jwiley-86292

Maybe I'd have felt differently if I'd seen this in a less crowded theater where they didn't play 10 or so trailers before it, but this felt about five hours long even though I think it was two and a half. We were practically being held hostage. And yet, with it being so long, they deliberately withheld the answers to questions like Rey's parentage to manipulate us into seeing the next one! I fail to see how a story can be meaningful if it just keeps going without a definite, planned end.

Still, even a grand testament to commercialism can be entertaining. I enjoyed the originals as well as this; in spite of myself I needed to know what would happen next. If nothing else, this installment shows beautiful scenery. I am being generous giving it a 6. While part of me believes movie sequels just should not be, I can't deny that the criticisms I've seen of the new SW trilogy come from taking the franchise far too seriously. And let's face it, the critique of Rey is just a mask for feelings of emasculation--not that Rey is my favorite character. By the way, speaking as a lady, why do both she AND Rose have to be good with machines? I'm not going to judge a piece of media for not having any female characters interested in science or math. Do the humanities exist in the SW universe?

I realize this might be the wrong context in which to ask that. In any case, this is a mostly harmless movie which is consistent in tone with the originals. I might actually like it more than Force Awakens, though I wouldn't watch it again or anything.

I can see why this subject would be off-putting to certain people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant existing. In fact, I've watched this a few times and still find it poignant and beautiful. The visual aesthetic is sumptuous, and the use of music only makes you feel sadder for the doomed protagonists. David Henry Hwang's writing is simply brilliant, which you can see right from the first conversation between them, which foreshadows the ending with a heavy dose of irony. Instead of an Asian woman being so in love with a white man that she kills herself, it's the other way round. Gallimard seems to idealize Asian women in a creepy way, but is still fairly open-minded, and for this reason you can't help but feel heartbroken when the romance amounts to nothing. You're left wondering whether Song had genuine feelings for him.

It might seem improbable that Gallimard remained innocent to Song's being a man for so long, but in a preface to the original play, Hwang clarifies that not only was this true for the man Gallimard was based on, but so was the thing about the fake pregnancy. He then connected this to the main theme of how difficult it is for human beings to truly know one another, which certainly reflects my experience with other people 90% of the time.

This is a great movie. You won't regret watching it.

On paper, I consider My Fair Lady to be almost without flaw. I've read the play it's based on, and I like this version better. (It's really fanficcy when you think about it. Aren't half of all fanfics meant to pair up characters that didn't end up together in the source material?) I can say with confidence that this is the best adaptation of a musical I've ever seen. Hepburn utterly convinced me she was Eliza. I have no complaints regarding her. Despite the film's length of almost three hours, I find it admirable that they cut nothing from the original libretto. Unfortunately, it is not without flaws. Allow me to list them:

-Numerous lip-sync failures.

-Obvious sound stages in supposed outdoor locations.

-The added scene where the maids forcibly strip and bathe Eliza is highly disturbing.

-In Eliza's big telling-Higgins-off song, she. . . waters plants???

-Ironically, the actors often talk so quickly it's hard for me to understand them. Especially for the part where Higgins pep-talks Eliza by calling her attractive, the guy playing him should be slow and deliberate so that the scene carries overtones that he is uncomfortable about feeling attraction towards her. Furthermore, in the final scene, Rex Harrison isn't sad enough.

All of these are conspicuous problems, but I'd sooner re-watch this than any other movie musical. The story is deeply touching, and the character arcs of the protagonists remind me so much of great writers like Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë. If you're uneasy about possible misogynistic subtext, let me say that Higgins reminds me of multiple romantic leads created by both those women. More to the point, the more imperious he is, the more heartwarming it is when he realizes the error of his ways. That is what makes My Fair Lady so satisfying where Pygmalion wasn't.

Still, I'd be open to a remake if only to have a version where no one has 60s hair.

This review will be a comparison between this film and Snow Cake, which is about a high- functioning autistic woman. Speaking as one of these who can also form complete sentences, I need to explain why Rain Man is the better film in every way. Really, the two demand comparison.

1. It has a sense of humor. Snow Cake treats autism like a much more sensitive subject, causing the tone to be more serious. It was also made after films about people with documented mental disorders had become a go-to award bait tactic. Consequently, Snow Cake is cloyingly sentimental to the point of being patronizing. Rain Man didn't have any pressure on it to be respectful, as the existence of autism was not common knowledge beforehand. There are many moments I legitimately found funny.

2. It is visually satisfying. I believe in the phrase "every frame a painting," and the un-artistic setting of Snow Cake pales in comparison to the monumental cinematography of this film. Although Rain Man is set in the present day (for when it came out,) there is a clear effort to give the locations style by way of the 50s and 40s. In fact, parts of the film's aesthetic remind me of Adrian Lyne's Lolita. That is a compliment.

3. It's two and a half hours long, but feels shorter.

And there you have it. I chalk up the possibly unflattering portrayal of autism in this film to where study of it was at the time. Snow Cake did not have that excuse. I feared condescending sentimentality, and was instead legitimately entertained.

You might think, why bother analyzing this when it's already one of the most popular films of all time? I have a tendency to equate "popular" with "shallow and worthless," but then I re-watched The Lion King recently.

I have often found kids' movies, especially Disney movies, artistically unsatisfying because of what aspects of existence they must omit since they have to be marketable to five-year-olds. Revisiting this movie defied that entire preconception. As of now, I would happily watch it again, which hasn't been true of me since childhood. This is not to say I find other Disney movies equally rewarding now--Belle of Beauty and the Beast, for example, sorely lacks human qualities. Lion King comes across as powerful to a degree I never expected from a kids' movie. The theme of everything having its right place really resonates with me as an adult.

The Lion King makes a good case for the dictum "less is more." It doesn't try to grab your attention with pop culture humor or zaniness, something many cartoon movies before and since do. (At least, mostly. How would Timon have any concept of dressing in drag if none of the animals wear clothes and there are no humans to be seen?) And the story isn't hijacked by an unenviable romance as many of the princess movies are. When it comes to animation, though, more is more. How did it take me twenty years to notice how exceptionally beautiful this movie looks compared to every other animated movie? By the way, am I the only one who thought the bugs from the Hakuna Matata scene look delicious?

The effort, honesty and maturity of this movie contrast with that of every other Disney movie in a big way. Now that I compare it to Moana, Moana's concern with subverting older tropes highlights a reluctance to simply tell a story. The Disney people ought to have stuck to what made Lion King specifically work. Oh, and Jeremy Irons is 90 percent of why I like it. Which reminds me: This is not ideal for its genre, per se. I think keeping in the Be Prepared reprise would have helped the movie; it's only 90 minutes, so it's not like that would make it too long. Still, I doubt Disney could ever top this.

At last, after many months of waiting, I have finally seen what I knew would be an astronomical improvement over the embarrassing Les Soeurs Brontë (see my review of that for details)! Now, it's pitifully easy to make a better biopic than Les Soeurs, so we should approach To Walk Invisible by comparing it directly to the history.

I had a feeling this film would excise the Belgium era of Charlotte and Emily's lives completely, and it did. (Monsieur Héger isn't even shown!) Many juicy incidents from before and after this film takes place are excised, but the narrower focus prevents the pacing issues Les Soeurs had. Besides, no one recounted Charlotte's earlier life better than Charlotte herself. I have a feeling Ms. Wainwright knows that. The storytelling choices of this film only call attention to the need for a Villette adaptation (Villette was largely inspired by Charlotte's time in Brussels.) Ms. Wainwright, you know what to do!

Truth be told, I still am not very interested in watching Branwell's descent into nothingness, but I guess it should be there if it was so devastating to the sisters. The greatest joy of this film is the clear extreme love the people making it have for the subject matter. Anyone intimately familiar with the Brontë mythos will recognize little historical details woven into the background and dialogue, such as the "Gun Portrait" hanging in the house. The most amusing of these is Arthur Bell Nichols, a minor character in this but Charlotte's eventual husband. I can tell they cast a noticeably handsome actor in that part so we wouldn't imagine Charlotte making whoopee with an unattractive man after all she suffered.

Another great strength of the film is the way it looks. Both the cinematography and the 21st- century matte paintings convey the majesty and bleak beauty of the Yorkshire landscape. And, as with all good period pieces, I coveted the sister's costumes. While we're on the subject of looks, I was pleased that Anne was the only conventionally pretty sister.

My one big issue is the final scene, where we see the house as it is today. I'd wanted to save the surprises of Haworth for when I went there myself!

The acting and directing were such that I was not conscious of there being actors separate from the historical figures. I was not bored at any point. If there is a better way to relay the story of the sisters' ascent to greatness, I can't think of one. Brava, Sally Wainwright!

Look: This adaptation was appropriate for its era, not this one. I think it's only better-rated than the later Lolita movie because it's a) older and b) from an important director. That it deviates so much from the book acts against it; I think it was rather mean to throw out Nabokov's original screenplay.

This is not to say the film has nothing going for it. Sue Lyon's performance definitely warrants existing even alongside Dominique Swain. She lends a seductive classic Hollywood glamour that almost makes the film beautiful. James Mason is serviceable as well--about as hot as an oily- haired classic Hollywood actor is going to get. Unfortunately, when Peter Sellers appears, the film grinds to a screeching halt. I wondered why I was being shown him. Since there is so much from the book they couldn't put in, they replace it with things like. . . a HIGH SCHOOL dance?! We all know she's not in high school! Because of the dawdling, the film comes across as unfinished. If you compare the scene of settling into the hotel room with the corresponding scene in the later film, the dialogue is almost identical except Dolores' line "The word is incest" is omitted. That line was in the book.

This may not hold up entirely well, but it's not worth getting mad at because we eventually got my favorite movie of all time. This works about as well as the Sweeney Todd movie: Some elements are genius, but more prominent issues bog it down.

The more I think about this film, the more fond I am of it. Much like Closet Land, it sounds more like something I'd wish would be made rather than a real film.

If you're content to stare at Jeremy Irons' face for two hours, this is for you. The characters of the twins are juicy indeed: Beverly is the woobie you could take home to mother, while Elliott is. . . Patrick Bateman. Dead Ringers kept reminding me of American Psycho, which is a compliment, as I love that film too. From the artificial late-eighties production design to Elliott's haircut, I wouldn't be surprised if this film informed many of the artistic decisions for American Psycho.

Irons should have received his Oscar for this. The clear distinctiveness of each twin is downright eerie, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how they made both of him appear on screen simultaneously. I have to give props to anyone who pulls off effects that look real.

One review on this page postulates that Dead Ringers is hard for women to watch because of the mysterious mutilating devices. I can testify that I, at least, wasn't off-put except when one of the twins (you're not sure who is who at that point) mutilates the other. You'll better understand what Cronenberg is going for if you know it's supposed to be a horror movie. There is still definite eroticism throughout, at least in my opinion. Sick depraved things are often erotic.

The weak link is the character of Claire, whose delivery I thought was too brusque and bleak. But I am very happy to have discovered this film. It is not for everyone, though.

If you love to hate bad YA novels and their tired clichés, you'll have a blast with this. At least I did. Highly recommended if you like to talk back to movies with friends.

I'll admit this has a halfway-decent premise (one of my original stories has a similar premise!) but it is executed with no passion or creativity. I was smiling dementedly throughout this movie at its failures. Let me use the seasoned metaphor of the train wreck--so disastrous, you're fascinated. Take the romantic leads, who share the most brain-melting lack of chemistry this side of Twilight. I honestly thought Bella in the Twilight movie demonstrated a more well- rounded character than the main girl in this! Ethan (I'm ashamed that I picked up the characters' names) makes Kevin Costner in Robin Hood look like a credible hero. That takes a special level of incompetence. I suspect they cast him because he sounded the most Southern. (Ah, the old "actors too old to be playing teenagers" cliché!) Now, I'm not from the American South, so the prevalence of the accent was all the more conspicuous for me. Speaking of which, why should you suffer through this? Emma Thompson plays a stereotypical church lady. You won't believe that, at least. Also: Am I the only one who thinks Jeremy Irons has only got hotter and hotter? The older, more talented actors easily steal the show. Well, there's not much of a show to steal in the first place. I couldn't believe it when Thompson gave Lena that by-the-numbers "Join me and we can rule" speech towards the end! At least the absence of self-awareness gives one cause to laugh at it.

This is not the worst story ever conceived; it could have worked better. I will give the movie credit for the following things: 1) No love triangle, and 2) The aged male aristocrat is on the good side. And I was genuinely sad when he died and didn't see it coming. Maybe the book is better, but where's the fun in being awestruck when you can feel smarter than something?

There are in fact good reasons for this to be among the lesser Gilbert and Sullivan works. It is so easy to call it hackneyed and sexist. The dialogue sounds like diet Shakespeare, and even southern church ladies would find the ending depressing. And yet. . .

Even though the writing can be clunky, this staging and directing makes it work. Most of the production this page is for can be found on YT, although parts have been flagged for copyright. Princess Ida, of all things?!?! Hearing the score entertained me in spite of the play's reputation; so it was with this production. It's stupid how much Princess Ida amuses me. I don't believe Gilbert wants us to hate Ida and her cronies--he pokes fun at all the characters because that was what he did. She does have that sad song "I Built upon a Rock," which paints the fall of her dream as tragic. As a woman, I find a real funny-because-it's-true appeal in the whole philosophy of Castle Adamant. The fact is that this story is fascinating if only in theory, and it begs to be polished. You almost don't notice this, though, because of how good many of the songs are. Even the opening music just before the first sung lines is emotionally charged, appropriately so for a story dealing with questions to which society still doesn't know the answers. (Even if I think I do.)

It is my dream to make a proper film version of this operetta which cleans up the problems I have with the story and characterization. In the absence of a fixed Princess Ida, however, this production is still too fun to watch. The operetta ought to be discussed more.

I am reviewing this film because it did something unprecedented: It invested me. I seriously wanted Moana to succeed and to know what would happen next. I even got choked during the scene where the grandmother's ghost appears despite it obviously being cribbed from Lion King. This is the first Disney movie that I, as an adult and not a kid, enjoyed as it is. With many Disney movies I found that the protagonists' minds were not explored enough; here, I felt we got to know the characters sufficiently. After the disaster that was Frozen, this is a great relief. However, I am used to feeling smarter than Disney movies, so I feel defeated by liking this. I feel more defeated still by liking the songs since Lin Manuel Miranda, whose personality I REALLY resent, had a hand in writing them.

I totally predicted that the volcano spirit was really the island goddess. The plot was quite reminiscent of Lion King and Little Mermaid, but at least there's no romance. It is clear whoever writes these movies are becoming more aware of what people think of them, which results in some really funny moments. Oh, yeah, I was legitimately laughing at this! My favorite moments both involved Maui a) when Moana falls all that way down and he says "Well, she's dead." That was my exact thought before he said it. The screenwriter must watch Cinema Sins. My other favorite moment was when he said "If you're going to sing, I'm gonna throw up." Nice to have a little cynicism in a Disney movie.

Last but not least, the film looks breathtaking. I really wanted to be in these settings, especially the demonic coral reef world. Everything looks so photographically real, yet more vivid than life. Maybe Moana is what taking drugs at the beach is like. In conclusion, this is top-notch entertainment for you and/or your kids.

Is it bad that I really, really enjoyed this? I wasn't expecting it, even. There is significant grounds for arguing that this movie glamorizes pedophilia, and I don't blame you if it turns your stomach. But somehow, it builds up to be very moving, particularly when he gives her all the money at the end. When this movie was over, I only wanted to start it over again. It was like seeing in black-and-white all your life, then suddenly you can see colors. I'm surprised too. It may disturb you, but you will never forget it, I guarantee.

The period detail lends it a timeless artfulness. It is set up and shot beautifully--I wanted to live in Mrs. Haze's house. Ennio Morricone's score did that rare thing, a marriage of music and story that makes me really choked up. It sounds like one of the themes from Sense and Sensibility!

The actors, namely the two leads, really bring their A-game. Dominique Swain's performance complicates the story by giving Dolores a character beyond that of rape victim. She is trying to meet Humbert on his own level. I'm not saying this version of him is blameless--he does hit her! But this does raise an interesting question: Let's say there was mutual attraction. What do you do with that? There's no easy answer. Back when I was in that age range, if a gorgeous older English man moved into my house, I wouldn't have had the scruples to stay away from him. I know that much. Hey, reality doesn't always fit our lofty ideals of morality, and this movie proves it.

As compelling as Swain is, Irons just might carry the film. This is the perfect sort of role for him. Kudos to whoever decided to keep showing him in a wife-beater. I watched this and not the '62 movie because I just love him so much. Regardless of other versions of this story, this one makes you buy into it and worry for the leads, quite a feat. There are parts where the directing goes off its hinges and the tone gets silly and over-the-top, but these parts are brief.

In short, give this a chance, if you know you can stomach it. A new favorite of mine. How does this have the same average rating as Basic Instinct?!?!?

This sort of story is easy to overlook because it is so low-key and so very wholesome. But for what it is I found it gripping; everyone needs something purely wholesome from time to time. Although, there is much more sexual tension than one would expect from a series about the Anglican clergy. Other reviews on this page seem to agree that Obadiah Slope steals the show in this regard. Yes, I would have chosen him over Mr. Arabin as well, but at least we can infer that Slope found some other lucky lady. It's not fair, though, to let Rickman dominate analysis of this series. The rest of the cast give performances which are just as mesmerizing, particularly Susan Hampshire as Madeline. But watching this, you can tell why Alan went on to become the biggest name of the entire cast. Sidenote: Give me Madeline's wardrobe YESTERDAY. Like any good period piece, this is gorgeous to look at.

I found myself very worried about what would happen to Eleanor. I mean, being slut-shamed for RECEIVING a letter? That is COLD. I also liked that she had such a good relationship with her father; that he always had her back. It makes me teary-eyed just thinking about it.

Recommended. Would watch again.

I'm giving this a pretty high score even though it's not the easiest to sit through. I just have too much respect for how it came across to me.

Passion deserves to be talked about outside the niche within a niche of Sondheim fans. People who have seen this musical are likely to be repulsed, mainly because of the behavior of Fosca. Audiences shouted mean comments at the stage during preview performances! Why? Let's analyze the story.

Giorgio, a green young man sent off to war, meets Fosca while stationed in a remote town. Fosca appears to suffer from mental illness, chronic physical illness, and eating disorders. Giorgio is the only person in the whole story who tries to know Fosca on her own terms and listen to her; no one finds her physically attractive. You can guess that she falls in love with Giorgio, but he is already involved with Clara, a married woman. Fosca is upfront, desperate and nosy about Giorgio and Clara. Giorgio is quick to call her out on it, insisting that her appearance is no excuse for her behavior. The trouble is, Fosca doesn't have anyone, and did I mention the self-esteem issues? We learn in a flashback that she was deceived by a suitor and brought up by her parents to believe that a woman's only value is in her beauty. Given what her life is like, I'd humor her a little more if I were Giorgio.

Here's the thing: Giorgio denounces Fosca's infatuation as shallow and unreasonable, but his relationship with Clara is just that. We don't learn why he started seeing Clara. When we see Giorgio and Clara together, they do little other than make out, but in the bulk of his scenes with Fosca, he's talking and thinking with her. Fosca is more of an intellectual, being a reader and pianist, while Clara gives Giorgio permission to ignore her without having met her; unaware that no one sympathizes with Fosca a) because of her appearance, and b) from a lack of understanding of her medical condition!

As you can tell, this is a thinker's piece. Passion is difficult to swallow, but it raises important questions. For one, where do we draw the line between pardoning antisocial behavior due to past suffering and total accountability? Is Fosca so defeated by society that there's no way she can't passive-aggressively harass the objects of her desire? (I say yes.) One could argue about this play endlessly, and to me, that is when you know a piece of writing or art has done its job.

This is very easy to watch over and over again, and uses its short runtime for all it's worth. Standing up to repeated viewing is a great strength; I get sick of things pretty easily. It is a shame that the overture and many of the songs were cut (especially Mad Margaret's song) but on the other hand, brevity is the soul of wit.

The animation is cheap and wonky for a theatrical release, even for the sixties, but that's part of the charm à la Rocky and Bullwinkle. Gilbert's writing and sense of humor really leans towards the cartoony most of the time. Stephen Sondheim considered this a major flaw of his oeuvre, but if there were ever a place for that, it's as an actual cartoon. Now, consider the scene where the Murgatroyd ghosts come out of their portrait frames. CG was a distant dream of the future for most of the time Ruddigore has been around, so the best way to make the scene work is to make it all animated so nothing looks fake. Showing the backstory of the Murgatroyd curse is also smoother than having someone sing it--"show, don't tell," as they say.

I really like the way the characters are drawn (in fact, my profile picture is Mad Margaret.) This is just one of my favorite animated movies ever, and a good way to introduce your friends to G&S. Makes me wonder what a full-length, verbatim animated version of one of their operettas would be like.

First of all: This movie is called "Morozko." The title "Frosty" doesn't do it justice.

This deserves a much higher rating! I know the MST3K episode made it look dopey and lame. Don't get me wrong, I love that episode, but even with the crappy dubbed version, you could see the fabulous production values! As an American, let me vouch for Morozko along with its many Eastern European fans. It is so popular there that it airs on TV every Christmas and got a musical remake. It's as familiar to Russians as Lion King is to you or I.

I have one thing to say: Watch the film as it originally was, with just subtitles. You'll notice a funny thing: It's funny ON PURPOSE. Watching Morozko was like discovering the live-action Disney movies I loved as a kid all over again. I'm not usually one for fairy tales, but it's neat to get acquainted with figures of Russian folklore like Baba Yaga and. . . Morozko. Ivan and Nastenka are fun characters, too. So mix it up a little this holiday season. It's both something totally new and yet very nostalgic in mood for me. If you know nothing about Soviet cinema, there is a whole new world of wackiness out there.

After seeing how high the overall rating is on this, I felt compelled to give my honest opinion. I'll be going off of considerable memory, because I saw it a few years ago and I don't want to bother watching it a second time.

The line between clever and obnoxious is thin indeed. I certainly didn't feel that Dr. Horrible was so smart that it went over my head. I felt it was tailored for an audience easy to make laugh. Much like the lyrics to Wicked, the lyrics to these songs sound unnatural to human speech (for example, the usage of the word "dolt,") like the writings of a pubescent nerd itching to show you how sophisticated he thinks he is. I should know. I was that kind of kid once. As for the composing, the orchestration is flat and un-musicianlike, more suited to Dora the Explorer. Something about the sound mixing rubs me the wrong way as well; I like voices in musicals to echo.

The story didn't make me worry for it, in the first place because I don't take the superhero-and- villain setup seriously (CAMP!!) and in the second place because I don't like Harris or Felicia Day as screen personalities. From my high school friends' affection for the movie, I expected I should feel a connection, but it wasn't there. Now that I think about it, I know why. Your mileage may vary, but I despise the cliché of the gawky, immature male protagonist pining after a woman much more attractive and on top of things than him. It appalls me that even women tolerate this trope, as I find it demeans us. I have read a few anthropological, sociological and scientific texts embracing the fact that women gravitate towards "alpha males." Captain Hammer, of course, is both an alpha male and a jerk. Dr. Horrible is, dare I say. . . such a Nice Guy. So it's not sad that he kills the woman he loves. Wait a minute, is this supposed to be like a Greek tragedy where we're supposed to recognize the protagonist's fatal flaws? It doesn't matter, because I didn't enjoy watching it.

This film is to autism what The Fault in Our Stars is to romance, and I hated TFIOS.

I chose to watch this film because Weaver's character and I have something in common. . . but in the end, very little in common. I'm fully aware that autistic people are often too different from each other to be summed up in one character, and that people like Linda are definitely out there, but I'd hoped she would turn out to be more normal. I'm half as old as Linda is in the movie, maybe not even that, and I can do all kinds of things she can't do. I'd be fine with Alan Rickman inspecting my kitchen. . . or other things. Don't get me wrong, I have inexplicable nitpicks just like she does, but whereas she has a near-meltdown if there's a stain to clean up, I react to violations of my nitpicks with annoyance at most. The movie got the "Neat freak" part right, though. However, from what I've read, autistic people usually have more complex interests than snow and Beanie Babies. And superheroes are WAY too mainstream as a nerd passion. Bottom line: It would be nice to see more mature, well-adjusted autistics on film. Seriously, Linda is depressingly thickheaded.

Okay, I won't make this whole review a comparison between myself and her. I need to give Snow Cake some credit. It's not like the film is poorly written or acted (even though Linda creeps me out.) This story has great potential in theory. The early scenes with Alex and Vivienne did a good job drawing me in, and the scenes lit in red are a sumptuous touch. Still, Alex's affair with Carrie-Ann Moss' character rubbed me the wrong way. It was like watching yourself get cheated on.

I know I'm being narcissistic, but because Snow Cake had the chance to speak to me on such an intimate level, it demands to be compared to the real thing. It could have been just for me, but wasn't, so I feel sad for everyone involved, because their hearts were in the right place. If it feels like something YOU have lived through, though, I don't want to take that from you.

This is a feast for the eyes and ears. The most exciting parts IMO are the stagings of the operettas, where gorgeous sets and costumes are reconstructed. With music like this, you can't go wrong. The actors who sing are mostly quite talented, specially Shirley Henderson. I think the film was supposed to be faithful to the original stagings, making it of historical value. The costumes are always one of my favorite parts of a period piece, and Topsy-Turvy delivers on that count.

As a biopic, it works beautifully because the script is bursting with just the sort of acerbic wit and sarcasm that made the G&S canon hold up to this day. I fully believed that these were indeed Gilbert, Sullivan, etc., and this really was how the conception of The Mikado went down. The tone is delightfully consistent with that of the operettas themselves. The performances are integral to this, especially Broadbent's. He convinces you that he IS the man behind such genius humor as this from Ruddigore: "Your honor had a brother." "It had!" Anyway, take that, Les Soeurs Brontë!

I was captivated from start to finish, but of course, perfection is rare. The lives of fascinating people who really lived usually have too many events even for a two-hour movie, and this one has a lot of fascinating people! In particular, I wanted to know more about what became of Leonora Braham (Henderson) and her struggles. The film doesn't tell us whether her child was conceived out of wedlock--if the stigma of single motherhood in Victorian England persisted despite your child being born within wedlock, that's something worth addressing. And what about her alcoholism? Braham's character arc resolves unrealistically quickly, but this means the film can conclude with one of my favorite G&S songs, a brilliant, brilliant choice. I'm impressed Mike Leigh could fit as much as he did into two and a half hours. It doesn't drag at all if you're a Victoriana and/or Gilbert and Sullivan freak.

Just be prepared for a nuanced portrayal of Mr. G. He is shown to be rather bossy to everyone else, and if the scene with the old woman on the street really happened, maybe he deserved The Pirate Movie. I also wonder whether the Japanese visitors had any idea what was going on when they brought them in to learn Japanese mannerisms. Not wholly ethical, but there's something to be said for Gilbert's attention to artistic accuracy when you could have gotten away with being way more racist in 1885.

Also, be prepared for a completely unnecessary scene with half-naked prostitutes. I don't think Leigh understood that The Mikado appeals to all ages, and certain parents aren't going to preview the movie before watching it with their kids, and certain 9-year-old girls are really uncomfortable with looking at naked people in the presence of said parents.

Overall: Fantastic. Would watch again.

I wanted to like this more. I really did. The concept is brilliant, perfect to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. As someone who knows the place, I commend the gorgeous, immersive filming of New York--even though it's from more than twenty years ago, the film looks like how the city really feels. This sets the film apart from other Hollywood depictions of New York. Most of all, Jeremy Irons' character is a worthy successor to his brother, exuding. . . let's just say he's hot and leave it at that.

Sadly, the elements I liked made the sagging elements all the harder to swallow. Most conspicuously, With a Vengeance sorely lacks the scintillating dialogue of the first movie, which was a huge part of why I love it. The first third had me totally attentive, but around the middle it derails and takes too long to wrap up. And yet, the end still feels very abrupt. I would not have killed Simon with such merciless speed. Hollywood, why are your bad guys so often more lovable than your good guys? I wished the film had taken the time to explain more about Simon's background. He was in the East German Stasi or something, and felt miffed when East Germany, therefore his job, ceased to exist. That's interesting! Tell us more! And why was Hans in the West in the 80s when there were still two Germanies? With a Vengeance could have explained that, too. For that matter, who is Katya and what is her relationship with Simon like?

The first Die Hard was such a delight to me because it defied my preconception that action movies were just fighting and explosions with no catharsis or character drama. This one is tipped, albeit slightly, towards the latter category.

Imagine if someone made a Dickens biopic and staged it like a European art film. "Les Soeurs" is just that confused. I couldn't tell what they were going for, unless, as my mother postulated, the French are getting back at Charlotte for her unfavorable views on Francophone culture.

Maybe there wasn't a lot of information available on the Brontë family in 1979, but all the exciting parts that I'd want to see dramatized are either rushed through or absent. First of all, take the scene with Anne and the children in the yard when they discuss capturing and torturing small animals. This aggravated Anne to no end, yet the blocking and line delivery in that scene couldn't be more dispassionate about something so sick! The Brontës' novels are full of violent behavior, imagery and emotions, yet none of that is depicted here! By the time the novels are brought up, I have gotten no sense of the turmoil that inspired them. We are not privy to the girls' thoughts, and isn't that what biopics should be about? The film jumps around with regard to the events, making it feel rushed despite a two-hour runtime. Before you know it, Emily, Anne and Branwell are dead and we know nothing of the crippling depression Charlotte is documented to have suffered as a result! It's like the idea behind this film had nothing to do with showing us who the Brontës were, but just uses their names for some reason! Charlotte's depression lets us know how much she loved her siblings, but the direction doesn't allow for such warmth between them. The Brontës are compelling figures to me because if you read their letters etc., you realize that the Victorians had the same senses of humor, sarcasm and flaws as us modern folk. They were nowhere near this dour, particularly in their youth.

As if that didn't rip my heart out and stomp on it, there's the treatment of Charlotte's relationship with her Belgian schoolmaster, Constantin Héger. Who did they get to play this alluring, passionate man who shook up her whole life and inspired her most compelling characters? Some guy with ugly 70s hair that makes me think of a walrus. Jesus, she LOST HER MIND for this man, sending him letters that reached "You Oughta Know" levels of desperation, and all of it is run through like they're trying to get it over with!!! It culminates with a brief, brief scene where Héger's wife (yes) hands Constantin one of the letters, and he immediately rips in in half unread. That's not fair; we don't know what he did with the letters, just that they were torn up at some point. Did these people sympathize with Charlotte at all? Then why was this film made?

Let me give credit where credit is due. Marie-France as Charlotte is perfect casting, and she deserved a better Brontë movie. You feel that she IS Charlotte, and she IS Lucy Snowe. May she rest in peace. Another strength is that the film looks gorgeous. But there are problems with the visuals, too. I think they blew their budget on the costumes and couldn't afford to film in Haworth, London or Brussels. Brussels is a big city, and all we see of it is a schoolroom that looks like it could be in the woods! Similarly, Haworth does not look like Haworth. I've seen pictures of the real thing. You can't fool me, movie. I know they didn't have the budget for fantasy sequences about the fantasy stories they wrote as children, but these were very important for their creative development and paint a picture of different people than the ones in this film. And could they not afford to dye Branwell's hair red, or did they just not care? Say it with me: THEY JUST DIDN'T CARE!

I keep hearing there's going to be a miniseries bio of these exceptional people. A series would give the story enough room for everything, so I hope it comes out, like, yesterday. If you want to know about Charlotte's life, read her novels.

A must see for all Gilbert and Sullivan freaks (it's on YouTube.) It recalls Yellow Submarine and other unconventional cartoons, but is quite in a league of its own. The animation and character designs are simultaneously hideous and gorgeous--I wish more animation looked like Dick Deadeye. The effort put into the backgrounds is especially admirable.

The plot almost doesn't matter. It's just an excuse to throw a bunch of G&S characters and songs together. You wouldn't think 70s-ified versions of these songs would sound good, but it's actually musical genius. We hear energetic funk, folk, reggae, you name it. For example, the John Wellington Wells song sounds like if Elton John wrote Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo. Some viewers might take issue with how much the writers altered Gilbert's original lyrics, but I think it keeps the film from being predictable.

I take some issue with the underrepresentation of Ruddigore and Princess Ida. The film tries to include a reference to each operetta, and does a good job considering, but the character of Rose Maybud is nothing like her original version. These are small nitpicks considering how much I love the film as a whole, though. I never thought adding so many boob jokes to Gilbert and Sullivan would work! The jokes take you by surprise with how good they are.

I enjoy Dick Deadeye much more than any Disney movie. If it hasn't had a DVD release, it needs one to reach a larger audience.

This might not be my favorite movie in terms of how seamless a story it tells, but it's the easiest to watch over and over. I never expected a movie with so much gunfire, coarse language and blood to be this smart or scintillating. The screenplay combined with everyone's line delivery possesses the same bust-a-gut insanity of Showgirls, except Die Hard is funny on purpose. I have to restrain myself from quoting this at everyone I encounter (so this movie is to me now what Invader Zim was when I was twelve. But I digress.)

I blush to add this, but it's hard to articulate why I love Die Hard so much without bringing up Hans Gruber. He is a fascinating contrast with the more lowbrow masculinity of the hero. Hans demonstrates both book-learning and investment in his appearance, which more men should possess but is sadly unnecessary for men to succeed in this culture. John becomes filthier and more battered with time, but Hans remains neat and tidy. It seems like a populist indictment of the liberal arts-educated snobs of the world who know more about art and style and can quote obscure Classical literature but lack marketable skills. Now, that's not fair, because Hans committing cold-blooded murder doesn't subtract from his charm. Remember this exchange?

Blond guy whose name I forget: There are rules for policemen. John (pointing a gun at him): That's what my captain keeps telling me.

Doesn't hold up, does it? To be fair, John isn't as unreasonable as he came off to me initially. Not only does he relent vis-a-vis Holly, he didn't really mean to let Hans die. But I know which of them I'd pick if I were Holly. That reminds me, I should say something about the other characters. They're hilarious. Holly deserves special mention, as she appears to think like real women do, unlike the majority of Hollywood's female characters.

So, yes, this movie deserves its reputation and then some. HANS GRUBER LIVES!

Here is another film I find it my duty to eviscerate. A lot of the hype surrounding Frozen came from convictions that it broke unprecedented ground in both Disney and mainstream entertainment. Disproving love at first sight? Theme of bonds between sisters? Anyone learned enough will tell you Jane Austen did this first. This movie is two centuries behind in terms of "breaking ground!" We have to use the resources available to us to know what's been done and what hasn't or we're stuck reinventing the wheel over and over.

I was shocked at how much less of a character Elsa has than the fandom made (makes? I'm not sure how active the Frozen fandom is at this point) her out to have. We are barely privy to her thoughts. She only expresses embarrassment about her powers and the ubiquitous concern for Anna. Speaking of Elsa's powers, the movie doesn't give us a reason for them! Disney movies often have fantastic elements you have to just accept, which children can do, but it's much more difficult for me to suspend my disbelief. When something can work because it just can in the world you create, that's a slippery slope towards writing that has no emotional impact. Case in point: At the end, the incredibly vague POWER OF LURVE allows Elsa to control her powers. I thought she already loved Anna! I can't fathom this part because the movie wouldn't explain the logistics. And don't tell me to turn my brain off and enjoy it; Disney has put out more believable stories than this.

The romance element is quite unnecessary, which I concede is progress for a film starring women. Kristoff belongs to a Type of guy I instantly recognize, but a Type I LOATHE. He and Anna share no chemistry to grab my attention; the trolls have to force it like fanfic writers. So much for the heroine's own choices! Like Elsa, Anna is not given enough psychological depth, plus she's cutesy in the worst way. Although, I don't deny there are people like that. . .

Olaf might be the worst thing about the movie. Characters like him are a large reason why I'm not one of those adults who still watches Disney movies on her own time. Look, if it's not too late, don't show your daughter this, show her Sense and Sensibility, which uses a similar setup first and better.

The first half-hour or so provides setup that makes you want to find out more, but after that the movie grinds to a snail's pace and it becomes a total snorefest. This is the only movie I watched all the way through where I had serious trouble staying awake. It might have been better if it had sped along, but I doubt that. First of all, for some reason I cannot take the "aliens come to Earth" sub genre seriously. Aliens as a concept can work (see Star Wars or Galaxy Quest,) but the ones in this movie reminded me of aliens in cartoons I saw growing up. It was wrong to show them at all. That made for an anticlimax because both the look of both the aliens and the spaceship are cliché to the point where I associate such imagery with camp; inappropriate for the movie's dead serious tone. Most of the time, if you explain the paranormal phenomena in your story, it's not gripping anymore.

I'm always elated when I watch or read something widely acclaimed and don't enjoy it. It makes me feel smart.