Reviews

"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford", written and directed by Andrew Dominik, and starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck, is one of the most striking and memorable films I've seen lately. I'd heard about the film before – heard that it had been a commercial flop, but was widely regarded as an underrated masterpiece, and one of the greatest westerns of our time. So I finally gave it a go, and boy, I heard it right! It's hard to pin down what it is that makes this film so great. I mean, sure, the acting, cinematography, music, etc. all play a big role. But there's something else going on here, some kind of cinematic alchemy at work that you don't see everyday. The film is haunting, beautiful, dreamlike yet piercingly real. There's something incredibly elemental about it. You can feel the coldness of the wind against your cheek, the warmth of the fire on your feet. You can feel the dirt underneath its nails, the water as it runs down its face.

The story, based on an (especially then) obscure novel by Rob Hanson, concerns the relationship between the two titular characters: Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and Bob Ford (Casey Affleck). The title pretty much gives away the central event, but the film also covers the time leading up the big event, as well as its aftermath. Just in terms of period detail, it's probably one of the most realistic and historically accurate westerns I've ever seen.

On its visual merits alone, it's an incredible watch, one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. This should come as little surprise to those familiar with the cinematographer, Roger Deakins, but even so, this film is one of the jewels in his already illustrious crown. The look of the film is like old photographs of the era, or artwork from the likes of Andrew Wyeth. It is at once gritty and beautiful, realistic and otherworldly. Its use of light and shadow, natural scenery, and blurring effects at the edges of the screen also stand out. There are only a handful of filmmakers whose work you can mute and simply enjoy as visual experiences, among them Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Terry Malick, to name three. This film easily qualifies in this category.

The acting is also excellent, though generally understated. Brad Pitt, who can often be a hit-or-miss actor, hits here with a vengeance. It's easily one of the most subtle performances I've ever seen from him, and his screen presence alone would've made an Oscar nod warranted. Casey Affleck is also great, sometimes even stealing the scene from Pitt, and his ability to make us feel several things about a character at one time is impressive. The supporting roles, played by notable actors such as Sam Rockwell, Mary-Louise Parker, Jeremy Renner, Sam Shepard, Zooey Deschanel, and Michael Parks, round out the cast beautifully.

The music, by Australian artists Nick Cave and Warren Ellis (both of them new to film scores) is incredibly beautiful, capturing the folk music spirit of the Old West, and compliments the tone and atmosphere of the film remarkably well.

If one forced me to find one criticism of the film, it would be that it's a little too long. But I don't like making that claim, because I can't help thinking of the Emperor Joseph II, who criticized one of Mozart's operas for having "too many notes". Mozart reportedly replied, "Which notes would you like me to remove, your highness?" Though I have the subtle feeling that the film is longer than it strictly needs to be, I can't think of any one scene or sequence that could be removed without diminishing the film somehow.

All in all, it's a wonderful film, and it's a crime that it isn't more well known than it is. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It will burn itself into your memory.

Okay, where to begin? Well, I've been a big fan of Terrence Malick for a while now, and I've been following this movie for around a year now (I know of others that have been following it longer). Though I was very excited about it, I tried to keep my enthusiasm contained. I didn't want to over-hype it, lest I be let down in a bad way. It was hard, hearing, as I did, the very positive reviews from critics, as well as the fact that it won the top prize at Cannes. When I finally plopped myself down in the theater seat, I was hoping for the best, but half-expecting the worst. Thankfully, the other half was right.

"The Tree of Life" is a masterpiece, even by Malick's standards. Less a traditional narrative than a free-form, stream of consciousness vignette of childhood scenes and nature shots, the film manages to capture in a way few films do the essence of childhood, of family. Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) reflects on his relationship with his difficult and disciplinarian father (Brad Pitt) and loving mother (Jessica Chastain). The two parents represent the film's primary theme: love versus selfishness ("grace" and "nature", as the film calls them, respectively). Over the course of the film, Jack struggles to reconcile their philosophies. The film builds up to a conclusion that's abstract and rife with religious overtones; some people may be put off by how the film ends, but to me, it seemed a logical and satisfying conclusion.

The acting is solid throughout. Brad Pitt, in particular, was convincing and charismatic, giving a performance that deserves at least a nomination from the Academy, I believe. Jessica Chastain was absolutely luminous, and I look forward to her future career, since I believe this film will definitely open doors for her. Sean Penn wasn't in the film a whole lot, and had very little dialogue, but he performed his role admirably. The child actors were especially great – none of them are professional actors, and yet, they were incredibly natural.

One of the film's most controversial sequences is one near the beginning of the film; a reel-long look at the birth of the Universe and early life on Earth. The images are often breathtakingly beautiful, and the special effects, overseen by Douglas Trumbull, impressed me deeply – this isn't just assembly-line CGI, but real art. I found the whole sequences transfixing, but apparently some people struggled through it.

The cinematography, by Emmanuel Lubezki, is glorious. Malick's always had a keen eye for beautiful and striking imagery, but I think he may well have outdone himself this time. Even if the film had no other positive attributes, it would still be a beautiful film to look at. Alexandre Desplat wrote the score, but most of the soundtrack consists of classical pieces.

Now, it goes without saying that this film isn't for everyone. That goes for a lot of movies, but it especially applies to art films like the ones Malick makes. If:

a.) You are a cynic who doesn't like "sentimental rubbish" b.) Spiritual undercurrents offend you c.) You a uncomfortable with films that experiment with the rules of film storytelling d.) You distrust films that aspire to be more than a cheap way to kill two hours e.) You have a short attention span

…I'd recommend you spend your time elsewhere.

But to those who are receptive and sensitive to it, this film is a real treat, a feast for the senses, for the mind, and for the heart, an experience the likes of which only come along once in a blue moon. Malick may well have given us his magnum opus with this one. It's a film that'll stick in your brain for some time and give you something to think about. Savor it. I know I did. And I will for years to come.

When Carl Theodor Dreyer made this film in 1928, he wasn't yet the fixture of European cinema that he would be in later years. He had made several films in Denmark, now rarely seen. But this film was a revelation, and single-handedly put him on the map – four more great films followed (at long intervals): Vampyr, Day of Wrath, Ordet, and Gertrud, establishing Dreyer as one of Europe's predominant filmmakers.

The Passion of Joan of Arc, based on actual court records from the time, tells the story of Joan of Arc's trial and execution. It says little, and shows nothing, of her earlier exploits, and in that way, it works very much as a passion story (as its title implies). Stylistically, it's a striking film, showing images that will burn themselves on your memory. It makes heavy use of close-ups, highlighting the subtle facial expressions of the characters, who didn't wear makeup for the film. Many of the camera angles are unlike anything I've yet seen in silent films.

Maria Falconetti gives a mesmerizing performance as Joan. The raw emotion she conveys is remarkable, and it amazes me still how much she was able to say with her eyes. It's a shame that this is the only movie she made that can be easily found today (she made two minor films about a decade earlier.

Another haunting characteristic of the film is the fact that it has no musical accompaniment. This is the way Dreyer wanted it to be seen, and luckily, the version I saw held true to his intentions. The stark silence was unsettling at first, but was soon forgotten, even seeming to heighten the experience.

The film seemed to almost fly by to me, right up to its haunting and powerful final minutes. This film is a true masterpiece. Highly recommended.

I remember, back when I was in high school, I was just starting to get into film, at least as more than just a cheap way to kill a couple of hours. I'd heard a lot about Bergman, about how he was one of the all-time greats, so I decided to watch "The Seventh Seal". Frankly, I wasn't overly impressed. I've seen it again since then, and I liked it a lot better the second time, but my first impression was disappointment. But not long afterward, I decided to get back on the horse and give Bergman one more shot. The second movie I tried was "Wild Strawberries", and that was another story altogether.

The story is a relatively simple one. Professor Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström), an aging physician, is traveling to Lund to receive an honorary degree. Accompanying him is his daughter-in-law, Marianne (Ingrid Thulin). Along the way, they make various acquaintances – a trio of young travelers, an embittered married couple, Borg's mother, a former patient, etc. Each of these encounters recalls some memory, some event in Borg's life, recollections of his childhood, his family, his estranged wife, his boyhood sweetheart. Over the course of the film, Borg's life is reconstructed before our eyes, and through HIS eyes, we see our own questions being asked, our own tribulations being explored.

The film has its share of many typical Bergman trademarks: psychology, existential angst, questions of the existence of God, strange dream sequences, feelings of loneliness, and an exploration of the apparent meaninglessness of life. But at the same time, the film has a warmth that you don't often get from Bergman, as well as glimmers of hope, a sense that maybe all isn't lost after all.

The acting is solid throughout, and the performance delivered by Sjöström is particularly touching, portraying a tired, trouble man, struggling with his own stubborn, judgmental, alienating tendencies.

I've seen many Bergman films since I first saw "Wild Strawberries", and he's come to be one of my favorite directors, but to this day, "Wild Strawberries" is my favorite of his films. To me, it's one of his most cohesive, well-conceived, clearly executed films, and its impact survives repeated viewings. I recommend it highly, especially to people who are new to Bergman, or who watched another of his films and weren't impressed.

This film, the first from Joel and Ethan Coen, seems sort of like the odd man out in the Coens' oeuvre. In a catalog of work virtually unique for its surrealism, its wit, its eccentricity, its blending of genres, this film seems in many ways surprisingly straight-forward. But nonetheless, the Coen craft is already in full potency, and their eye for the grotesque already well trained.

Marty (Dan Hedaya), owner of a successful Texas bar, suspects his wife (Frances McDormand) of cheating on him with one of his bartenders, Ray (John Getz). He hires a seedy private detective (M. Emmet Walsh) to investigate, setting into motion a chain of events that will, predictably enough for anyone familiar with the Coens' work, lead to bloodshed and bungling criminality, though with none of the humor that marks their own films.

The film is dark, violent, and disturbing, a taut, suspenseful, impactful thriller. The script is exceptional, feature clever dialogue and avoiding many of the tropes and pitfalls many neo-noirs doom themselves to by lack of imagination. The cinematography, by Barry Sonnenfeld, is extraordinary, indicating not only Sonnenfeld's skill, but the Coens' eye for landscape and haunting imagery. The music, written by Carter Burwell in the first of many fruitful collaborations with the brothers, is understated but spot-on; the alternation between classics like "It's the Same Old Song" by the Four Tops, and Burwell's own music, much of it for piano, is effective and memorable.

The acting is only slightly a mixed bag. John Getz is a tad stiff in the movie, perhaps intentionally so, though he excels at conveying a sense of numbness later in the film. Frances McDormand is competent, but we don't yet see the brilliance that brought her an Oscar in "Fargo". Dan Hedaya plays a variation of his usually sleazy character, which is just what is needed for the film. The standout is Walsh, whose performance is fantastic.

For any Coen, this film is a must see, and it surely stands as one of the strongest directorial debuts of its generation. But even the passing movie goer, this film is worth a shot. It's a film you won't soon forget. Highly recommended.

Though perhaps most famous for its glorious opening sequence, and, to an extent, equally notorious for featuring Charleton Heston as a Mexican who makes little effort in using an actual Mexican accent, what many people seem to forget is that with this film, Welles created perhaps the last great film-noir. He had wrestled with the genre before, in such films as "The Lady from Shanghai", but here, he gets a real hold of it, and wrestles it into submission.

The story, as is often the case with film-noirs, is a little murky. Ironically, the crime that begins the film and sets the chain of events into motion isn't really that important at all. The film is less about the actual crime, and more about the resulting police work, the characters involved in the investigation, and an exploration of law and ethics.

Heston, as is often the case, is pretty wooden, and it's true that his portrayal of a Mexican leaves a bit to be desired. But it's not a deal breaker. At least it wasn't for me. Welles gives a substantial and memorable performance as the films antagonist, easily one of the great villains of film-noir.

Visually, Welles is as good as ever, displaying his usual mastery of camera dynamics and lighting. The music, too, while understated, succeeds in adding atmosphere.

It's not a perfect movie. There are flaws in its logic, and a certain degree of incomprehensibility, but Welles managed to take what could've been a run-of-the-mill B-movie, and make it into a engaging, impactful film. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes Welles, film-noir, or classic movies in general.

As a final note, I saw the 2000 version, which was re-edited based on a memo Welles wrote upon viewing the original studio version. The idea is that this better represents what Welles was trying to do. There are two others versions, one of which is the actual original studio version. As I have not seen the other two versions, my review is based on the 2000 version.

First of all, let me start off by saying that, despite the horrible reviews this film is getting, this is NOT the worst movie you'll ever see. It's not great, but it's not the second-coming-of-Ed-Wood that some people are making it out to be. Much of the hatred, I find, stems either from the anti-casters (who take issue with there not being more Asian actors in the film, which was mostly a non-issue for me), or from fans of the show who didn't like this change or that change, or people who aren't familiar with the show and to whom the plot seems silly. Not to mention the Shyamalan detractors, who are likely to subtract a few stars from their rating of a film if his name is over the title.

But, to sum up, yes, the movie was definitely a disappointment. First, the pacing is all off. It's way too rushed, especially early on. I don't know, maybe Paramount took a pair of scissors to it, not trusting the material or the audience, but it's definitely rushed. Generally, the casting was okay to me. Noah Ringer's acting was a tad awkward in places, but he did okay, considering he had no previous acting experience. He manages to portray Aang pretty accurately, and his martial arts skills are incredible. Dev Patel is one of the highlights of the film as Zuko. Jackson Rathbone did well as Sokka, but I was less impressed by Nicola Peltz as Katara. Most of the older actors did well, though the guy who played Zhao was a tad annoying sometimes (maybe he was meant to be).

One of the biggest problems I had was with how the characters were portrayed. Especially Katara and Sokka. In the show, Katara was a formidable fighter in her own right, prone to be motherly, bossy, and sometimes lovably preachy. Here she's pretty bland, though. Her basic purpose in this movie seems to be to say, "You can do it, Aang!" In the show, Sokka was one of the main sources of comic relief, constantly complaining and making sarcastic remarks. Though Rathbone does well with what he was given, the character, like Katara, is bland, stripped of much of his humor. The only highlight are a couple of nice scenes with Princess Yue towards the end. As for Iroh, his wise side was done well, but we saw precious little of his lazy, pleasure-loving side. Also, there is very little chemistry between the characters. There's none of the family-feel of the main group, none of the feelings Aang has for Katara, and little of the great chemistry between Zuko and Iroh. If they had made the movie longer, worked more on the pacing, and spent more time establishing the characters and their relationships, it would've worked wonders.

Even though there were flaws in the casting and acting, there wasn't much in the way of writing for the actors to work with. Shyamalan continues his recent trend of writing lazy dialogue. The sets looked pretty good (especially the southern Air Temple), but the costumes, I thought, looked cheapish; they LOOKED like costumes. Also, there was an annoying habit of mispronouncing names - it was distracting, and I can't think of any reason why they did it (couldn't have been a mistake). Also, I thought the opening of the film was cheesy. They tried to emulate the opening sequence of the show, with the silhouettes doing examples of bending in front of a red background. It worked in the show, but it seemed silly here. Also, the written introduction, a la Star Wars, didn't help either.

So yes, there's plenty not to like, but there are also some strong-points.

First, the martial arts were very well done. And the CGI looked decent as well. The music, by James Newton Howard, is impressive (what else would you expect from Howard?). Also, the film got a little better towards the end, and there were moments where I actually got absorbed into it briefly.

To sum up, it's not the worst movie of all time. I've seen worse films, and, despite what some people say, it has its strengths. But yes, it could've been MUCH better, too. Maybe the problem was too much studio involvement. Maybe it was just hard to compress that much material into a movie-length format. Maybe Shyamalan is just in a bad rut (we know he has talent, as his early films show). Or maybe it's some combination of all of them. It just seemed...a little lazily done. Definitely one of the more disappointing cinematic experiences I've had in years. So much potential, so little payoff.

I'd heard a lot of hype about Avatar, about its innovative technology and groundbreaking special effects, about all the anticipation, about the strong reviews and very strong opening weekend and Golden Globe nominations, and as much as I was intrigued, as much as I was wanting to see it, I was a little apprehensive. More often than not, hyped-up movies disappoint me, or at least underwhelm me. But this time, the hype was right. And this is one hell of a movie.

True to the hype, the special effects are astonishing. And the 3-D used in the film was spectacular. Visually, it's one of the most amazing films I have ever had the privilege to see.

Now, some people had indicated prior to my viewing of the film that the story and dialogue were a little weak. While I won't say it was the best-written movie of all time, and while I wouldn't hold my breath for a Best Screenplay nod at the Oscars, it was far from a bad script. At least, it didn't distract from the movie and leave a bad taste in the my mouth. Whatever it lacked in originality it more than made up for with the way it sucks you into its world and takes you along for a ride.

And its world is well worth being sucked into. Such depth, such sheer creativity, in the world and its ecosystem, is unequalled. As alien as Pandora is, by movie's end, it seems perfectly natural, and the beauty and grandeur of its scenery and life-forms is staggering.

Finally, the acting was competent, and "right" enough not to distract, though, again, Oscars are unlikely. The music is another matter; I expect Horner will at least get a nomination for his powerful score.

Basically, all the individual pieces of this film are well-crafted, and they all seem to fit together into one tapestry that surpasses just about everything else in the movies of the past several years. I won't say it was 100% flawless, but whatever flaws it did have were minor, and completely shadowed by the magic of this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and will eagerly await its DVD release. Highly recommended.

I was really looking forward to this movie - primarily because of Depp and Mann's involvement, and, as if often the case when a movie I've anticipated finally arrives, I feared a let-down. But thankfully, this is one of those happy cases when I was pleased.

Depp is the foundation for this movie. His performance was incredibly convincing. Movie-goers who are familiar with his range and characterization won't be too surprised by this. When he was on-screen, I felt I was actually watching Dillinger. He stole the show, and an Oscar-nod wouldn't surprise me. Miss Cotillard also gave a fantastic and emotional performance. Bale was a little wooden - something that's far too often the case, I fear - but still convincing.

Mann's direction was inspired, on par with other such great films as Heat, The Insider, and Collateral. He continues to be one of the great directors of our time.

I know there's been some complaint about the decision to use HD digital video for the film, and while I admit it was a little distracting in places, it also gave a sense of realism to it, almost as if I were watching a documentary. Helped me to remember that what I was watching actually happened, and wasn't just fantasy.

In all, an impressive, enjoyable film, with an ending that left me stirred. Highly recommended.

There's been a lot of hype to this movie. I've heard people say it's the best film they've ever seen. I've heard people use words like "mind-blowing" and "transcendent". I've heard reports of applause in theaters when it ended. I've heard Oscar-buzz, especially for the late Mr. Ledger. I've heard critic after critic, person after person, praise this movie. I was skeptical when I went in, thinking surely it can't be THAT good.

Generally speaking, I was wrong.

I will say right off that this is not the BEST movie I've ever seen. That might be taking it a little too far for me. I've seen a lot of movies, and a lot of great movies, and I've seen some that I would put on the same level or higher. But this is still an AMAZING movie. The two-and-a-half hours flew by, and when it ended, I left the theater with dazed senses and the inevitable conclusion that this film was superior to its predecessor. And that's saying something; I enjoyed "Batman Begins" a great deal.

The writing (including the dialogue) was fantastic. The music was very nice. The action sequences kept me at the edge of my seat. And perhaps most of all, the acting was exquisite. Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine all gave excellent performances, and I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was a great improvement on Katie Holmes (whom I thought was 'Begins' weakest aspect). And then, of course, you have Heath Ledger, who gives not only the best performance of his short career, but one of the best performances in recent years. His portrayal of the Joker is absolutely flawless. The way he speaks, moves, and even the expressions on his face are perfect, and he was absolutely magnetic; when he's on the screen, your eyes are glued to him. He is the shining star in an already impressive film.

Now, I've heard some people say that the only reason this film is doing so well, the only reason people are raving about it so much, the only reason the critics are going on about it, is because Heath Ledger is dead. I'm not denying that his death has influenced some people, and their opinions of the film. But to make that generalization not only is an insult to the film as a whole (which would be just as great of a movie if Mr. Ledger were still alive), but it's an insult to Heath himself. Yes, the knowledge that he's dead added a little extra mystique to the affair, but I didn't go to see this movie because he's dead, and my opinion of this movie and Mr. Ledger's performance has nothing to do with the fact that he's no longer with us, and I hope that's the case with a great deal of other people.

As I said earlier, I don't think this movie is THE best movie ever made, but it's definitely a great film - a masterpiece even - and so long as all the praise it gets is given for the right reasons, it deserves every syllable of that praise.

10/10

I usually try to avoid hearing reviews of movies, fearing that they might influence me and prevent me from seeing a film objectively. I wasn't successful with this one: I heard reviews saying it was terrible, and so on, and I walked into the theater not knowing what to expect, but fearing the worst. Ultimately, I was pleasantly surprised.

Let me start off by saying that this film isn't perfect. The acting is often sub-par, the dialogue sometimes "off", it felt rushed in a few places, and its ending was a little too ambiguous for my taste (not something I complain about very often). Overall, I felt it was weaker than some of Shyamalan's other films (including "The Village", which I felt was very underrated).

That being said, I generally found it enjoyable. I found myself glued to my seat, jumping at the scary moments and laughing at most of its humorous moments. It had Shyamalan's trademark "feel", which I liked. I thought it was interesting, original, and thought provoking. Flaws and all, my impression was generally positive.

And it seems I wasn't alone in my theater. No one got up and walked out. A lot of the other people seemed to jump and laugh along with me. The people I went to see the movie with enjoyed it as well.

Now, there are some people, and will continue to be some people, who are harder on this film than it deserves. Some of these people will probably complain that it was pointless (an opinion, one which I disagree with). Some will focus on the flaws at the expense of the film's positive traits. And still others won't even give it a chance; as sad as it may be, there are some who condemned this movie months before it came out, and I find it hard to believe that these people watched the film objectively.

Criticize Shyamalan all you want (and there is a small circle of devoted Shyamalan haters on this site), but I enjoy his movies, and this one, as imperfect as it may be, is little different.

I've been dying to see this film for some time now - ever since I first fell in love with Kubrick's movies - but I was also a little hesitant, due to repeated reports that this film was seriously, even fatally flawed. Now that I've finally seen it, I can confirm it: it is quite flawed.

The dialogue, including its attempts at humor, is consistently corny. The music is like a bad imitation of Bernard Herrmann score. The acting is often sub-par. The budget is obviously very low. The editing is often awkward. And so on.

Yet, despite all of this, I found myself getting absorbed in it, and, by the end, I caught myself nodding in overall approval. Despite the films warts and moles, Kubrick manages to create a decent little film. Elements of his later, oft-famed style can be found throughout, especially in the cinematography. Taken for what it is, I think it's an enjoyable movie.

As for the films many flaws, just keep in mind that even the tallest man was born small. I'd recommend this film to any serious Kubrick fan. Watching it, one knows that big things lay ahead.

I have been an avid fan of the Hannibal Lecter movies since first I saw "Silence of the Lambs" perhaps ten years ago, though I have never read any of the books, including the newly published "Hannibal Rising".

Despite my fear than a Hopkins-less Lecter movie might seem dull, I was pleasantly surprised by this movie; from the beginning, my eyes were glued to the screen, and when it was over, I left the theater not only with a sense of cinematic satisfaction, but also with a newfound understanding of Lecter and how became who he was.

All of this surprised me, considering all the negative reviews I've heard. I guess I should know by now that movie critics as a group are unreliable, pretentious, and often jump on the bandwagon.

Gaspard Ulliel (Lecter), I thought, was very impressive, and a capable Lecter. Sure, once or twice I thought he looked stiff and awkward, but by and large I thought he gave a powerful and intense performance, displaying several of the vocal and physical characteristics we've come to love (in some morbid way) in Lecter. The other actors, though perhaps not outstanding, performed their parts well enough to keep me interested.

The atmosphere was excellent, very dreary and disturbing, and the special effects were wonderful.

My main complaint, and it's a minor one, is that the editing was sometimes a tad cliché, but for the most part it didn't bother me.

Some people complain that they are "milking" the Lector story. Perhaps it's true, but this well-made movie provided great insight into the might of the young Hannibal, and it's a valuable addition to the Lecter mythos.

Don't believe what you hear! Different people can see the same movie in different ways, but before you believe the bandwagon, watch this for yourself. Perhaps you, like me, will be pleasantly surprised.

This was the last of Kubrick's 11 major movies that I saw, and I was stunned. I can't believe some people say it's slow! To me, the three hours whizzed by, and my eyes were fixed on it constantly (except for the intermission, of course).

From its incredible beauty to the impressive acting to the meticulous detail to the superb use of classical music (especially Schubert's 2nd Piano Trio), this movie blew me away, and I recommend it to everyone, assuming they have the attention-span to watch a movie that has no car chases or sex scenes.

This is now one of my favourite Kubrick movies.

Although I'm a huge fan of Kubrick's, I must say that I avoided this movie for a long time, mostly due to the negative things I've heard about it. But when I finally came around to watching it, I was stunned.

This is a beautiful movie to watch, and it's been quite a while since I've seen a movie that was so subtle, profound, and intricate. The movie was well-acted all the way around, with Kidman in particular impressing me. The music was excellent, going perfectly with the movie, especially the steady piano pulse, which was down-right chilling. In keeping with the mood of the movie, the emotions always lurked right under the surface, never quite rearing their heads. The intensity of the cult ritual scene was incredible. This is truly a movie to make you think.

This movie is long, yes. It has a fairly slow pacing, yes. But its a sad day when people cannot muster the attention span to watch such a moving film.

This was an excellent movie, a true credit to Kubrick's name, and it was a fantastic way for him to wrap-up his career. Looking back, I seriously can't find any substantial flaws with this film. Don't believe what you hear.

I just don't understand why so many people dislike this movie (I feel the same about "The Village" by the same director). I saw this movie, and it down-right enchanted me.

The movie is unusual, yes. It's different, yes. But that's a good thing! The acting was very impressive, the story was one of the most original I've ever seen in a movie (recently, at least), the music was really nice, it kept me on the edge of my seat (and threw me off of it at one point), and it even had some good laughs.

I must admit that this movie is SO original that it can seem ridiculous at times, but hey, with this movie around, no one can complain about their being no originality in Hollywood anymore. Ever since "The Sixth Sense", people have set expectations for Shyamalan that are too high. No two of his movies are exactly the same, and yet people expect another "Sixth Sense"...and when he didn't deliver what they wanted, they trashed him for it.

This movie was really good and underrated...it deserves AT LEAST a 7.0 on the IMDb rating.

First of all, I must admit that this is movie is not AS good as the first two Godfather movies...it's not as intense, not as multi-layered...and it's a little too retrospective sometimes.

However, this I really enjoyed this movie the first time I saw, which surprised me, considering things I've heard about it from the pretentious movie critics. I found myself wrapped up in it. The acting, Sofia Coppola aside, was top notch. The story and dialog: excellent. This movie is way underrated, another case of people buying into what they hear.

Once again, this movie may not be as good as the first two, but it deserves more credit than it gets. In fact, I'd say that the movie deserves an 8.0 to a 8.2

Being a Kubrick fan (as of recently), I dove into this movie with both excitement (it being directed by Kubrick and being considered a classic) and hesitancy (due to its reputation as a depressing film filled with sexual references). At that time, the only other Kubrick films I had seen were "Dr. Strangelove", "Full Metal Jacket", and "2001: A Space Odyssey", so I was expecting an awesome, thought-inspiring movie. I was not disappointed. I say now without hesitation that this is my favourite Kubrick movie. The others I've seen were awesome, but this takes the cake.

"Clockwork" is a very well made movie, showcasing Kubrick's directoral talents in all their glory. The acting, though lacking any actors I'd heard of at the time, was wonderful. Alex was done with sublimity by Mr. McDowell (I believe that's his name, hehe), and was very threatening and dangerous before the treatment, and rightfully innocent and vulnerable after it. I honestly felt sorry for him.

Also, being a classical music fan, the soundtrack, which consisted of it entirely, pleased me deeply. I felt more sympathetic towards Alex, due to his love of Beethoven and, I presume, other classical music.

Despite its disturbing message, it was a wonderfully made movie that pleased me greatly. As always, Kubrick challenges the viewer to think, and perhaps that's why he's my favourite director. And this, to me, is the crowning achievement of his illustrious career. I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys Kubrick, likes to think, or has the stomach for some of the things this film can throw at them. It may not be for everyone, but nonetheless, give it a whirl, and you could, like me, find one of the most powerful and fulfilling movie experiences of your life.

And now I'm done.

As a die hard Richard Harris fan, I feel the need to say that I feel this is his greatest role. He such such power on the screen, such intensity. And the fact that he's an Irish actor playing an Irish role in an Irish movie only heightens the mood. Sean Bean, another favourite of mine, is also fantastic in this role. Though the American character's acting seemed awkward, I'd say the acting, as a whole, was great.

Enough has been said on the cultural and historical significance to warrant my reluctance to bore the reader with more of it. See the other reviews, for they did well enough.

I'd've given the movie 10 stars, but the fact is, the movie is very dark, heavy, moody, and depressing. Definitely not a pick-you-up film. Though it's powerful, it always leaves me feeling depressed afterward, which explains the absence of the tenth star I half-feel it deserves.

See it if your ready for it; I highly recommend it.

I love a movie with brains, and this movie provides. Written by acclaimed scientist and intellectual Carl Sagan, this book is overflowing with scientific facts and philosophical ideas. I eat it up every time; this film truly challenges you to think. But that aside, it is an excellent and well-made movie, containing action (near the end), romance (here and there), suspense, mystery, betrayal. Everything but war is included. Yet it flows smoothly despite this, and the two and a half hours whisk by, at least to me.

Perhaps I'm biased; I first saw this movie when it first came out in '97, when I was 11, and it has been a family favourite ever since. It was only when I saw it again recently that I realized how amazing of a movie it is.

Jodie Foster, as usual, does an amazing job, stealing the show when she needs to. The other actors are all worthy of mention, too. The special effects are very impressive, and so far they have withstood the test of time. The music, by Silvestri, is typically beautiful and fitting. The writing and dialogue are on the mark.

I'm having trouble understanding why this film only has a 7.3 in here; its rating should be in the 8's, if I had my way. I'd recommend this film to everyone, and its tameness (rating wise) makes it largely appropriate for children. Even people who don't like science-fiction will like this, since it isn't until near the end.

And that's my three cents.

Being a fan of Depp's acting, I was surprised to stumble upon this film on an old self-recorded video tape my parents had made. I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.

This is a movie that is nothing less than charming; a fantastic blend of quirky, delicate humour and a heart-warming message about life and love. Johnny Depp again dazzles the viewer with his ability to sink wholly into his role, this time with a convincing Spanish accent, and Marlon Brando gives a wonderful performance, as usual. Everyone else, though having minor roles, did nothing to take away from the film.

I'll admit, it took me a while to sink into this movie, but I when I did, I was lost in its charming atmosphere, which was oddly reminiscent of Burton's "Big Fish", though less exaggerated. It was well made, and had my attention for the rest of the movie. When it was over, I felt better having watched it. It has no violence of note, aside from a couple of ungraphic stabbings, one fully naked woman (from behind), a few glimpses of partial nudity, and approached raunchiness from time to time, but nothing to discourage the faint of heart.

It's not perfect, to be sure, but how many movies are? This movie is as good as any, and I was not disappointed. Try it out, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I absolutely love this show. Many a day I have run home after school so that I could record it...yes, RECORD it...I currently have 39 episodes. I've heard some people say bad things about this show, and I'll admit it's not perfect, and while some people are instantly addicted, for some, it's an acquired taste. Like for me, I didn't like this show when it first came out, but I watched it since there was nothing else on, and soon, I was addicted, and I'm not usually the Cartoon type either. But for the bad things I've heard about it, I also know ALOT of people that love this show, including most of my friends...I've even heard that it's Cartoon Network's most popular show.

Now, among the best things about the show is it's humor, which can be verbal or physical...varying from younger humor to more adult humor, and also plane gags like people getting run over by steam-rollers, etc. And some of the things the characters say, especially Ed, Rolf, and Jimmy...can be hilarious. But humor aside, it also has a great heart. First of all, everyone can connect with the characters from the show...Kevin, Jonny, Sarah, etc. all resemble kids from our younger days. Also, watching the show reminds me of the summer...sleeping in, parents aren't around during the day, fun all day. It reminds me of my younger days, and it's a great feeling...and no, it's not just me because I've heard others say the same...generally its a great show an a credit to Cartoon Network, and I'm very sad it's ending because it's the only American Cartoon I've ever really liked...but I highly recommend it.

Look, as said above, Ed, Edd n Eddy may not be the funniest show on television (though it can be down-right hilarious alot of the time), and the animation may leave a bit to be desired, but you should not dislike a show merely becuase it's humor and looks arn't as good as others you've watched...but its the concept of the show, how each of the characters have their own unique personality and quirks...and it captures the very essence of American childhood, the naivity of children, and the fun of the summer...and me and vertually everyone I know agrees...it's EASILY the best American Cartoon out there...a must watch for anyone of any age.