Reviews

No, this isn't a review. You may leave.

Count those whom you like and who are involved in this. Two? Really? I don't believe you. I'd say five to seven is the ideal amount, for each has little screen time - except the leads. What do you know. No, never mind the ideal amount. Of course this is enjoyable if you already have a relationship with even some of these people. Very much so. And who hasn't a relationship with Chris Walken? It is also loose and random, and, alas, a bit frustrating, but so much for the adjectives, now.

I liked the whole jumping around choreography. It was nice, unless I'm mistaken.

Oh, and the Coens. It is certainly not a given that he who likes them will like this. Theirs is a hand (well, four) far more competent than Turturro's, and, uh... The pencil, too.

Oh, and the language. It will certainly cause some rage among the sensitive ones, but crikey, what dudn't these days? Marshmallows, I suppose. They're nice to everybody.

The premise

I had seen the "The Upside of Anger" before this, but nothing else by him (with the exception of a couple of minutes of "The Mind of the Married Man"). Otherwise I wouldn't have even started, I assume.

The conflict

I watched this through lenient eyeglasses, having liked its successor. Mike, you little rascal, that was a funny bit. Mike, you rascal you, that character-guesses-correctly moment in "Upside" was recycled from here. Mike, you... seem to be enjoying yourself. What's wrong with Hemingway, though? She seems lost. Wait, is it the material? It is sort of... average.

The resolution

I can't give this much credit. Some of the dialogue rides on clichés, some of the goings-on are painfully obvious. Obviously he made this primarily to amuse himself. Not that there's anything wrong with that (look where it got Billy Wilder). The general air is of teenage competence; the incidental air is of frustration (caused by the conflict in the general air). (How quasi-pretentious of me.)

The wrapping up

"The Upside of Anger" may cause someone else to watch this as well. They will notice that whereas that one had a few childish moments to it, this is one childish moment. This won't change the fact that I'll watch anything he does, though, because it's a somewhat funny childish moment.

(The feedback

Too difficult for many - especially considering the forum. Too self-indulgent and vague. Too pseudo-enigmatic. What the heck, though.)

They're an odd team, so they have problems; yet, after a while, they belong and learn about themselves. Yeah, that old chestnut. Then there's the other chestnut (or acorn) which provides us with what is the best that this has to offer. Sadly, the greatest sequence is indeed the utterly irrelevant epilogue (though it is of course wisely placed in the end). The whole has a half-baked air to it, thanks and no thanks in part to the animation.

Sure, it was aimed at kids, but even they deserve better.

One of the low-points of the film perfectly represents the rest of the writing and voicing (animation-wise and movement-wise, the moment is better): the "shlalom" exclamation (whether semi-improvised or not). Leguizamo, who reportedly didn't quite know how to voice Sid at first, decided to go with a lisp. How hilarious, the sloth's got a lisp. Ray Romano fails as well, but in the opposite way. These aren't total failures, but even if they were, the almost witless dialogue would still be the same. (Unfortunately, I can only discuss the English voicing, but perhaps I'll update this if I for some reason feel the need to see this for the third time.)

There's pseudo-energy, which is bad.

In addition to the at-times grotesque-looking fauna (the female sloths look almost as disturbing as that lass next door, and that, I'm telling you, is saying something), the humans look atrocious, as I'm sure you already know. The surfaces, too, are too artificial-looking, which becomes apparent because the landscapes are, and had to be, so vast and, you know, monotonous. (So much so that they rival Romano's voice. Drums.) The film does, I must admit, look very nice at times. In fact, the water looks too nice in these surroundings.

I know it seems as if I despised the film, but such is not the case. This does not make me want to pay for the upcoming sequel, but there's good to it. It's concise, and there's still the occasional good quip in the dialogue and the occasional lively moment in the animation. All the recycling is quite competently realised, which saves this from being a complete failure. Come to think of it, it's only a minor failure, a routine effort. Could've done without the obligatory montage sequence to a bad song, though.

In the cinema world, there aren't many more irritating things than a film pretending to be bursting with energy. Why am I saying this here, you ask. Well, I answer, halfway through one (read: me) grows a bit numb of all this trickery. And before you draw any faulty conclusions: I like this film.

On the bright side, the look is a breath of fresh air for a Nordic film. Kjell Bergqvist is good, and expectedly so, I gather from his history. The humour works often, the deadpan parts especially. ("The ending of Pulp..." Clever in an incidental way, and in an intentional one too, I presume. Funny in any case.)

But there are the flashback-often-within-flashback structure, characters that are, like, so cuhrayzeee (including the "film buff" of whom I shan't say a word though was going to), the would-be edgy restlessness and in-your-face movie references that are bound to annoy some and be of excellence to some. It almost ceases to interest "one" during the final half, or, in other words already said, me grows a bit numb of it.

Those who think "Chain of Fools" is brilliant (and golly, there are those) will probably find this very appealing. Nevertheless (notice the tone), this works quite sufficiently, and any non-realistic Nordic film is of course always welcome. And just to clarify things: I like this.

That's a bad (and slightly bad-looking) poster. Judge this as what it tries to imply this is, and this looks like a disaster. Compare this to his this decade, and it appears the best of the bunch so far (until this one, that is). Or does it surpass "Curse" after all? I'm not sure. I'm glad he made this after the previous one which is probably his weakest effort of all (and which, although not bad, wastes a great premise and features one borderline-painful scene).

This, like his work as a whole, is a bit uneven individually, as some of his are. They vary greatly in their strengths: somewhere else it's the opposite, but the presence of Woody the actor makes the best parts of this one. The other parts are slightly weaker. Finally realised his age, too, which lets Biggs be the twenty-something, and he is adequate after one gets over the initial shock.

Though at times familiarly frustrating, the dialogue is mostly splendid - and more so than in his other recent efforts - and also features one of the greatest bad jokes ever ("six miles").

This is heavier than its appearance, thoughts-wise, and I like that. He is he and vice versa, which I think is obvious, and that this makes one ponder both how this should be interpreted and these certain questions it poses is nice. And is that a surprisingly good ending or what?

(The Finnish DVD is yet another Scanbox rape, quality-wise, but I guess most needn't hear that.)

Oh, poor little film, only three user comments! I'll scribble something for self-amusement, so, uh... You might as well skip this.

The film is indeed highly enjoyable.

Some of the bits are stupid, borderline-infantile in fact, but that matters not.

The movie buff element could've been emphasized more.

I need to see more Tashlin. Nice cartooniness again, though the look of "Artists and Models" is even sweller. In fact, it's better overall.

The songs, in something of a surprise, are great!

The dialogue sparkles at times, which I appreciate much.

What, that's it?

This is worth little so I'll try to be brief.

G has a problem here: his face makes it look like he can't act. Ms. Ryder looks, of course, lovely. She ain't the problem.

But why would I (of all people) be interested in watching this more or less one-dimensional womanizer? I'm not. I can't stand looking at her (flat) character drooling over him, pertty though she looks doing it.

Even that doesn't kill the film, though; the painful, painful ordinariness does. Though some traces of someone actually thinking may be detected, the film, especially the scripty, reeks of incredible dullness. Something could've been saved with other means, but no. The cinematography, for example, insists on redefining the word "bland" - and I do mean the bad "bland". They could've at least shown the leaves more.

And now for something seemingly irrelevant. My summary is a bad joke - if someone failed to notice that. I'm occasionally amused here by someone toying "cleverly" with a given film's title in the fashion of "A Boring River Runs Through It" while being hilariously clumsy (although some of them are jokes themselves, of course). Perhaps the title amuses only myself, but that's worth it. In fact, why the hell would it even matter? At any rate, how smug of me. Had I not chosen that title my alternate would've been "Tired and tiring" - in reference to the film, not this comment, appropriate though that might have been as well. Yes, I do realise this is the longest paragraph. In fact, it's pointless too. Why is it even there? I don't like the way it reads (I appear arrogant), and the "joke" would've been better without my explaining it. The "leaves" remark would have been a better ending, too. Come to think of it, skip this paragraph.

For some reason I saw this under the impression that this was Binder's debut. I now see it wasn't, but all the better: there's much to see now - and a new one right around the corner! He's not a one-hit wonder, is he? I'll have to see if that's the case. What do you mean I'm digressing?

This projects what is truly his "own voice"; I don't particularly like the term but here it is more than appropriate. This is a very funny film in its own different kind of way, although it not a comedy is, and its intentions regarding matters serious get through quite well also, though they occasionally get slightly overshadowed by the off-the-wall hilarity. Oh, what colourful analysis on my part!

We are cleverly mislead, too, slightly unsuitable considering the rest as the result of that may be. See it to know what I'm trying to imply. I ultimately see this as a good thing. I think. No, the misleading positive, but the thing itself... Meh.

Terrific, semi-surprisingly, leading performances and quality support honour the writing which is excellent when observed from little distance and a little less so when one sees it from afar. Binder himself steals scenes. How nice of him to offer himself a juicy role.

Flawless it ain't, but this is 2005's best film so far. Sure, I've only seen five so far, but who's counting? This'll remain in my top five of this year for some while, thanks to the very enjoyable, different dialogue and portrayals of much excellence. Besides, that is one gorgeous quintet.

(I don't know why I even bother with those over 1600 comments here. This'll certainly sink into the ocean so I'll try to be brief and vague so as not to waste my time.)

To call this a one-trick pony would be unreasonably harsh; "one-trick horse" is closer, but not quite the bee's knees yet. Many are blinded by its structure and don't therefore see properly. There is more, though; that's undeniable.

Once the novelty has worn off, which is inevitable if you've seen more than fifty films, Nolan is clever enough to speed it up a little. But if one is to do a film such as this where the raison d'être isn't the story, one must be prepared for intense scrutiny. That undertaken here shows that a few moments don't quite work, logic-wise and film-making-wise.

Some peculiar humour is dropped here and there, which is nice.

This was a revisit for me. I was expecting to be forced to lower my rating (I was more lenient in the olden days when I first saw this) but I now see that won't be necessary.

Adjective game. Dull? Never. Thought-provoking? Indeed. Overflowing? Slightly. Refreshing, "cool" and stylish? Yes. Deft? Very much so. But brilliant? Meh.

(As for me... As brief as intended? My eye. Vague? Sufficiently so.)

Many accuse "Full Metal Jacket" of being "half a masterpiece" (referring to it being quite harshly divided into two and to the fact that many prefer the first part); without taking a stance on that matter, I must say here is a similar situation, although this is only about ten, fifteen at most, percent of a masterpiece. Luckily, the crucial point comes relatively late here: the moment they're sent to Italy. After that there's much indifference in the air.

But before that, amid some over-stretching and a few misses there is much good to be found. The dialogue has many highlights as one can see by clicking once or, perhaps preferably, viewing this.

A remark: the film has a peculiar air of childishness to it. I do of course realise that they know that most of this is not exactly highbrow.

Anything with Murray is always worth seeing, but I think Ramis here even funnier than him. Then again, he was writing this, but let's not split hairs now, shall we? I like the film but would have liked it even more if it had finished as the slightly above-average collection of hit-and-miss sketches it begins as.

Technically, this is terrible. These two are bad actors with shabby timing (though the support is actually inferior in some cases). The soundtrack is almost unbearable at times, as is the film-making in general. The script suffers from repetitis, which is, in my eyes at least, a disease. Much of the humour falls down.

However, the film is enjoyable if one remembers to switch one's brain off. The better elements of the script, the ridiculous dialogue included, are so infinitely silly that no one should take them seriously. If only they had concentrated more on the lunacy surrounding the fate of the universe than the stupidity (which does have some highlights). The film is utterly moronic, but still (or therefore) occasionally very amusing. I wouldn't have found myself watching it for the third time (semi-attentively now, of course) if the case were not so.

It is actually quite rare for a Disney animation to be hilarious. It is even more rare that such a film should be hilarious even with the sound turned off. The animation here, though, proves an extremely welcome exception.

Another part of the film's appeal is its constant gimmickry with its narrative. The action is often interrupted by the narrator for various reasons, and the film has little respect for logic (which might annoy but doesn't - far from it). The mere fact that they have used voice-over is refreshing, but that they have used it in a refreshing way is that even more.

I did not know that Spade played the titular character, so I cringed immediately when I heard his voice, for I don't regard him quite as highly as some do. However, my fears proved pointless as he proved himself well-cast with his well-suited voice. Goodman is always dependable, whether it be voicing or not, and the rest are equally fine. Nonetheless, Warburton is a gem, the gem here, I dare say, and given the right role, can do miracles. Hell, he doesn't even need good material to make me laugh, but here he is perfectly cast as Kronk.

The screen-writer David Reynolds seems to have some TV sketch comedy to his credit, and it shows - in a positive way. The script is energetic, witty, very silly and full of hilarious dialogue, random moments and clever reuse of its earlier elements. Also, the film's relative brevity is a pro, not a con. Concise, constant hilarity.

I am very, very pleased with the fact that they changed the initial nature of the film. If they hadn't turned this into a comedy, said (very broad) genre wouldn't have seen one of its funniest representatives I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. It looks like I am going to have to buy this one. Did I already say it's hilarious? (Oh look, how clever of me - and how inarticulate.)

---

December 8, 2005

I recently saw this for the second time and found it a bit less hilarious, although I still agree with much of the above. In particular I thought the emperor should've been slightly different and that Spade shouldn't have been cast after all. I would have found the character more satisfying had his dialogue not been so laden with this rather annoying teenage lingo, that is, had he not been one to eagerly use this rather annoying teenage lingo. Yes, he's supposed to be an irritating (muffin), but he could've been a more intelligent, more bored, more cynical, irritating (muffin). Imagine, say, the late George Sanders uttering his lines...

Well, I ain't the filmmaker here. Despite the ever-visible Disney boundaries the whole is still a good one, which can't be said about, say, the above comment. I mean look at the bloody summary.

The film is dedicated to René Goscinny. I am very doubtful as to whether he would've liked this sort of remembering. All this dinning mess does to this fan of the comics is irritate him. And yes, it almost makes one growl "sacrilege...", which is, you know, far from a good thing.

All that is good about the comic books has been lost on the way. All the verbal wit, the best thing about the albums. Not here. Absent. The other layers beyond the most prominent one. Gone. Not here.

The running jokes of the bard being tied to a tree or of Obélix begging for the potion from the albums are here, but they are executed as though this is the viewer's first Astérix experience, thus making the titular character explaining that the other titular character fell into the potion merely irritating; they have only used the parts that constantly repeat themselves in the albums, the Astérix clichés, if you will, but they have forgotten to alter them. Moreover, the characters' characteristics have been changed so that they barely resemble their comic book counterparts.

What few jokes and gags there are that might have even worked are mostly ruined by bad delivery or execution. What the hell is Benigni doing? Doesn't work for me. His performance is characteristic of the whole film: much noise, little success.

The plot, if there is such a thing, goes nowhere. The film mashes elements from various albums together so that what is left is an incoherent chaos. As if that weren't enough, they bring aboard these moronic new things, such as the cloning fiasco.

The costume and set design and the special effects, even the hair, are all done as if this were a cartoon, and yes, very badly so. They are merely annoying. Just thinking of the post-potion-drinking effect makes me cringe. "C'est intolérable", indeed. Even the bloody music over the bloody credits is ridiculously chosen!

I had two strong candidates for the summary of this comment; the other one was "Lost in adaptation". Alain Chabat improved on both this and his directorial debut "Didier" with the sequel more loyal to one (!) of the albums and, while at it, proved that it is, in fact, possible for a live-action Astérix film to work, which is why I chose the current title. For you see, this one does not work.

There's very little story, and this young boy is an uninteresting one, which he should not be when you think about it. The usage of what some (not me, mind you, Christian conservatives) would call "Jesus light" looks a tad ridiculous. Nevertheless, the film is occasionally amusing (if just a bit repetitive), and the animation is somewhat of a sight.

The post-metamorphosis sequences are the greatest ones. As a fish this kid is much more enjoyable than as a boy. The animal characters have much more... character than the humans; just look at the fat-as-- uh, beaver-like squirrel or the pike (was it?). The most famous scene, the duel, is a good one, likewise, and the "magical" sequences are that indeed. Call me a sap, but I am touched by the it'll-never-happen squirrel love story. The best part of the film and bloody poignant stuff!

Incidentally, the Finnish translation and - even more so - the dubbing are at times very poor - something unusual for a Disney animation. Especially the songs leave a bland mark. Whether that is the case with the original English version, I do not know (though I will). So actually, never mind that "incidentally"; this is terribly relevant when it comes to my conception of the film.

Most deplorable is the fact that I have yet to obtain the assumed pleasure of seeing the original, so what follows may be distorted, for I have no emotional attachments. (Was there a contradiction there?) I saw this, the brothers' second and hopefully final film that they did not themselves conceive, if you will, for the second time now, and slight growth of enjoyment could have been detected, had yours truly been observed with care.

The dialogue is, yet again, the strongest feature on display. The exquisite rambling-on of our renowned "phd" is the most giving aspect of the whole film; such quips as "I was a positive lemur" and his everlasting erudition are infinitely hilarious. The others have their share of first-rate verbal wit as well.

Dorr is a terrific character, and Hanks, whose troops, not acquainted with certain parties, have been shocked, shocked by his appearing in such an eccentric film, plays him excellently; his mere posture and sight is one for eyes sore from today's many uninspired, run-down works. The remainder of the fine ensemble supports him well, with Simmons and Tzi Ma turning in quite amusing performances, though some of the humour surrounding the former has an unfortunate tendency to appeal more to the part of the audience who have a taste for bowel humour (some have called these "bad fart jokes", which bewilders me). Even the tempestuous Wayans isn't as gut-wrenchingly irritating as one would easily imagine. His extensively foul tongue has been horrendously misinterpreted as lack of imagination from the writers' part. Some have suspected that it is a sign of his being an intentionally flat and stereotypical character; one is perfectly well allowed and able to scrutinise the film and its elements, including the fact that each character has been blessed with only two or three characteristics, against various theories; the task may even prove useful. Root, incidentally, is a fine fellow, and it would not be an unsavory turn of events if he were to partake in the making of another Coen (by which, of course, I mean a film).

The discussed film is not as solid a whole as even their fingerquote-weakest-fingerquote pre-"Cruelty" effort ("Raising Arizona"), no, but it is a positive improvement after "Cruelty" (on which, too, I have commented, if I may so shamelessly advertise my petty scribblings). They have not "lost it". These two are mere well-deserved, if still delightful, breathers while preparing for a new masterpiece - hopefully a matter that will be proved with their next work, be it the closing part of "the idiot trilogy" or not.

This is very different from all the other Wilders I have seen. It's so far from the 50s Wilder that it can't be guaranteed that fans of that period will enjoy it. It's also different in that the strongest element is not the still superb dialogue but the feel of the movie. The music and the photography by Luigi Kuveiller participate. (Love the mood-setter shots.) This is among Wilder's best-looking films.

I should tell you I'm very biased. Good dialogue, for me, is a thing that can distort my views of a given film, and I may therefore accidentally praise it more than I perhaps should. Wilder and Diamond have four of the greatest ears ever (two each). Quietly hilarious often is the masterly dialogue here. Not the caliber of his greatest, or their even, but what is? There are excellent lines throughout, but most welcome are the silent moments too.

Dialogue needs deliverers. The cast is excellent, with Lemmon giving just a little more subtle a performance than in, say, "Some Like It Hot".

Obviously enough, the film is very long. Surprisingly enough, it deserves a great majority of its many minutes. Famously, Wilder "made films he would've liked to see" (which is a great thing). In his mid-60s here his lovely taste has grown a bit more mature. Not only is the screenplay in no rush whatsoever, but the humour isn't as raunchy and tumultuous (mm-hm) as his often is - all the time anyway. But one unfortunate mistake there is: the moustache maid.

The film is a great example of Wilder being simultaneously (here at least) both a cynic and a romantic. It is also a very good film. It's funny, juicy, dry, a bit melancholic and refreshingly calm. It can securely stand next to (if slightly below) Wilder's best works, and that, if anything, is a sign of quality.

Before "Cruelty" the Coens had made what I consider an incredible seven consecutive superb, marvellous films (this read "masterpieces", but I reconsidered). Of course, then, I can't help but feel a bit disappointed when this one isn't near any of them in quality. But the disappointment caused by the name tag aside, this is a good film.

The dialogue is splendid again, but isn't, surprisingly, present at all times. There are still hilarious lines that needn't be ashamed next to their predecessors, and some mildly amusing tongue-in-cheek (some?) and slapstick moments.

I saw this for the second time now, and unlike the previous ones (I'll be seeing the next one again shortly - saw, that is, so see my comment), it didn't get much better. Certain scenes are much more enjoyable than others; almost everything featuring Georgie is gold. But then there are these other scenes that fail to do it for me. Frankly, Entertainer's (er...) chanting only gets annoying, and I can't understand how anyone could name Wheezy Joe as the highpoint of the film.

The cast does mostly well, as expected. It's low on Coen regulars, with only four newish second-timers and Campbell featured. Clooney is very good again as expected, and so is Jenkins. These are the two that shine. Rush is wasted on almost irrelevant scenes, and Mrs. Douglas walks through her surprisingly spiritless role without any splendour. The others leave no particular mark, good or bad.

Naturally, what with Deakins and all, the film looks very, very sharp. Burwell's score and the soundtrack are perhaps a bit too prominent, but I like them. These, the at-times superb dialogue and the overall cleverness try to convince me not only that this is a Coen film, but also that it is a great film. But there is friction between parts. The film bounces into these not particularly amusing places too much and isn't a solid whole (the first time ever for them). But I have comfort in the fact that Grazer was involved. If a 54-year-old wears his hair like that, he must be in some way nuts. Suppose he had a lot of say and...

I can't blame him. The Coens did this. It'd be intriguing to know what the script looked like before the brothers touched it. Much different, I assume with melancholy. But to be honest, I would be much more satisfied with this had it not the name(s) attached to it. Somewhere else I might find the ass-nailer hilarious. Non-Coen-familiarites have a better chance of loving the film. But I know, like many others do, that it could've been much, much better.

Many Coen fans will be sore at the film for a long time. Some seem to think they've lost it with these two, but I am confident the next in line will start a new string of masterworks. It's not that "Intolerable Cruelty" doesn't feel like a Coen film, it's that it doesn't really work as a whole. But it is constantly very funny, and perhaps the third time will better it.

Forgive me again for being very uninformative and nitpicky. I'm unfamiliar with the play ("disastrously translated into English setting and characters" - Halliwell's) and I sure as hell can't discuss the author's oeuvre.

• The photography is beautiful, if not entirely consistently so. I especially liked it during one of the heavier scenes involving Sellers and "wife".

• There are some ugly flashback transitions.

• "Fawlty"-heads will see a pre-Sybil Scales, if paying enough attention...

• ... which can be relatively hard at times.

• One notices how the actor who plays the innkeeper (John Glyn-Jones, further investigation shows) carries an enormous resemblance to the fine actor Richard Jenkins of "Six Feet Under" fame (or of "The Man Who Wasn't There" fame). Then, in his second and final scene, what is called out through some galloping if not "Mr. Jenkins!" Bizarre.

• John Le Mesurier seems to have been always reliable (by which I mean the few of his I've seen).

• Sellers's "old man" voice arouses in me questions as to why he was constantly cast in these senior roles (here, flashbacks, yes). Don't get me wrong, though. His performance is as great as you can expect from him.

• "I'm old enough to be your aunt." Well, you don't look like it.

• The titular sequence is actually memorable.

• The ending I liked, which seems to be a common thing with viewers.

• I have trouble understanding what this eventually is. One minute, there's some silly umbrella fencing, and the next, grave discussion about things marital in nature. I can't really grasp the whole film. That's right, blame my age. But it is all over the place.

• At any rate, the film is worth a go. I didn't get these "masterpiece" vibes that others have gotten out of it, but if not for anything else, it's worth seeing for Sellers doing his thing.

There's very little originality in this comedic effort that hasn't too many laughs. It's all there, the whole package: the meeting, the fall, the problem that arises, (the annoying buddy,) the airport finale, the informative neighbour, the oh-look-her-boyfriend-isn't-that-innocent-either so-it's-okay-for-her-to-leave-him-for-the-other-guy moment... (Notice the gap in the word there? The doors made me do it.) Then, should it all be there?

The only twists are the titular gimmick and the helpful cab driver. If they didn't have anything new to say - and, more importantly, had this little to say, they could at least have cut the film by twenty-something minutes. The surpriseless, uninspired dialogue, the nothing-exciting-here-either look and the thoroughly bad, tacked-on soundtrack don't help.

That said, there are a couple of scenes that are better than the whole, and the film-makers haven't any problems getting through the duration, so it's not as if this could make anybody suffer. They know they haven't "anything to add" and don't even pretend they do. Some don't and do, and that is a situation much worse than this.

This hadn't too good a prognosis from me due to certain factors, but I was pleasantly surprised I ended up enjoying the film very much. It's engrossing as anything and very interesting - not only because of the secondary subject matter of film. And yes, it looks sharp.

The cast is good all around. Even the children succeed perfectly in the only thing I expect from them: they aren't irritating. I'd go as far as saying that some of them are, uh, great. The distinctive-faced Vincent Schiavelli draws a nice picture of a film director.

I just found myself searching for Akin's other films. It seems this (the one not scripted by him) is actually the weakest thereof! I look forward to seeing his others, but only for this one I vouch, as of now.

Oh dear. Now I'm finished and haven't even said anything.

The cast seems to be very, very comfortable with the camera. I don't know what the director has done to achieve this. I'll take a quick glance around to find out. Oh, so he used professional actors. Good choice. Takes a lot of effort, too - something that must be appreciated.

The costume designer must've been smoking something. The designs are in some cases utterly, outrageously unconvincing and inconsistent.

The script, then. There are just too many characters. No one gets enough attention. There should've perhaps been less characters. Moreover, it almost seems they aren't even connected to each other. The movie lacks a clear protagonist, a centerpiece. Of the ensemble, the Canadian chaps seem to have a bit more screen time than most. The others do get their moment in the spotlight, and deservedly so. Also featured are very brief but powerful cameos from P. J. Squirrel and Randy Warthog, among others.

This paragraph has been designed to be a bridge between the two halves of this comment. I trust you'll notice what changes.

I watched a version cut into a two-part miniseries and with Finnish narration, so I can only speak about that. (No penguins! Now, where the penguins? The runtime seems to be the same, though, so I don't know...) It isn't very informative. Eero Saarinen's voice stated such facts as "it is not for aesthetic reasons that the birds fly in formation". Mm-hmm.

Some bad-quality video shots - if I have seen correctly - here and there and the ill-chosen music almost ruined my awe at points. I didn't notice the much talked-about CGI shots. Maybe there were none in this version.

But the visuals... Simply stated, they are breath-taking, particularly during the airborne scenes, as you'd imagine. One four-second shot of a (excuse me while I consult my dictionary) stork above the Pyrenees alone is worth it.

True, the surrounding script could have been even funnier. But I've no reason to complain. Very nicely put together indeed. Most of the clips from the old films work wonderfully in the context, some are a bit more off editing- and humour-wise - not too much, though. The resulting "exchanges" between Martin and the bogarts are often very amusing, but some of the clip-free moments are so good one can't help but wonder what would've happened if they had done it without the extracts. That question remains, as does another one: "Did I just contradict myself?"

Everything from the title sequences to the choreography is done in homage to noir. I know nothing of music, I'll tell you that, but the score here by Miklós Rózsa plays amusingly on its predecessors and is otherwise one of the best I've paid attention to - which would elsewhere be noted as a bad thing; here, it's part of the joke and thus allowed to distract. The film looks fantastic, too.

The dialogue is easily described: it's hilarious, the ultimate highpoint to me, perhaps, being the "I hadn't seen a body put together like that since..." voice-over. Great straight-faced delivery from the cast adds to the mix. It's not just the dialogue, though; there's more: sucking, sliding, silhouettes, shaving (which reminds me, even the trailer is very funny)... Martin's here at the top of his game - or at one of them, at least.

I shall watch this one again many a time, I presume. Highly recommended this is by me. I very rarely laugh out loud when watching movies. Here has been such an occasion.

Unaware of Mel Brooks's uncredited contribution and of most of the obvious parallels to real life, I began watching this and was eventually surprised I had heard so little of this minor nugget. While it is actually true that the humour here isn't too original, the execution is so irresistibly sure all can be forgiven. Even certain emotional, life lesson -like moments didn't bother me, for they have been done with utmost class.

The film flows flawlessly through its duration, and hardly anything seems out of place; there's no forced (I stress that word) emotionality to be found. Those things alone are something you don't often get. It has a splendid look to it, with the bright colours and the design, the costumes contributing to the wonderfully old-fashioned and fresh feel it has (how convenient).

The script is full of almost-priceless moments and witty one-liners and otherwise hilarious dialogue. I would imagine the film is of high re-watch value. It is by no means without its share of problems, though. As said, there's little that's not been done elsewhere, but the finished film works so well as a whole I can but say that all the praise is deserved. Needless to say, while the rest of the cast delivers, it is O'Toole's magnificently (un)steady and hilarious performance that lifts this one to heights.