lives of others. For me, one of the things that makes a film 10 star is that it provides something that only film can provide, and this is it; while the presentation is very theatrical, this quick intercutting of time/memory/mood can only be done in film.

While the overall message is a very conservative (pre/anti-feminist) one of it's day, Fellini DOES liberate a woman's fantasy life, and this is the essence of his leading "little woman." The predominant action of the film is in her imagination.

This was the day when middle/upper class Italian women did not work, and Masina represents the "good little woman." Rich enough to have servants, there was little to occupy her time or mind, other than similar friends who have veered to the outre and weird just to have something to do. Masina's character searches more internally, and her fantasies color her vision of the lives of others. (Note that her usual circle of friends are equated with a fantasy of death, and you'll be clued into her psyche as these begin.)

I think you have to have lived a bit to "get" Fillini - I didn't like his work when I was younger - I love this. Also note his use of color as "percieved color" not literal color and this is worth many viewings.

And finally, if you are a larger woman... nothing makes you feel so great about being a large woman as watching Fellini's glorious Amazons!

Smart and moody, this film is not only about emotional Eclipse, it is about the eclipse of the old society as it changes, and also about how architectural changes eclipse older style, and more importantly, nature. There are really smart and insightful comments here on changing racial attitudes, and the disparities between rich, poor, and the people who don't mind cannibalizing the disenfranchised. All this commentary done with the subtlety of the slowing growing suburbs that our leading lady lives in.

Monica Vitti plays our "everywoman" who is our window into the Director's mind, but also herself a mere dot on the landscape. Early on, we see her throw away exactly what she seems to be looking for, only to pursue it in exactly the wrong place/person.

The film has a look of a sci-fi horror movie, but the horror here is emotional desolation, the destruction of nature/natural-ness, and the looming threat of nuclear war. This film, so cleanly represents the era when "duck and cover" was not only a physical act, it was an emotional state.

If you don't like film as art, you will be completely lost by the architectural city-scape ending montage, and the lack of traditional film closure. This is not a light evening of movie entertainment, but it is film making at it's non-verbal, eloquent best. Captivating, thought provoking, and meaty.

I think this should have been called ENNUI. It could not even be called ambivalence, because the main character is Moreau, who frequently states that she is ready to die.

At best, this is somewhat a treatise on that time in a woman's life when she really starts to think that all men ARE the same, and that it's all a pretty hopeless affair. This is, at least, what we are presented with both in Moreau's character, and Mastroianni's behavior.

Sunk in a mire of numb boredom and a moody self reflection that Moreau often specialized in, this film only comes alive when Vitti is on screen. She is luminous and really fascinating, even though her character is also disenchanted and bored.

This world of idle rich is often portrayed in films of this period, infantile sensation seeking out of a deep lack of individual creativity. All of these films suffer from a real difficulty of making these people interesting, identifiable and certainly difficult to make them likable.

The window we are given into Moreau's somnambulance is through Bernhard Wicki, and the "secret" of their relationship which is hinted at and finally unveiled in her last speeches.

This is a film about the disillusionment of maturity. For a fairly short film, it makes for viewing that feels long. Peggy Lee sang it all in much less time with, "Is that all there is."

A moving and often very funny documentary. While it focuses on people who have "survived" and outlived an opera career, I think it has tremendous relevance for any of us in the performance/performing arts. There is much relevance here to the short span of a "good career", how older stars are pushed out by younger ones, while still in their prime.

The husband and wife team have a really eloquent moment of unspoken tension as he refuses to let her have the limelight and ultimately steals the camera from her face as she resignedly looks to the director for help. I would have loved to hear more of what she had to say without the ham present.

My only quibble is that the harpist is unidentified although she is interviewed, and she is also not identified in the bonus materials.

I plan to give this DVD as a gift to two people. One marvelous side effect is wanting to look up recordings of these singers. Some of them still have moving powerful voices, imagine them at the height of their skill!

This film is magical and romantic in the best sense. Really well produced and acted, it is an interesting story of childhood sweethearts torn apart by class in turn of the century Vienna.

I'll be very frank, even though this is "my kind of movie" I did not see it in theatres because I did not want to pay top dollar to see another TV show/horror film American actress botch another film I would otherwise enjoy. Well, Jessica Biel does just fine as the romantic lead, Sophie. It is a rather limp leading lady role, but she acquits herself well in demeanor, sense of the time period, refinement, and the slight Viennese accent which really helps unify and solidify the entire cast. Move over Kirsten Dunst, here is a young actress who can actually handle period films. Meow.

Of course, Biel is surrounded by strong actors in much stronger roles, gorgeously moody Rufus Sewel, marvelously cast Paul Giamatti, and the versatile and here really soulful Edward Norton. He has really hit his mark here as a wounded romantic.

The magic remains magical in this film, with a supernatural feel that permeates the whole film. The melodrama of the plot is redeemed by the artistry of Norton, a really solid script that includes Sherlock Holmes type elements (Giamatti), the subtle evilness of Sewell's character, and the truly creepy actual historical locations. The theatre scenes feel like real, dusty Victorian theatres. (Contrasted with THE PRESTIGE, which I saw at the same time, which is just a bit more glossy, and not really magical at all, but a good thriller.)

As moody as a bank of fog, this is a top notch romantic date movie plus some.

Entertaining and thought provoking. This film uses magic as "theMcGuffin" in a story that is more of a Hitchcockian mystery and H.G. Welles style sci-fiction and revenge thriller. Magic, and the performance of it are the side light setting of this tale of two men obsessed with one-upsmanship, hatred, and ultimately, personal depravity.

Excellently produced, the above the title actors all perform well, some surprise luminaries show up in smaller roles, and the heart of the story is Rebecca Hall (as Bale's common law wife), turning in a tattered, star-making performance that steals the show from all the glossier people. Michael Cain keeps the action moving in a narrative role that sees quite a bit of action.

The leads here are very hard to care about, Johannson and Bale don't have much sparkle, and it is especially notable in her performance where see seems mostly rather bored, and this makes it begin to feel too long.

Jackman always has sparkle, and plays his own double – believable a completely different person, unfortunately, the double (a soused, underemployed great thespian) is more interesting than the anti-hero. Clearly, Jackman will make the transition to older character actor with a second half of his career that will eclipse all his handsome leading men. Something to look forward to!

A completely engaging and entertaining thriller, with many twists and turns, you need to keep tuned in to keep track. The final reveal happens so quickly that some may not understand what really was happening. The advert says you'll want to watch it again as soon as it is over. I did not want to, but it certainly did keep me thinking and puzzling out some of the plot points and questions of morality/mortality. ( I watched this with THE ILLUSIONIST, which was underrated, that film is much more magical and romantic, my favorite of the two.)

I had no idea what to expect when I rented this, so I sat back for an… adventure. This film is a mystery story, but an emotional mystery story. We begin with a character Anna, and the mystery is why she behaves a certain way. It is only through another woman (Monica Vitti) filling her shoes that we uncover the mystery (as much as we can ever understand another person's actions).

Antonioni was interested in the distance between people and navigating the changing postwar emotional landscape. For some these films will just be too slow and interior; they need to be, because they are about the process of getting to know people, and also self-definition.

I think any modern viewer who does not like "slow" art films but who wants to take a stab at this would be greatly benefited by listening to the commentary track (on the Criterion DVD) with the film FIRST. This is one of the absolute best film commentaries I've ever heard, someone who loves and understands the film on many levels, technical, artistic, and intention. To understand that what is on the screen is not a symbol, but exactly what the thing is, is what was new for this time, and too literal for some, that even the sets and nature are used to express action and character.

This film is comparable to walking through an art gallery show. It is the combination of pictures that create a whole, a story, a journey.

DePalma's beautiful visual style permeates this film.

Johansson has the perfect look for this period, but this isn't her best work, she sounds wrong and doesn't seem to really get the period. Hartnett is lovely to look at, and has that Gary Cooper vive. Eckhart was born to play noir, does his usual layered, magnificent job and is certainly easy on the eyes, too. The stand-out, really perfect here is Swank, in a very different role. She did her homework and really speaks like a noir actress… she sounds like young Faye Dunnaway here, with a measured elocution that tells us something about her character as well. In her initial shot, Fiona Shaw looks so much like Mary Astor that one has to look twice, unfortunately, her performance was not reigned in and ends up being too large, and unintentionally funny.

Early in the film is a gorgeous full block crane shot which sets up tension of discovery of the body in the midst of another police call. This moment is DePalma at his marvelous visual & tense best.

Rose McGowan does a funny bit part for film buffs. The usually gorgeous McGowan looks awful, but it fits. Skinny, big eyed Mia Kirshner looks very very little like plumpish, small eyed Elizabeth Short, and while she does make Short pitiable, it is in telling her story where this film is very disappointing.

I understand this is based on a book, but it is very sad to name a film after a real life person who was murdered, and have her life and murder used as a premise for a slylish noir romance, with almost nothing about her. The commentary on the DVD is good, and tells us that these screen tests were not even part of the initial cut, which means even less of her. So it was smart to add more.

It leaves us with a deeper, sadder, unintentional question: would any of these people, the characters, or the filmmakers, have cared about her if she had not been killed? Is one of the most brutally murdered women of all time still just background material because she was an aspiring actress? Unintentionally, it says a lot about how women are viewed in Hollywood.

I do not think this film, in itself, is at all disappointing. It is the title which creates the impression that this will be Short's story, and that isn't what this film is. I'm still waiting for a really good film about Short's life, journey, and the possible solutions. The only thing even near that is the Lucy Arnaz TV movie (in which she did some of her best work) that was done decades ago.

Take the title away, and this film has lovely film pictures, astute costuming & decor, fantastic production values throughout, and an interesting plot. It may not please it's target audience of noir film buffs & literati, but there is plenty here to engage and entertain for a long time to come.