Reviews

I loved everything about this movie, which hooked me right from the tragic levitation scene on in. The music and songs were great, the actors easy on the eyes (Rahul--yum!) and the intracacies of family life were right on the money.

This movie was light and funny, but not nearly as enjoyable nor as humourous

as the book. If you want side-splittingly funny, give the book a whirl. The

connection to "Pride and Prejudice" is developed further and Bridget's mum's

hijinks are outrageous. Characters are developed much further, too.

Stifler and Jim were the only funny males in the group; the others were either just too weird (Finch) or just too bland (Oz and the other guy). Michelle the Band Camp girl was hilarious and perhaps should have been given a more significant role to allow the relationship between her and Jim to develop. Vicky needs a bra.

This is one of my 3 year old daughter's favourite programs, and I gladly encourage her to watch it. It's a cute little show that encourages activity (the "clock" stretch, dancing), storytelling, friendship, etc. while addressing common fears and concerns of small children. I like the Foley family, too! :o)

The actress who portrays Loonette is fantastic. I totally disagree with the poster that thought a woman playing a child is creepy. I'm sorry, but I find Mr. Rogers MUCH more creepy and don't appreciate his condescension towards children. There are also a few jokes that fly over my daughter's head but get me giggling.

Two thumbs up!

Geez, I didn't realize that fact until I read other people's comments; I think that is a clue as to how badly this film failed. The only notable actors were Lord Goring's father and butler, Julianne Moore was okay as Mrs. Chevely, and Rupert Everett was easy on the eyes and not a *bad* Lord Goring, but I'm sure Oscar Wilde's original Lord Goring was much more playful.

Minnie Driver as Miss Mabel was just awful; her costumes were remarkably ugly, she made goofy faces all the time, and had nothing to recommend herself to Lord Goring.

Glad I didn't spend $8.50 at the theatre anyways. Would be interested to see it on stage however, now that I know it was supposed to be a Wilde farce.

I nearly fell off my seat when I saw the Facts of Life movie on the satellite listings. I tuned in and was all set to be whisked back into the lives of my favourite friends. I was sadly disappointed in the plot and the entire movie just seemed so tired and trite; I don't know if it was because my favourite character, Jo (Nancy McKeon), was missing or if it's because Disney was at the helm.

IMHO, a reunion movie was a great idea. I'd have preferred something closer to the original, perhaps with lots of juicy "flashbacks".

I have mixed feelings about the film. It was an enjoyable romp with a pretty good cast and a few good laughs. However, having read the brilliant book beforehand, I was supremely disappointed at how much the movie differed. I rented the DVD and was disgusted that the "deleted" material was all stuff that came from the book!! Renee Zellwegger was *okay* as Bridget (great accent) but she just lacked...something. I pictured Bridget as a little bit prettier and a little sassier. Her friends really took a back burner in the movie, too, serving no real purpose. Oh well. :o)

We've only had access to BBC Canada for a few weeks now, but I'm finding myself making sure that I'm in front of the tv at 8:30 on Tuesday nights. I can't think of any Canadian or American shows that I HAVE to watch, even season premieres or finales! The Royle Family is unlike anything I've ever watched before; nothing happens but it's riveting! The characters rarely move from their couch, and when they do, it's just to stray into the kitchen to brew a cuppa. It makes American humour seem extremely brash and forced. Two thumbs up!!

This is a terrific adaptation of Jane Austen's book. It is far more faithful to the original than the A&E disaster. The actors in this version are perfect, especially David Rintoul's sneering Mr. Darcy; Colin Firth had nothing on him.

This adaptation is not a glossy, high-budget, made for tv melodrama like its newer counterpart. It is a tasteful rendering of an ageless classic. The script is true to the text and the actors carry off their characters with dignity and believability. The new A&E/BBC production has an obviously higher budget, but that does not save; I for one do not recall Mr. Darcy swimming across a swamp or fine-tuning his fencing in the book. What was the point of adding these scenes?

All in all this is a beautiful story beautifully performed.