Reviews

If your family is like "Leave It to Beaver" except that you swear at each each other, you might see yourself in this movie.

It's ultimately a movie about adult sibling relationships in a family the genuinely loves each other even when they can't stand each other.

But the movie is not too heavy, mostly due to Paul Rudd's charming performance as an optimistic loser hippie. Most of the other principles are flawed but likable.

Rudd is the center of the story but the ensemble cast is an A-list of B-listers with several memorable sub-plots. The movie was peppered with some of my favorite actors from TV or small movies. And after seeing this movie, I have some new favorites! For me, this film hits that perfect "Romantic Comedy" balance of funny and sweet but with some moral and emotional complexity. But, instead of a love between a man and a woman, it's the love between siblings.

And, like a good "Rom Com" should, it has a satisfying end without being too simplistic. (OK, one part is really corny but this serves the point of the movie.)

I found this movie both irritating and fascinating. It was irritating until I understood it -- then it was fascinating.

I spent the first half of the movie irritated at the ugly stereotypes of Americans as brutishly hostile to both Muslims and people with disabilities. Karan Johar so profoundly mis-understands America that he gets nearly every scenario wrong. For example, if a clearly disoriented person stepped in front of a cable car, a mob wouldn't gather to jeer him -- especially in one of the most liberal and tolerant cities in America.

My irritation gave way to fascination when I realized that the extremely mis-portrayed hurricane scene was actually about an Indian village in a monsoon. I went back and watched the movies as a allegory about India and it fits almost perfectly. For example, I've personally witnessed a mob of people in India set-upon a disoriented person, not just jeering him but beating him as well.

Especially interesting is the inter-faith dynamics portrayed in the movie. While nothing like America, it's what I remember of India where the people generally get along well until some event triggers nauseating naked aggression, splitting neighborhoods and even families. But, even at the worst times punctuated by remarkable acts compassion.

"My Name is Khan" is far more about the Babri Mosque demolition than it is about 9/11.

Let me be clear -- American Muslims certainly have experienced a hurtful backlash after 9/11. Americans with disabilities certainly do experience prejudice and even hostility. It's just not like this movie.

But, when you watch the movie as an allegory of India, it's quite interesting.

As a librarian, I highly recommend this series. Children will watch the show for the entertainment value but get a dose of literary education.

For a series that promotes classic literature, it has a very light feel. Something like what kids might watch on the Disney channel with the hyperactivity dialed down a little. I find it watchable as an adult.

Unlike modern talking animal shows, it doesn't use any computer effects. The voice of the dog is dubbed as thoughts. I think this simple approach is charming but kids highly accustomed to CGI _might_ find it cheesy.

I deduct one star because the series is starting to look dated. I wish the producers would release all the shows on DVD before they become outdated.

I just finished watching Season One and expected that I would warm-up to some of the characters.. but it never happened.

There isn't a single primary character in the show I'd like to meet in real life. They all are so self-absorbed and valueless.

This might be OK if the plot was exciting but it's not. This is primarily a character driven show.

Contrast this with "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" where the viewer gets to see some likable sides of very bad people. (Tony Soprano or Omar Little). The characters in "Mad Men" are not evil -- they are just pathetically self-serving.

So, you're left with style -- and this the show has in spades. But, for me, that wore off after a couple of episodes.

The first season did touch on a several key social issues (anti-Semitism, feminism, gay rights) but only in passing.

Maybe these issues will be more fully covered in the following seasons or maybe some of the characters will become more likable. I understand that cable series take longer to develop characters and plot lines than do broadcast chows. But how many hours are we expected to watch?

Nobody is doing spoofs better than Fox these days.

While "Glee" may be getting all the hype, "The Good Guys" is every bit as good.

What makes "The Good Guys" so great is that it's not just a mockery of cop show stereotypes and dumb plot lines -- it's a fully developed TV show that works on it's own. (just like "Glee") That's how both shows avoid the pitfalls of other parodies which get old once the gag wears off.

Bradley Whitford ("Josh" on WestWing) plays the "not by the books cop" stereotype so spectacularly well that's it's hard not to snicker when you see other actors trying to do that same character straight.

Colin Hanks nicely plays the "by the books partner" straight man to Whitford and the supporting cast is strong too. The bad guys are very scary-looking but the stuff coming out of their mouths is hilarious.

The throw-away jokes are the best since "My Name is Earl" and the sub-plots (romances, etc) are as good as any TV show.

My only criticism is that the black humor can be a little too dark for me (like an FBI agent getting killed) but mostly the violence is cartoonish, as it should be in a spoof.

In the DVD extras on this series, the director is reluctant to describe this series as "noir" but that's exactly how I'd describe it. It's not just average noir, it's inky black.

If you like the noir genre, then rent this series right away. No need to even bother reading the reviews! This is spectacularly good noir.

If you don't like noir, then stay clear of this series... you'll hate them.

If you're new or ambivalent to the noir genre -- be warned that you won't be rewarded with even the dust of a warm fuzzy. But you will be rewarded with fantastic writing, layered story telling, great acting, quality cinematography, compelling characters and, simply, some of the best TV I've ever seen.

Probably the only caveat are the Yorkshire accents which are heavy. I enjoy accents and usually have no trouble understanding them but it's not just the accents ... it's the grammar and vocabulary too. But, if you're fine with subtitles, then it's no problem.

This is a true family film -- for and about families.

Except for very small children (who might get bored) this film is has something for all ages. The actors -- both young and old, animal and human -- are excellent. The story-line is interesting for children but complex enough for adults.

It's as beautiful as most "art movies" but as plot-driven as a Hollywood movie, again making it appealing to a broad range of people.

It's non-offensive but not at all cloying like some family movies. (Well, unless you're offended by drinking or toddler nudity.) It's magical and mythic but still rooted in characters that seem believable. It also has interesting rural Irish culture which, I assume is accurate.

My wife and I saw this movie in the theater before we had children and we now watch it with our kids on DVD. I've seen it three or four times and I'm still not tired of it!

The only possible downside I can think of are the fairly thick Irish accents. I have no problem understanding but some people might.

If found this movie almost unwatchable. If you like really bad movies, like Troll 2, then maybe you'd like this one.

It had a few mildly humorous moments -- even though I didn't laugh even once. The jokes where stilted and stale though.

The production values where terrible except for a little bit of nice makeup.

The plot made very little sense and there where endless plot holes.

I didn't find any of the characters compelling but it was interesting to see a few minor characters who would soon become big stars like Jerry Stiller.

If you are a fan of really bad movies, then you'll want to see this one. Otherwise, I recommend avoiding it.

This movie will change the genre of science fiction.

It is a very good movie but, more importantly, it is a new vision for the genre.

Like, "2001 a Space Odyssey" and "Alien" it is a genre changer at a time when the genre was feeling a little worn out.

As a movie, it is a better than "2001" and maybe tied with "Alien" but that is almost besides the point.

With "District 9" the technology and freaky alien take a back seat to sociology and politics. Sci-fi fans are no longer wowed by futuristic technology or the possibility that superior beings might look like lobsters.

But this socio-political angle on sci-fi opens up a bunch of possible story lines that have not yet been explored in movies.

I have not been to Saudi but I've been around some of the Arabian Peninsula and I was amazed to discover on the DVD that much of the set was built in Arizona.

Amazing! I really could not tell that it was not shot on location -- everything down to the wall switches is accurate.

I personally found the portrayal of Arabs realistic, too. On my first encounters with Arabs they seemed hard to understand or even strange but then became charming and personable as you developed a relationship with them. This is exactly how the movie portrays it.

I've met a few Muslim radicals and they were not one-dimensional stereotypes. This movie portrays that, too.

I've also been in a few "radical stronghold" neighborhoods and none where like in the movie. (But I entered them very differently -- unarmed, low key and certainly not shooting!) All-in-all, I have to give kudos to this movie for being culturally accurate.

This movie is about time and beauty which, at times, makes it a bit tedious. You should resist the temptation to give-up because the ending is worth the wait.

It's not a perfect movie but it deals with art, beauty and perspective in a way you probably have never seen before. I wouldn't call the movie profound or brilliant, as others have, but it certainly is thoughtful, creative and original.

A common mistake in thoughtful movies is to be TOO serious but this movie has enough funny characters to avoid that mistake. Also, the title "Cashback" was such a mistake. A much better title might have been, "Still life" or something to do with time and art.

If you like indie movies that try to go deep, rather than big, then you will probably like this film.

Note to directors: when you make a movie about women who can't get men to be interested in them, don't fill the roles with gorgeous actresses who are known to be funny, sexy and smart.

The bad casting ruined the premise of the film -- which wasn't a bad one.

Ginnifer Goodwin as some sort of man repellent? Or Jennifer Aniston. You gotta be kidding! There are a lot of actresses who could have fit those roles -- women who aren't stunning beauties (or can pretend not to be) but become highly attractive the more you get to know them. Kristen Wiig comes to mind. Or Sonja Sohn. Or a few hundred others! But, no, they chose to cast some of the most desirable women they could find to play the role of women who most men don't desire.

I just couldn't get beyond that.

"King of Queens" didn't get quite the hype of "Sienfeld", "Friends" or "Everybody Loves Raymond" but it's just as good.

The principle and second characters are compelling and well-acted. The writing is sharp and funny and the plot-lines hold your interest over many episodes.

The series also succeeds at a balancing act which most sitcoms fail: it's sexual without being tawdry; it plays with issues of race, religion, age and gender but without bashing anyone; and the humor is edgy or angry but without being offensive.

Most important -- I laugh when I watch it.

I even laugh when I re-watch it! It's remarkable how many sitcoms don't make me laugh -- not one chuckle during the whole episode.

So, if you missed this series when first broadcast, I definitely recommend picking up the DVDs or catching it on re-runs.

I found this movie surprisingly satisfying and would recommend it over most family films with much higher budgets. It deals with important developmental issues but has an engaging plot to carry it along.

My 8-year old daughter saw both "The Longshots" and "Wall-E" on the same weekend and said she enjoyed "Longshots" more! I am always encouraged when small-budget movies hold their own against the big, hyped Hollywood movies.

Ice-Cube did a good job with the central role and the other supporting actors were fine as well. Keke Palmer's limited acting range holds back the film a little bit but she is still a compelling character.

The film's plot is fairly predictable but there is a couple of non-standard turns that add some complexity to a story line that has been told before.

Yes, all the central characters are African-American but the issues are not unique to that community. Most children of any ethnicity should relate to the interpersonal issues.

Best I can tell, the PG-13 comes from a frank portrayal of alcohol use and a couple of anatomical jokes. The jokes would be pretty standard fair on network TV.

Unless you are very sensitive to this sort of thing, I think the move would be appropriate for a child about 8 or 9 and above. Below that, most children might miss the social and developmental issues which make the movie most worthwhile, anyway.

I used this movie as an opportunity to discuss with my child about some of the issues involved and it went really well.

In summary, this won't be the most fantastic movie you've ever seen, but I think a lot of families will go away saying, "That was better than I expected!"

This movie is exactly what I look for in a foreign film: culturally different but still understandable and entertaining.

(I DON'T look for are huge budgets, big name stars or fiery explosions -- Hollywood has plenty of those.)

Yes, the movie has a few flaws -- mostly some mis-directed acting -- but don't let that scare you away. If you're even considering such an obscure movie as this, then you can probably tolerate a few flaws in an original movie.

A real highlight is the main female protagonist, Iben Hjejle. She has this fantastic Sandra Bullock think going-on and I could watch her face all day.

Jesper Asholt also gives a memorable performance as "Rud" the developmentally disabled brother. His portrayal of mental retardation is the most convincing I've seen since Giovanni Ribisi in "The Other Sister" (which was also 1999).

Bottom line: if you're the kind of person who like foreign films, you'll probably like this one.

I couldn't finish this movie; I got about half way through the DVD and gave up out of sheer annoyance.

I couldn't follow the characters or the plot. Worst yet, I didn't even care about the characters.

Obviously, a lot of people had put money and effort into the movie, so I assumed I must not be "getting it," -- like a dog watching a car being fixed, waiting for a ride to the park.

But the car never got fixed and I never got to go for my ride! For me, the movie was a lot of noise and colors, way too many characters, graphic violence and short snippets of headbanger rock and roll.

But no story that I could possibly keep track of. And no characters that I cared about.

I'll give it a "2" because the production values were good and the acting OK (yet futile)

This movie does have a thin thread of a plot that is compelling. But most of the movie is people talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the plot.

It's not even interesting conversation: an extended conversation about coloring Easter eggs or that a certain brand of soap gives her dandruff, for example. What was the director thinking when he included so much of that? Making matters worse, much of the conversation goes on (and on and on!) off-camera during long long long takes of people not speaking. This technique might work of the person on-camera showed some revealing emotion but usually they are deadpan, not showing much emotion at all.

I found myself disliking every principle character in the movie with the exception of the two leads. But that was just a little sympathy, not much more.

This is one of those movies that's worth seeing even though it really isn't very good.

See it for Natalie Wood. Holy smokes what a fantastic beauty and talented actress she was. For me, she alone made the movie worthwhile. Of course, Rebel Without A Cause is _the_ movie to see her in but she is more mature and, if possible, even sexier in this one.

See it for the cultural time capsule. This film captures a cultural moment that lasted about two weeks in the 60s.

See it for the fashions! Beautiful, outrageous, goofy, the works.

See it for Elliot Gould. Remember why he was an A-list actor once.

See it for the totally ill-advised ending but with a great song!

I personally spend time among both secularists and the highly-religious. I have found it fascinating how the two groups can experience the very same event and come away with totally different explanations for it -- totally different from each other, yet they are totally convinced of what they saw and feel they can explain it.

Because of my religious upbringing, as a young man, I saw and participated in several exorcisms and encounters with the demon possessed. My travels in the developing world, even to this day, give me encounters with the demon-possess and people engaged in "spiritual warfare." Yet, everything I've seen -- no matter how spectacular or creepy -- can be explained naturalistically.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is the first and only movie (or book or article) I've seen that deals with this clash of world views. Kudos to the director and writers. I especially appreciate that they did not tilt the movie either way -- the viewer gets to draw their own conclusions.

I went to this film for the simple reason that I had never seen a film from Romania even though I remember that Revolution well.

Honestly, I didn't really like the film that much.

However, I saw it with a packed audience and they were obviously enjoying it and laughing a lot! So, I can't really pan the film since it's clear that others resonate with it.

POSITIVES: I did like the shots of Romania in the winter -- I really felt like I experienced the place and that's speaks very well for any movie. I also thought the actors did did a darn good and convincing job. The subtitles were well done, which isn't always the case. I did laugh a few times during the TV studio scene.

NEGATIVES: He takes WAY TOO MUCH TIME to build up to the studio scene and then he spends WAY TOO MUCH TIME on the studio scene! It needed either a few more plot elements or more character development of the supporting cast so I could care about them more. The only one I really connected with was the Chinese guy -- probably because there was some identifiable back story there.

But, obviously, that's just me. You might really like this film -- obviously others do.

----

PS: Sometimes I don't know how good a movie is until a week or two after I see it -- if I'm still thinking about the movie, then that's a good sign. Well, this movie passes that test. I'm still thinking about how funny the two guests were on the TV show. The fact is, if I laugh at all in a movie, it's better than most comedies!

This movie was made during a time when an American could still make a movie there. I doubt any movie like it will be made again.

I totally commend the director for taking the risk and making a movie that creates a bridge between Iraqis and we Americans.

I just saw this at our Dubai film festival and the audience had a number of Arabs, including some Iraqis. They gave the director a hard time for what they felt was a one-sided, mostly negative, portrayal of Iraqis. They also criticized him for giving a generally favorable portrayal of the American soldiers. (They did praise him for his accurate portrayal of the religious rituals which they said was rare in cinema.) He countered that he shot what he experienced and tried to remain faithful to that. By the end, the ones that hung around seemed somewhat convinced by this.

But, as an American, I appreciated that he focused on one-story rather than try to give some large-scale sweeping analysis of Iraq, even if that might have been more "balanced."

On the way out of the theater I mentioned the hard time people gave him and he said something interesting... he appreciated the passionate feedback by Arabs, even if negative, much more than the indifference he gets from Americans.

That's so sad! This is a movie that lots of Americans should see -- especially those who supported this war.

PS: I'm giving this movie six stars because, well, it's no Gone with the Wind or Citizen Cane. However, I can honestly say it is the best movie I've seen about a real family in Iraq. Of course it's the only movie I've seen about that. And, for that, this director deserves very high praise, indeed.

I admit it... I watched this movie for the title. I live in a highly censored country yet they were showing it on Star Movies! I expected B-movie tawdry but was rewarded with a good movie about sex.

The movie is a decent exploration of the ripple effect of sex -- not a masterpiece -- but a thoughtful look at the subject.

It's not a spoiler to say that the story line jumps from partner to partner through a series of sexual encounters. At times, the links loop around to reveal connection even the character are unaware of.

It reminded me of the STD warnings that when you have sex with a person, you are also having sex with every one of THEIR partners.

With any ensemble caste movie, the acting isn't equal but there really is no bad acting in this film. I thought Anne Heche really stood out and her performance makes this a "must see" for Heche fans (like me.)

If I was a TV director, I'd take this idea and turn it into a mini-series. Each one of the sub-plots could have been given given its own 73-minute treatment and explored a few of the loose ends that could not be developed in 96 minutes.

I know what you're thinking: "Nobody votes this as their best. It wasn't even a big hit. What about Moonstruck? Or Sleepless in Seattle? Or Philadelphia Story? 'Screen7' can't have seen those." I have seen all the great romantic comedies and many more. And multiple times. I own many of them. I like them all.

But "Only You" remains at the very top of my list. I just love it! In my mind, it is near-perfection in the romantic comedy:

1) The two leads (Downey and Tomei) have absolutely terrific chemistry. Every bit as good as Hepburn and Grant or Cher and Cage or anyone I can think of. And they look great!

2) The plot has plenty of twists and turns that you are always entertained. But it doesn't make the mistake of being overly clever.

Making this also a "road-trip movie" and a "buddy movie" really livens things up. Also making it a soft tribute to Roman Holiday gives it some depth.

3) The setting in Italy is lovely! The cinematographer really takes advantage of the natural and cultural beauty without turning it into and art-flick.

4) The supporting cast is great.... leading role quality performances. Bonnie Hunt. Billy Zane. Joaquim de Almeida. And they are perfectly cast

5) It has some warm fuzzy "lessons in life" but is not heavy-handed about it.

6) It is a lovely safe fantasy -- there is temptation but goodness prevails. (I won't spoil the plot)

There probably is no "absolutely best" romantic comedy because you can't account for personal taste but, as for me, "Only You" is definitely on the short list.

This is one of the better coming-of-age movies you probably have never seen. It's a real gem of a movie.

It's not easy to watch, that's for sure. There isn't a high-functioning person in the bunch but just about all of them have some redeeming qualities.

It's downright painful, at points, but even the bad characters manage to endear themselves to the viewer.

I grew up in the "white trash" culture and this movie has the ring of truth, to me. The characters in this movie certainly have their counterparts in the real world I come from! When watching the movie, it never occurred to me that the director was insinuating that all low-income people or southerners are like this. Just one very interesting family.

If you like to find hidden film gems, be sure to rent or TiVo "Amerian Girl." I just love these low-budget movies that are more powerful than the mega-million dollar movies.