Reviews

I haven't reviewed a film in awhile but I was so appalled and insulted by this worthless, childishly written and ill-conceived film that I had to warn you not to see it! You're going to wish you'd spent your time more wisely!

The writers, the Cuaróns, don't seem to understand an awful lot, namely: space, technology, people, NASA, reentry realities, how people speak, philosophy (their attempts at philosophical statements are so corny and vacuous they sound like cheesy coffee cup sayings from the 1960s), and more. The writing is vapid, empty, unbelievable, the comments at times of crisis incredibly cheerful and unreal...

Example: the character played by George Clooney (whom I admire and is the one shining light in this dreadful film, which he couldn't save in spite of his efforts) asks the character played by Sandra Bullock what town she's from, to get her mind off a crisis in space. Come on, guys! These astronauts would already know what towns they're from by this time in their lives! The writers are just...dopes! (Sorry!)

Another example: Bullock's oxygen is low yet Clooney has her talk to him incessantly (and it's all stupid small talk that makes you want to puke) to stay focused - notwithstanding that this very activity (in real life) would cause her to use up her oxygen all the faster!

This movie is an insult to the viewer's intelligence. It plays out like those childhood games we used to play on the playground - you know, hey, push this button, see if that one works! Hey - it does! No need for training, eh? Dumb, dumb, dumb - and you're going to feel stupid if you watch this flick.

The only thing good are the visuals but those don't sustain a movie and they're not exactly the most state-of-the-art stunning displays of creativity ever. In fact, you don't feel you've seen anything new at all.

I'm just really angry that Hollywood felt audiences would be so uninformed and unsophisticated that they would think this movie was anything other than what it is, namely, space trash!

Want another example of how very stupid this is? Sandra Bullock spends much time in space, bare-legged and barefoot and actually returns home from space bare-legged and barefoot and essentially wearing underwear! Come on!

The ending, too - without being a spoiler - is just so fantastically unreal as to make you shake your head. What was the studio that put out this hopelessly clueless movie thinking? Did anyone at all research what real space flight was like? Doubtful.

Regardless - this movie's ignorance of its own subject is one thing. Its dialog is another. It's so amateurish to make one wonder what made these guys think they could get away with their incompetence.

I usually avoid watching movies that get less than a 3-star rating on the Turner Classic Movies channel but maybe I should reevaluate that policy because - being a big William Powell fan and an admirer of Hedy Lamarr - I decided to watch this movie, having never seen it. Glad I did. Yes, it's got its silly side - but so do many comedies. What's really significant is that it features William Powell at his comedic best, with many brilliant creative and hilarious scenes you just have to see and enjoy. Though this is a flawed movie, it is nonetheless engaging and highly entertaining due to Powell's ability to conjure up some of the most ingenious funny scenes ever. Though Hedy Lamarr is a ditz here and not necessarily the kind of character most men would want as a wife (being quixotic and ruled by astrologers), there are in fact women like this (I was married to one) and so even her part rings true to those of us who've "been there." So...silly but not so silly. Yet...really really funny! And you don't have to be a William Powell fan to like this one. Enjoy! (You will!)

The Hurricane is a movie all movie buffs need to see. It's great on so many levels that its minor drawbacks or imperfections are entirely forgivable. First of all, you have one of the best hurricane scenes in any film, ever. This is so realistic, intense and prolonged that, even today, you keep wondering: how did they do this? This is what hurricanes do - to people's lives and to the topography of our world. But then you look at the cast. Jon Hall was just OK yet we have Thomas Mitchell, John Carradine, Mary Astor and Raymond Massey - four movie heavyweights who infuse this with its near-greatness, putting in performances that fans of great acting need to see. These are actors who usually have a supporting role, yet when given the chance, they bring a gravitas and realism that rivets the viewer and draws one into the story such that you're bonded to it...entirely invested in the story's outcome, rooting for the much-maligned good characters to "win" in the end, your emotions going up and down with their fortunes. That's the sign of a really really good film. The story, too, speaks of universal truths and injustices done in the name of imperialistic governments, wrongs done native islanders, laws applied unbendingly and cruelly, and the bitter ends that come of political power struggles - all of this plays out along with the more immediate story, the plight of a young couple with a child, victims of circumstance, struggling to find happiness in a mad political situation that's become of their prior idyllic world. So if you don't pick up on the greater picture or care about it, you still care deeply about the lives of these young lovers and their child - as well as their people, the native islanders (played in some instances by real Polynesians). You have to have patience to get beyond the first few moments in the film, where the writing and the acting (primarily because of Jon Hall) was not as great as the rest of the film, because then brilliance takes over as Hall's role greatly diminishes and the story unfolds in all of its horror and wonder, and you'll be hooked...on the edge of your seat to the end. Finally...there's some redemption at the end. This is key to a great film and it happens. Not easy to pull off - in a way that moves you. Here, it's real, and it affects you, rewards you - even though, as in life, the redemption isn't complete or perfect. Like life, lives are ruined in the process - which is a credit to this film. It scrupulously avoids the hackneyed and sugar coats nothing. Dorothy Lamour...fine actress, beautiful as a saronged islander...has a somewhat limited role, though key because she is the angel that makes us really care about the plight of the young family. Her performance, though spare, is, to her credit, always believable and full of appropriate intense emotion. No shallow beauty here. In sum...this is a must-see film!!!!

The whole premise of this movie rings false, on so many levels. I don't want to be a spoiler so I will just say that the reason to see this movie is not for its story line, which is preposterous and fails to show the splendid Myrna Loy in the best light. William Powell, one of my very favorite actors, manages to shine at turns - even turning in his funniest scene ever (the one where he get on the dance floor himself) - and so he makes this tedious movie bearable and even enjoyable at times. But it is only for his charm and wit that this film is saved on any level. Poor Myrna Loy spends the bulk of the time grimacing in an unattractive way - but she is the victim of a script that was so poor it was borderline amateurish, high schoolish. Her talents were wasted. The fact that Powell could make this film at all worth watching is a testament to his great talent. This movie is only for Powell fans.

While the direction and cinematography weighs this movie down and keeps me from giving it 9 stars, Laurence Olivier's performance is so phenomenal it raises the film above mediocrity and makes it one that absolutely has to be seen - especially for those who aren't yet convinced of Olivier's greatness. What an incredible job he does here! And those who only know Maggie Smith in her more recent years, as the comic genius she is, need to see her as the ravishing beauty she portrays here. This is who she was - a great serious and seriously beautiful actress, in her youth. (Frank Finlay is also brilliant as the evil Iago.) A great story of jealousy and evil human schemes also makes this a tale that needs to be known. (And who but Shakespeare could best bring this sort of thing out, with such realism and devastating effect.) Bravo!!!

Whew! A cast full of the finest talent and yet this movie is so tedious it is hard to slog through! The vacuous premise of the film is partly to blame - the idea of three women seeking men solely for their money is deeply offensive to say the least although this is a sin society tends to allow them. This idea, however, could have worked in a comedy - and this purportedly was a comedy. But it was such a snoozer it did not come across as funny in any way shape or form. It just came away as a B or C movie about worthless and shallow women. Strange that Robert Osborne, the esteemed movie expert and historian, liked this film and felt Lauren Bacall stole the film. She wore a perennial scowl (one that made her look ugly, if you can imagine that!) and was the most unlikeable of all the characters - constantly telling the man she eventually settles down with, "I never want to see you again!" That, I guess, was meant to be funny, but it only came across as cold. William Powell, with a minor role, is his endearing self but is handicapped by an unimaginative script that relegates him to an almost irrelevant character. What a waste of talent! Marilyn Monroe arguably is the only one who still manages to shine on some level, putting on a comic performance that displays her comedic talents at their best...yet even that effort falls short because the movie sucks the oxygen out of every scene it's so dull. Nothing is believable so when these unsympathetic characters manage to marry by movie's end, you could care less. There's certainly no reason to celebrate. These marriages seem motivated only by shallow desires and intentions. Therefore one almost cringes at the end, out of embarrassment for the great actors whose presence was wasted in this poor excuse for a film. Really, in retrospect, it appears to have been more a vehicle to show off three hot babes and sell tickets on their sex appeal than anything else. And so if you're a huge Marilyn fan - and possibly even a Betty Grable fan - you might enjoy this, for her attractiveness and sparks of true acting talent. Grable still looks good in her late '30s and so big fans of hers might also want to see this film on that one level - the level of curiosity and fandom, not of the true movie connoisseur. Oh - and David Wayne fans will like his comic vignettes. He also manages to survive the film unscathed, like Marilyn. The only laugh in this film, by the way, is actually pretty funny. (It's a throwaway line by Bacall about her real-life husband Humphrey Bogart (who fortunately wasn't in this train wreck of a film), which I won't spoil here.)

Spencer Tracy's version was much better. You even liked Tracy's character and felt a bit sorry for him. Here, you don't really care about anyone - except for Champagne Ivy, that is, the classic Dickensian-type victim of poverty and underclass female vulnerabilities, played to the hilt by a ravishing Miriam Hopkins. I am a huge Frederic March fan but this movie was a huge disappointment to me. It must have been the times, the fact that talking pictures were still relatively new and special effects relatively new (in 1931), that this movie was considered so great in its time. And for March to have won for best actor (actually, tied with Wallace Beery, for Beery's role in the Champ), really boggles my mind. Maybe it's just me. I don't think this film aged well nor do I find the acting all that good - including March's, which I found stilted. Even his transformation scenes failed to move me. Even more important: I also question whether Mr. Hyde was Frederic March (and I know this suggestion is akin to heresy). Listen to Hyde's accent. Look at his nasal features and the shape of his face. I almost thought Hyde might have been played by Humphrey Bogart (which is not likely) but there's a peculiar and unique accent tinged with a British affectation and a vocal quality that I do not believe is March's and I believe it provides a huge clue as to there having been a different actor playing that role. Even the acting quality seems to take a nose dive when Hyde is in the picture (in other words, I believe March would have done a better job in that role). Mr. Hyde was also incredibly agile - like a monkey, or, more to the point, like a circus performer or Olympic-class athlete. His jumping about was - in my estimation - highly unlikely the actions of a Frederic March who (unlike Cary Grant, for instance) did not have an athletic background of this kind nor did he display anything like this kind of agility or talent in other films. This was, actually, my first question after seeing the film: just who played Mr. Hyde? (Did anyone else question this?) I tell you, it was not March. Miriam Hopkins is the only one in this film, for my money, whose performance was of an Oscar-type level. She was incredibly endearing and she came across with a realism I felt was lacking in the others' performances. There was too much "gee whiz" acting in my opinion, stylized horror movie posing, for this movie to be taken too seriously. March was very young here so I excuse his stilted acting on his relative lack of experience because in every other film I've seen him in, he was absolutely top-rate and brilliant. But I am sure my opinion is in the minority here, so see the film and judge for yourself. Clearly it's a milestone picture in Hollywood and should be seen, in that context.

Exceptional performances by three heavyweight actors, Gian Maria Volonte and Lee Van Cleef - both of whom, it's a shame, did not have all that many more opportunities to shine in quality films after this one - and Clint Eastwood, along with taut direction, editing, cinematography and gripping and unique music (by the great Ennio Morricone), make this movie a real standout. (The music's almost a major character in this film, in fact.) Stylistically iconic, this Sergio Leone opus has an endlessly fascinating and spellbinding story that surprises to the end. Plus, we really come to like the co-heroes, Van Cleef and Eastwood - we want to befriend them and emulate them. Volonte was priceless as a demonic villain - his facial expressions rich with narcissism and a strange kind of violence-fueled euphoria no one else has ever matched in film history, for my money. Though he clashed with director Leone and purportedly did not like the Western genre, Volonte's performance rises above the film's genre and could be favorably compared to the best portrayed villains of other more mainstream movies. Volonte brought a realism to his character and an intensity you don't see in many films. But so did Van Cleef, whose work in this film is incredible. You'd have thought other movie makers would have rushed to cast Van Cleef in important roles after this film, but no. Very strange. Though some might question the wanton violence in this film, the truth is that the real wild west was even more violent and the violence often much more capricious and random. Like all great artistic works, this film never grows old for me. I am always drawn to watch it again and again for it is of such a depth and complexity that it only reveals more of itself with each viewing.

If this movie were not one of the greatest historically true stories about heroism in the face of impossible odds but were a thriller, a work of fiction, it would still work as one of the best films of the year.

Yet it IS a true story, an amazing story, showing the best and worst of humanity. It's not been told before and it sorely needs to be told, and here, it's done almost to perfection.

Those who haven't seen Daniel Craig at his acting best, too, need to see this film. In this film he proves his depth as a quality actor (for any ever doubted he "had it").

Gripping and taut throughout, with a realistic, gritty film style that increases its intensity, this is a well-directed, well-edited, well-acted, well-filmed movie that keeps you riveted to the very end - and shocks you with what it shows. Yet it does have a certain satisfying redemption at the end.

A story well told that needs to be told. And a movie that's worth seeing more than once.

A very well-done film - and it rivals the quality of the original Swedish film it obviously emulates, in style and substance.

Daniel Craig is great here as the male lead - it's one of his best performances.

And the story is told with all of the edge and darkness of the original. I didn't feel the need - having seen the original - for its being re-made, but a friend took me to this film and it didn't disappoint.

I disagree with reviewers, however, who argue that this film makes a feminist statement. Yes, a woman is abused here; but men are abused in other films, and in real life too. We're all human and we all face trouble from time to time - which is why we can also sympathize if not empathize with the female lead as she struggles to overcome a difficult past. You do not have to be a woman to feel her pain or root for her search for justice, if not revenge. We root for her just as we root for a Wyatt Earp when his brother is killed and another maimed by a band of outlaws. This is a story about injustice and a corrupt system that protects some very bad people - not unique in the annals of history or film (which is why we all can care and relate to it).

Well done. Worth seeing.

Does it rise above the level of its genre, that of a "thriller"? I'm not sure. That's why I did not give it 9 stars. But it's an exhilarating and intense ride and rivets you to the very end.

The rock doc format is a tricky one and one that's not been done well very much, ever.

The Beatles' Anthology was a huge exception - that was one hell of a great documentary, giving us an incredible number of new insights into the world's greatest rock band ever. But that documentary was done with the full cooperation of the surviving Beatles.

Here, Martin Scorcese takes on a trickier subject - that of a reclusive Beatle, post mortem - and produces a gem. Like any great documentary, there were many revelations that rewarded the viewer with insights into a great but little-known man. This was the least-interviewed and least-public Beatle and it took a lot of hard work to produce this, no doubt. So kudos to Scorcese indeed.

True, too, is that this is a warts-and-all biography - which any great documentary should be. It doesn't tarnish the love you likely feel for Harrison. It just makes him more human. Turns out, for instance, that he was not only the funniest of all the Beatles (as you will find out), but also capable of the most biting honesty when he didn't like something a person did (and his wit was perhaps even sharper than John Lennon's, in the doing). OK - so he was human, like you and me. Not perfect, but nothing revealed makes us lose the slightest bit of admiration and respect for him.

The movie did, however, tarnish my view of one of my other idols, Eric Clapton, who is caught in a big lie in this film. Shame on you, Eric. George forgave you but I don't.

Finally, like any great documentary, you're going to be sad when it ends. (Any other footage you could use for a part 3, Marty?)

Ignore the bad reviews and the lesser ratings given this picture. This is out-and-out a great, great film (even though it gets one or two details wrong - like the way Connecticut voted on the bill in question), with many great cameos and performances by some of the greatest actors of our day - not to mention the work of one of our greatest directors and movie minds ever, Stephen Spielberg.

Daniel Day Lewis (as Lincoln) is brilliant here - as are Tommy Lee Jones (as Sen. Stevens), Sally Field (as Mary Lincoln), David Strathairn (as William Seward) and many other fine actors - in bringing an important but little-told part of history to life, with all of its many colors and nuances.

And here's a side of Lincoln we haven't seen before - Lincoln the impatient and demanding power-broker. When he wanted to get something done, he wanted it done, it seems - and he knew how to get it done (even if it took some scheming to accomplish what he wanted to achieve). Mary's active role in the Lincoln Administration is also brought to life here in a way you don't see in other films. (In most other films, all they do with Mary is portray her growing madness, just one side of the picture.)

This movie is the work of heavyweights and deserves recognition for its greatness. What an accomplishment! And it makes you feel like you were right there, at a pivotal and intense time in this nation's history, with much at stake. If you want to see what a great President looks like, look no further.

Finally, this movie achieves a quality level rarely seen in modern films and you absolutely need to see it!

Funny - 2012 must have been the year for depressing documentaries about aging great singer-songwriters.

Like the Neil Young Journeys fiasco, this film disappoints. It's not boring like Young's film, but it is sad, sad, sad!!!

And why did Stephen Kessler hound Williams until the end, with old video clips that only humiliated him and made him want to throw Kessler out of his house?

I was a writer for Downbeat magazine years ago and I profiled famous jazz musicians, some of whom had personal rough spots and most of whom had seen their careers die down with age. But I knew enough not to make them uncomfortable or embarrass them with insulting questions...and, in the telling, I didn't emphasize the darker side of things. Yes, tell the tale, but with giants like Paul Williams (those of you who weren't around might not know he was on the top of the world once, having written scores of great hit songs sung by many - including himself - and he rose to celebrityhood also on his wit and charm) need to be treated with a little more respect.

And PS Kessler, I - the grandson of a great songwriter and bandleader - can tell you that the music industry eats you up and spits you out. It's a rare person whose fame or popularity lasts a lifetime and it's no fault of the artist.

The Monkees' Davy Jones, may he rest in peace, had a career in later life much like Williams. This is what happens in the fickle music industry. Even Boston's lead singer, Brad Delp, who sadly took his own life not long ago, experienced disappointment after having been on top of the world in one of the best rock bands ever.

So...there's a bigger story here and it's not told.

I'm not a big fan of Daniel Craig as James Bond - although I am a big fan of his impressive acting work in other films. No fault of Craig's but I just feel he looks more like an adversary of Bond's than I imagine Bond should look. 'Simple as that. And I don't feel he has the personality I associate with Bond - the wit and humor are not there (but I believe that that is the fault of casting director and the writers, not Craig).

I was loathe even to see this film because I feel the producers lost their way in Craig's first Bond flicks - turning the movies into shallow bang 'em up MTV-style videos in a harsh and overly stylistic way that made the style the star instead of the story (which I felt was lacking). But my wife wanted to see this and, in the final analysis, I felt it was a worthwhile movie. It grabs your attention and entertains.

Here, there's a good story. It's well done and well acted. The special effects are kept in check and they don't over-dominate this movie as they had Craig's prior Bond movies.

I still don't feel Craig was cast properly as Bond and I still don't feel the producers are getting the Bond movie feel right. But I could watch and enjoy this film - which is more than I could say for Craig's earlier efforts as Bond.

Seems as if the Bond producers are overly concerned about appealing to a younger audience while paying all too little attention to staying true to their subject.

This movie is unwatchable. I don't ditch out of movies very often but I could not slog through the boredom. Even the music is subpar.

I love Neil Young's music - at least much of his earlier catalog - but when it comes to pontification, Neil Young is no John Lennon...in other words, gems don't come from his lips. Maybe if I'd had a few beers I'd have been able to get through his rambling commentaries as he drives through areas that are of no interest. He almost seems as if he doesn't know what he's doing in this film - as if someone turned a camera on randomly and said, hey Neil, say something, we'll make a film! Doesn't work.

Jonathan Demme...what were you thinking, man? You seemed clueless in putting this movie together. A documentary needs to be thought out better. And what happened to the cutting room floor? You didn't seem to cut anything out of this film - and it's mostly warts!

I made it to 25-30 minutes and then I was bored to tears.

Sorry, Neil. You are not such a star that everything you do is interesting. How about some insights about your career, performance and song writing? Did you think at all about the people who'd pay good money to watch this flick?

It makes you wonder what the concept was here (if any thought at all was put into this movie). You can't just put a guy in a car and have him drive around to places only he cares about and call it a movie - nor can you take boring concert footage and make it work as a film.

Is this a documentary on a great songwriter on his way down? Even if that is what it is, it's too sad to watch.

This has the sadness of a Let It Be without the great music. But - as disappointing a film as it was - Let It Be provided us with insights into a band most of us idolized. Here, we get no insights whatsoever into Neil Young's musical life and he is not a man most of us idolize (if I can say so) - I believe most of us who like Neil's music simply tolerate him as a person (because the little I know about his personal life isn't all admirable).

The point is, Neil: what did you hope to accomplish here? And do you care about the audience? Narcissism is a drag. And that's the only thing that comes across in this film.

One of the better baseball movies, this has almost the feel of a documentary, with a realism as it shows how real events played out, resulting in a new modern strategic mindset in baseball.

Jonah Hill steals the show here as the brilliant tactician and statistician who figures out how to put together a great team on the cheap. His performance raises the movie to a cut above. This is his movie, in my humble opinion.

Bratt Pitt is OK, but familiarly one-dimensional as the man, Billy Beane, who had the guts to run with Peter Brand's revolutionary untested theory on how cash-poor teams like his Oakland A's could compete with the better funded teams. He almost phones in his performance, I feel (some may disagree), but he does enough to represent his character in a way that doesn't take away from the story.

But the real star of this movie is the story. It's intriguing enough and well-told enough to make you want to watch the film to the very end to see if the theory worked.

Those who are not into baseball might find this a hard film to watch, but baseball fans absolutely have to see it if just to see how these guys changed the face of baseball. Make no mistake - here you see the strategy that has revolutionized baseball (for the better).

If Casablanca did not exist, this is what I would point to as Humphrey Bogart's very finest performance. What a range he displays here, as he, as miner Dobbs, slowly goes mad pursuing his greed for wealth! Absolutely incredible. World-class. Those who don't yet realize Bogie was among the very best have to see this movie.

Yet Walter Huston almost steals the film from Bogie. Father of the brilliant writer-director John Huston (who wrote and directed this great film), he is absolutely brilliant as the savvy and eccentric old miner seeking his one last score.

And this is the quintessential gold-mining movie - perhaps the best. Yet it rises above its genre to talk about much more than the Gold Rush days.

This is, in the final analysis, about much more. Like Citizen Kane, it is about greed and lust for all things material - and how that corrodes and corrupts the human spirit such that the person infected with it immutably and tragically changes for the worse. And, I guess, this movie, then, is also about human nature.

This movie is also unusual, by the way, in that it shows Native Americans in a sympathetic and kind light. They're not the bad guys here, as they so often are in Westerns.

(By the way: This is the movie classic Mel Brooks parodies in Blazing Saddles in the scene where the line, "We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!" is quoted. You'll see where that came from. And by the way - even the unsung bit-part actors who played the Mexican outlaws in this movie put in great performances.)

...And what faces you'll see in this movie (from the Indians to the Mexicans to the Anglos)! Like Fellini, John Huston must have chosen half of the actors for their unusual and emotive faces.

(And by the way - if you think the Mexicans are portrayed badly here, you haven't heard about Pancho Villa, who viciously ambushed and killed many Americans along the border - including in present-day New Mexico - well in the 1900s.)

Great intense story that never quits, great direction, great acting...this is a must-see movie classic. This movie builds and builds until its brilliant ending. You won't ever forget it.

I don't know why some others don't "get it" when they see this film. This is one of the most hilarious comic inventions ever - with a cast that's so full of great stars (and top-notch seasoned character actors) at their very best that it shines like a universe of bright lights. (And it's one of Frank Capra's very best - and most unusual films, for a man who normally represented "Americana" and charm. This falls outside his norm. It's just zany!)

Plus - unlike other comedies - it builds and builds with tension until the very end.

And like all great movies, it's full of memorable scenes and lines you'll be quoting forever (including Garry Owen's throwaway line (as the incredulous cab driver), "I'm a teapot!" - which you'll understand when you hear it).

Even IF Cary Grant weren't in this film delivering one of his very very best comic performances ever, there are so many performances and reasons to see this film it's impossible to list them all here. Josephine Hull and Jean Adair practically steal this movie, for example - and that's saying a lot in a movie chock full of amazingly awesome performances, such as:

• Fine actor Raymond Massey's scary yet hilarious performance as a Frankenstein-like Jonathan Brewster (and what a stretch for him!)

• Peter Lorre's off-the-charts delightfully schizophrenic performance as the alcoholic and sadistic yet strangely caring at times Dr. Einstein

• Jack Carson's hilarious performance as a dumb cop with a dream of becoming a playwright

• John Alexander's performance as a mad but lovable relative of Cary's who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt

• Edward Everett Horton's brilliant performance as a "rest home" director

...And it goes on and on from there.

While this also functions as a "romantic" comedy - since Priscilla Lane is wooing Cary throughout - this is the not your traditional romantic comedy and I suggest that that ruse was grafted on to lighten the premise. It's necessary to the film but not what it's "all about."

Hopefully you'll give this movie a chance and "get it" - because this is one of the wildest and most incredible comic rides you'll ever take.

Tom Hanks is BRILLIANT and so endearing in this film...his performance here alone is worth watching this touching yet inventive film about a hapless man and his erstwhile dog...and the one woman who sees the gem inside the uncut rock that is Hanks' character.

And, by the way, if you're an animal lover, this is one of the great animal films too. (Once you've seen it, you'll find yourself telling a dog later on, with not some hilarity, "Hey - don't HOOCH on me!")

A feel-good movie that's also an action movie with a sense of humor, give this movie a try because it will entertain you and move your heart. And if you don't end up loving Mare Winningham at the end...(she's so lovable in this film - this is her best role ever)...

This film has not aged well with time. It has a very dated feel to it now.

But it's worth seeing for Anthony Hopkins' brilliant recreation of a monster and serial killer. If you haven't seen this film yet, you owe it to yourself to see Hopkins at his most creative best and for some of his classic lines and scenes - especially his now-famous improvisation regarding his culinary desires. (You'll know what I mean when you see it.)

Jodi Foster is solid here, though her range as an actress is limited. Her face is largely emotionless unless it's showing anger - that's the one emotion she can amply express, for my money. I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm not a big fan of hers. She's like a female Tom Cruise. Great for action films, not so great for films requiring a lot of emotional depth. But she's good here.

The sequels? AVOID THEM AT ALL COSTS!!! THEY'RE HORRIFYING AND GLORIFY IN INHUMANITY - IN ALL OF ITS GORY DETAIL. THE SEQUELS ARE MOVIE OF A SLASHER-STYLE BREED.

I am so sorry I saw the sequels. They sicken me to this day. So many gratuitous and gleeful mutilation scenes - makes you wonder if the movie makers were sick-minded!!! Why they chose to go that route makes you wonder. Maybe they misunderstood what made the original - this film - worth seeing. It wasn't the gore. It was Hopkins.

This film is slowly becoming a holiday classic but you never hear it mentioned among the very best "must-see" Christmas films and it should be. Perhaps not quite a "10" like Alistair Sim's Scrooge, it's still one of the very best movies ever made (holiday film or no).

It's got a touching character transformation much like Scrooge. And it's got perhaps the most unusual romantic comedy twist ever - with the wife reborn with ghostly Cary Grant's presence even as he informs the husband (a curmudgeonly MINISTER!) about the true ways of Goodness.

Grant's performance here is solid, brilliant and very touching. The depth of his humanity is on great display - and how many actors could pull off this role as Cary does?

And is Loretta Young more endearing in any other film? Her performance here alone makes this film worth watching.

There are so many funny, charming and moving scenes in this movie it'd be hard to list them all...

If you haven't seen this yet, please give it a try. You'll be surprised to find it becoming one of those films you have to see every Christmas.

Billy Wilder himself called this - his own movie - "a pleasant movie in a minor key." In other words, it's not his very best, in his own opinion.

Yet it's eminently worth watching. And I argue that the final 10 per cent of the film contains every bit the Wilder genius we've thrilled over in other films. In find, in the final scene, we find Wilder, Gary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn at the their classic best (and could Hepburn be any more lovable than we find her here?). The gypsy musician scene, the PI scene and the final train station scene are some of the funniest and most moving scenes you will ever see. And the ending will bring a tear to your eye. Here you'll find a classic romantic comedy brilliance at a level only a great director and writer like Wilder and great actors like Cooper and Hepburn could pull off.

Overall, this is an entertaining film and an amusing way to spend an evening. It's a light romantic comedy featuring the creative input of many movie heavyweights (including a writing assist from Iz Diamond - with whom Wilder would later write the great comedy Some Like It Hot and a very charming Maurice Chevalier).

A 27-year old Hepburn is very endearing and inspired in a this movie. This is one of her finest performances ever and she absolutely puts this film over the top.

Great as Cooper was (and I'm a Gary Cooper fan) - Hepburn could have used a different male romantic lead. Cooper himself had misgivings of playing this part because he felt he was too old. It's not that he's old - it's that the evidence (to those who are aware of it) of his painful fatal illness (he died only four years later) diminished his presence here (he appears ill and lacking in a certain characteristic energy) and it made him less than perfect for this film. Still, you will see notable flashes of Cooper's charm and brilliance here.

Chevalier - though although miscast (he was arguably too old to play Hepburn's father) - makes the most of his part and is highly charming. In fact, like Hepburn, he is at his best here as an actor and comic straight man. And in many ways his strong performance keeps this film afloat. In fact, his contribution to the final scene - though small in measured time - is priceless. You'll know what I mean when you see it. He puts the humor in this most touching scene. And he puts the "period" on this film - endorsing and making "nice" the rocky romance that was developing, as only Chevalier could do. With Chevalier's final contributions, we feel super good. It doesn't get any better than this.

True - Wilder's comic genius is not at its height especially at the start of this film - but as it goes along, you'll discover so many little classically funny and amusing vignettes - scenes created by a master, scenes you'll remember forever - that you'll be glad you stuck with this film to the very end.

Enjoy!

Actually, this movie is one of the greats and transcends its genre... But first, I want to respond to one of the recent posts that faulted this film for being unrealistic, in her words, and "on the cheap." She misses the point - and knows nothing of human nature. I was in a very similar position once, in danger in a small town. And this is exactly how people react - most people are cowards and will never support you when you need their help. This movie is brilliant, in its depiction of human nature. It's a rare person who stands up for what's right and that person will be very lonely indeed. As the judge puts it in the film, "I have no time to give you a civics lesson" - or something to that effect. In other words, heroes are few and far between. That's what makes this movie so great - the depiction of heroism in the face of impossible odds. These kinds of men existed in the West. Wyatt Earp was one such man. So was Billy the Kid. In addition - with regard the negative reviewer's comment that this movie was made "on the cheap"...what did she expect? Towns in the 1800s were simple and small, just as shown here. There were no car chases, crashes, explosions or loud noises or music. I think that reviewer's naiveté about what to expect in a great film is all too telling about the lack of sophistication of today's movie goers. All they want is special effects - that, to them, makes for a great film. Shame - because she cannot appreciate true greatness, as in the acting in this film, and the subtleties it represents, in human emotions and motivations. Not to mention the commentary it makes about love - as in the taut scene between Cooper's former lover (played by Katy Jurado) and Grace Kelly (whose depth of love is tested by Cooper's decision to fight it out). In spite of the narrow range of experience expressed by the negative reviewer I referred to above, yes, there were men who stayed behind to fight it out, in truth, in our American West of 1800s, and this movie is a fine representation of them. (The Battle at the OK Corral, in fact, was the result of several brave men deciding to stick it out, in Tombstone, in the face of impossible odds - choosing to battle it out with the Cowboys (a band of real bad guys) rather than high-tailing it out of town. And they, too, had those who told them to leave - just as Cooper had happen to him in High Noon.) And Gary Cooper puts in the performance of his life here. What a brilliant film - and so unique. The tension just grows as we watch the clock tick off the hours before Frank Miller is due back in town. What a great dramatic device in one of the best films ever - with a cast of many many fine actors.

What a shock, this film! It is not your typical Cary Grant film to say the least! Grant's role would have been better suited to a lesser actor, a character actor perhaps more associated with horror films than mainstream films.

Was this Cary's experimental film? Did he feel the need to play a really despicable man?

Here you'll find characters of a kind you come to hate, and a dark story of a kind that disturbs you - and it's one without redemption. Even the great Ethel Barrymore comes across as someone you'd want nothing to do with.

Grant - as always - is convincing as the horrible character he is portraying. Don't get me wrong. But why he would want to take on this role is questionable.

I don't know about you, but if I don't care about the characters in a movie - or I thoroughly dislike them - I don't care about the movie and I don't care to see the movie. That's the case in None But The Lonely Heart.

Yet - unlike other bad films I've seen - I'm not arguing this is a bad film because of poor acting or writing or direction or cinematography (which is far darker than even the darkest film noir). It's not a great film, but it's not amateurish either.

For its genre - a B-type film that's almost a horror story - it's a well-done film. It's just a story line I don't ever want to see nor would I expect to see Cary Grant in it.

I can't relate to or root for a bad guy. I don't want to be dragged down in the dirt with one. This movie suffers from choosing a poor subject and story - a really nasty story.

And here, you see one of your favorite actors of all time, Cary Grant, in an ugly light that is almost scary. He's almost TOO convincing as a mad man - a role I can't recall him ever playing before, in all its darkness here. It only makes the movie more upsetting and unsatisfying. All the while you're wondering, "Why did you want to portray such a horrible man, Cary?"

I don't want to see a character such as the one Cary played here any more than I'd want to see a biopic on the Sandy Hook shooter. Sorry. Just don't want to get into their minds or lives. I don't want to know anything about them. This movie forces you to get familiar with someone you don't want to get to know.

Furthermore, I regret ever having seen this film because I don't feel it fits in with the wealth of great roles Cary Grant played. Plus, it adds, for me, a disturbing note to his career. And it's perhaps the only Cary Grant film I could ever imagine giving a 5-star review to.

No car chases here. No crashes. No explosions. No loud noises. Very little music and no background music during the bulk of it. In fact, most of its action takes place entirely in one room and the action is the playing out of a grueling day in a dingy, hot and sparsely furnished jury room without pause. Yet this is one of the finest movies ever made.

Better acting you will not find in most other films.

And this puts modern movies - with all their stunts and special effects - to shame. This is an object lesson in what makes a great film. It's not noise and smoke and mirrors. It's a great story and great acting. You don't need a million cuts or scene changes. You need just one room if you have the essential elements, as this film proves.

The tension is incredible - palpable and nonstop, the important story of intolerance unfolding in a series of surprises and the human interplay almost unrivaled.

No bells and whistles here. Just one of the best stories ever featuring one of the best casts ever assembled. And one of the most memorable films you'll ever see.