Reviews

I saw this movie and was very pleasantly surprised. I really liked this movie. Although at first I didn't know why.

After all, the script, as narrative, is full of holes. Big holes. Without going into details, the initial scene with shot fired has been accurately described as full of holes as swiss cheese. Yet this scene is a key part of the movie, referenced again and again. This is not good.

The title, pictures, and promos were all fundamentally misleading. I went expecting a martial arts film. But it turns out to be a drama. If you are looking for martial arts action, you'll come away very, very disappointed. This too is not good.

The final sequence is utterly incredible. This has been pointed out again and again. This is a basic plot failure. And this too is not good.

And yet ... and yet I came away really, really feeling good about this movie I had just seen. Why?

Well, first, if you view the script not as a narrative, but as a sequence of loosely connected scenes designed to evoke one emotion or thought or the other ... like tableaux vivants, or what TS Eliot called objective correlatives ... well, it works. For example, we have a main character stripped of everything in a series of narratively impossible scenes; and yet the emotions involved in "losing everything" are conveyed powerfully and evocatively. Likewise the ending redemptive sequence is narratively incredible; but emotionally very, very satisfying. This is all to the good.

The characters, acting, and characterizations were all excellent. Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mike Terry was superb. And the Mike Terry character is simply a delight, likable, appealing, interesting. Tim Allen was successfully cast against type. Ricky Jay's Marty Brown the sports promoter is utterly slimy and yet I couldn't take my eyes off of him. After every scene, I felt like running to the restroom to wash my hands and face and ears. He is sliminess personified. But all the characters were well drawn whether likable or disgusting. All to the good.

The cinematography and scenes were well drawn and well depicted. There were some really gripping, evocative shots I especially like: such as the Tim Allen character in dark profile. All to the good.

All in all, I'd say if you like emotion and objective correlatives, I think you'll like this movie. Don't go looking for martial arts, and don't go looking for a sound narrative; but if you want good, solid punch, you've come to the right place.

I saw this movie today, 2 days after it opened here in Tulsa. And on the whole, I didn't like it. This movie does have some good features IMHO, but mostly it seems to belong to that genre of misogynistic movies in which misery is the main, though uncredited, character. Just not my cup of tea; but to each his or her own.

The acting is on the whole fairly good, with a special standout performance by Sam Rockwell as Glenn. But the characters are drawn so unpleasantly that it's very hard for me to feel much sympathy for any character over the age of 17. When I think about it, that's an interesting datum: but that age-divide doesn't seem to be a theme to be explored at all in this movie; it's just a coincidence. But generally the movie seems to be driven by a desire to depict any and all adults as unappealingly as possible. That to me doesn't make for a very engaging movie; and does make for a very unpleasant script.

There are some nice scenes, and some interesting camera technique ... such as focusing on a face and then slowly drifting left or right till the face is out of the picture, even though the character is still at the center of a scene. I think that makes for some interesting camera work, but of course the execution really reinforces the generally misogyny of the movie ... and if the movie doesn't "like" its own characters enough to treat them with greater respect, why should I? I do think there's much to be said for tragedy as a genre ... but this almost seems the opposite, in a way, because tragedy always treats the tragic hero or heroine with some sense of honor, decency, and respect. This movie depicts largely self-inflicted misery and seems intent on an absurdist treatment of such misery that is far from respectful or humanistic, but rather dystopian and disrespectful.

To anyone thinking about seeing this movie: unless stories about unappealing people wallowing in self-inflicted misery is inviting, I would recommend a pass on this movie.

I saw this movie today ... it opened here 2 days ago ... and was deeply moved. What an engaging, fascinating story, told well from beginning to end.

The acting was excellent throughout; but by far the greatest thumbs up should right go to Karl Markovics, perfectly cast, and perfectly performing, the Salomon Sorowitsch character.

The scenes are convincingly composed, with a strong sense of colorlessness and drabness supporting the script throughout ... but depicted in such a way that the characters and the story are strongly reinforced. I don't know when darkness and absence of coloration has gone so far to convey vividly a vividly colorful storyline.

The story has what looks to me like a few unconvincing scenes, but this is rare in what on the whole is a script that conveys authenticity at every moment in (almost) every scene. On the whole, the story is what makes this movie and the story is engaging, compelling, demanding, and never, ever boring. To me what really stands out in the story is the complex motivation of the characters ... and how humanity shines through in even the darkest circumstances. As one of the most brutalized characters says, of a black & white drawing he composed of his native Odessa, "To me Odessa is blue, always blue." That really could have been the title of the movie, it rings true at so many levels.

This is a dark movie, but one that is at the same time full of action, adventure, and hope. I can see why the movie won the 2008 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language movie. It certainly deserves such an award.

I saw this movie today, the day after it opened here. And I was simply delighted. This is a fine story told with non-stop heart-tugging humor and verve. The movie captured my attention immediately, and held it from beginning to end.

The scriptwriter, Mark Jude Poirier, adapted his novel for the screen with extraordinary acumen. The ensemble of characters are just delightfully appealing. Their story is told here with humor and poignancy. Dennis Quaid as Laurence Wetherhold, Sarah Jessica Parker as Janet Hartigan, Thomas Haden Church as Chuck, Ellen Page as Vanessa, Ashton Holmes as James … all turn in wonderful performances in a perfectly matched cast.

To me the pace is perfect, and the dialog is crisp, compelling, almost flawless, with lots of funny lines.

For me, one of the most uplifting features of this movie is the way the whole ensemble of characters develops together. The strangeness of the characters as individuals, along with the convincing balance as (extended) family, reminds me of the ensemble in Running with Scissors. The quirky dysfunctionality and functionality of this family in combination are like nothing so much as the family in Running with Scissors. In any event, these are characters who together gain a renewed sense of hope … a hope that imbues this wounded band of characters with a sense of togetherness and vision that is to me very, very moving.

Another feature of this movie that I myself found especially appealing is the presence of such exquisitely composed visual scenes. These are of such delightfully crafted texture that in some ways this movie reminds me of the carefully composed scenes in Girl with a Pearl Earring and Atonement. The cinematography and beauty of scene after scene are just wonderful.

All in all, this is a fun, funny, moving portrait of a delightful band of characters. I highly recommend this movie to anyone.

I saw this movie yesterday and on the whole really liked it. Whew ... I don't know when last I've been to a horror movie / psychodrama that was so relentlessly scary ... in a lean, bleak, psychologically devastating way.

I thought the acting and scripting and directing and editing were all really excellent throughout. Everything but everything in this movie works together to draw you into an utterly horrifying experience.

What really captivated me was this understated but relentless tension that just grips and chokes and overwhelms from beginning to end.

This is the kind of movie that really, really makes you *feel* like you're there, going through what this unfortunate family went through.

If you haven't seen it yet and like good, chilling, judiciously bloody psychodrama, hey, check this movie out ... it's really scary psychodrama at its very best.

Charles Delacroix

I just saw this movie today ... "Whoa yeah ... finally!" I thought when I saw it in the movie listings here. It was released here yesterday ... about a month after it had hit wide release, I think. By now there have been so many positive reviews ... and I liked the trailer ... so I was looking forward to seeing this movie very much. Unfortunately, it really didn't live up to expectations.

First, though, the good things. I really liked the sets and scenery and cinematography. The good folks in charge of such things really seem to have worked hard to give us a vivid, convincing vision of period oil and period settings for oil production and life in a dry, arid land in the period West.

The acting performances ranged from very good to excellent throughout. Daniel Day Lewis did a wonderful job giving us as convincing a depiction of Daniel Plainview as I for one can imagine.

Having said that, though, Daniel Plainview as a character came across to me as affected, posturing, and very unconvincing. For that matter, most of the characters in this movie were to me unconvincing. And the script that gave them birth was to me generally very, very unconvincing. The action was slow, even boring, without being redeemed by any kind of realistic character development or story development. I honestly thought about walking out a few times, but persevered until the bitter end ... and ended up just shaking my head at a final scene that was to me just utterly incredible.

My own view of almost any movie that professes a realistic historical setting is that there are two major pitfalls to avoid: (1) treating a historical period as if it's a reflection of our own time: "just like us". And (2) treating a historical period as if it's a caricature, almost the opposite of our time: "nothing like us."

There Will Be Blood makes the second mistake,IMHO.

A movie about a bygone world that's really just a caricature, seen through eyes that don't have any sympathy for another time and another place, is an expression of what has sometimes been called "chronological snobbery": the idea that just because people and place belong to the past, they must be brutal or inhuman or idiotic or venal far beyond what we know in our own here-and-now.

So in this movie everyone seems driven by brutality and greed and inhumanity and sheer stupidity far beyond what we would regard as credible in our times, but apparently we're supposed to buy this kind of vision about the past. Why? Because ... "they lived back then" while "we live now" as if that's some kind of automatic reason to embrace a dehumanized view of people who lived and moved on this old world before we were born.

So we have a movie full of people who are all ... meaning, all, with (perhaps) one exception that I can think of ... driven, uncaring, brutal, greedy ... and too stupid to get out of the way of obvious dangers although somehow they've managed to survive, for years and years, in a dangerous, inhospitable environment. Not to give away anything, but the final scene gives examples of all of these incredibilities (if that's the word) in an especially unrealistic vision that (I guess) must be the scriptwriter's idea of how things were back in the early part of the century. Yet anyone with any actual knowledge of the period ... or with any actual knowledge of people in general ... would consider this to make no sense at all.

Don't get me wrong ... a bleak, Hollywood-type nihilism may not be appealing ... not to me anyway ... but it can at least be rendered realistically and convincingly. See for example No Country for Old Men ... another 2007 film that in some ways has the same "flavor" as There Will Be Blood.

But No Country for Old Men gives us a well-scripted story with a strong, convincing plot. There Will Be Blood, in contrast, unfortunately serves up a script that is unconvincing, unrealistic, incredible, ahistorical, and boring.

Charles Delacroix

I saw this movie today, and found a sort of coming-of-age tale told with a large dose of campy humor. I thought this movie was on the whole a good movie, though not the stand-out dark comedy/drama that it's reported to be.

The movie focuses on a vivid 16 y.o. pregnant teen named Juno, who is in so many ways a female version of Napoleon Dynamite. If you liked Napoleon Dynamite, you'll very probably like Juno; if you didn't like Napoleon Dynamite, you'll probably be well advised to pass on Juno.

I myself liked Napoleon Dynamite ... although the constant sardonic humor and uber-Attitude becomes rather trying, both in Juno and in Napoleon Dynamite, the whole does kind of grow on me ... as on others. This is the kind of character that I myself find fun, if cloying. I don't myself enjoy sardonic put-downs as a part of my regular diet. One viewing is enough for me. But that's me; to each his/her own.

The storyline I thought was very engaging, and the supporting script conveys it well. The acting ranged from solid to excellent. Ellen Page as Juno is perfectly cast and delivers her character perfectly. Michael Cera did a solid job as Paulie Bleeker. Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janney, and J.K. Simmons all turned in decent supporting roles. Cinematography, sets, sound were all good.

All in all, if you like teenage coming-of-age flicks in general, and Napoleon Dynamite in particular, this movie is for you.

I saw this movie today and admit I went with high expectations - which were generally disappointed. Still, it's a good geopolitical flick, full of action, humor, and sex.

Think of James Bond Goes to the US Congress and you'll get the basic flavor. Not bad ... but frankly, not all that good, either. I myself made the mistake of approaching this movie with overarching expectations based on the cast, and on the movie's capture of an amazing 5 Golden Globe nominations.

However, from my angle, the movie turned out to be an OK flick. OK, but a movie that doesn't deserve to be burdened with expectations that it just can't fulfill.

The storyline - about a Congressman who singlehandedly organizes the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and thereby brings about American victory in the Cold War - is not really more incredible than any National Treasure or Die Hard storyline. But it's not better, either.

Similarly, the script wasn't outstanding, but it delivered the storyline and delivered it well: fast-paced, with great action, great dialog, cool humor, and plenty of alcohol and sex.

The cast - especially Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Philip Seymour Hoffman - was stellar. These, and all supporting actors and actresses, turned in good, competent performances: nothing more, but nothing less, either.

Cinematography was solid and competent, again, no more, and no less.

All in all, I'd recommend this movie to anyone who would like a good, quick geopolitical flick with lots of action and humor. Think of National Treasure: Afghanistan or James Bond in the US Capitol and you'll have an idea of what to expect. Not bad ... but not all that good either ...

I saw this movie today the day after it opened here in general release. And I think this is the best movie I've seen in a long time.

The visuals captured me from the first frame. What an amazing series of scenes: a beautiful late 1930s English country estate; wartime France; Dunkirk; wartime London. Every scene appeared perfectly composed, perfectly filmed, with perfect colors and sights and sounds. Authenticity and beauty were captured on every single frame of this movie. The attention to detail was exquisite without becoming at any point distracting. If there's such a thing as perfect cinematography and perfect lighting and perfect editing, this movie must come about as close to achieving these ideals as I for one can imagine. In fact, if this movie had had no dialog at all, I think I would have sat enthralled by the absolutely amazing visuals, from beginning to end.

The story, though, was captivating in a special way. Special because of course we all know from the trailer what the basic plot is, and although there are important twists as things proceed, on the whole, we're watching a movie the storyline of which we already know. There's a special pleasure to watching something unfold like this, and I love the way the story was conveyed almost as much as I love the story itself. Deft flashbacks, with changes of point of view, convey so much of the richness of the story.

To me, the interaction between the characters and their context is what made the whole story so fascinating. Here we have really very narrow parameters laid down and our characters must make their choices within those parameters with consequences of personal enormity for each of them. The film conveys the Character--Context interaction in an especially fine way by showing & repeating again and again. Sometimes the repetition comes through flashback: for example, in the fountain scene. Sometimes it comes through interleaving points of view: for example, near the beginning, when Cecilia and Robbie are thinking about each other. Most fascinating to me is when the repetition comes through a sort of deft camera's wheeling slowly and deliberately through a scene, following characters moving this way and that: for example, the amazing Dunkirk sequence.

A key theme of the movie, as we all know from the trailer, is What's Real and What's Not. And this is played upon in so many wonderfully delightful ways. There are so many scenes through windows, and sights in mirrors, and POV shots up and down hallways and through fields; typewritten pages retyped and retyped and retyped. What we see, what we think we see, and what we do about what we see, or think we see, are all so intimately bound up with who we are: and this is expressed from beginning to end with a sense of authenticity and beauty that was for me just extraordinary.

The characterizations and performances were just wonderful throughout this movie. James McAvoy's Robbie Turner was excellent. Keira Knightly's Cecilia Tallis was solid and convincing. Saorise Ronan as the young, 13 year old Briony Tallis was just extraordinary for her age I hope that we see more of this young talent. All of the supporting actors and actresses were first rate. Special props should go to Vanessa Redgrave for her affecting and very convincing cameo as the elderly Briony.

Now I do have two criticisms that (to be honest) may or may not be reasonably laid at the doorstep of this movie.

One is that to me, the build up to the arrest felt like it *may* have been somewhat long. Maybe a little shorter would be better. Maybe.

Also, from time to time, I plain old had problems making out what was being said. I don't know if this is because I was simply so overwhelmed by the visual imagery that I wasn't paying as much attention to the dialog as I usually would. Or maybe the audio in my theater may have been a little off.

But these are really minor drawbacks to the movie, if they are drawbacks to the movie at all. Again, I'm just not sure. To me this is simply a splendid, wonderful, and captivating movie no less.

Before I close, I have something to say on a personal note.

My father & mother were both members of "The Greatest Generation" - the WWII generation which is depicted with such extraordinary clarity in this movie. My father was a soldier in WWII. My mother waited on the Home Front as she waited for him to come home. I take away from this movie a very strong sense that this is a true and authentic representation of what that period of time was like for this generation. I come away from this movie with a deep, deep, deep feeling of sheer gratitude for this generation. For the last half of the movie, I simply could hardly stop crying; and left the theater crying as well: tears of joy and gratitude and of sadness at the passing of this amazing generation.

All in all, then, if you want to see an amazing period piece about the extraordinary and ordinary people of the Greatest Generation, set in the late 1930s – 1940s: please, see this movie. It is absolutely one of the most delightful and authentic human tales of the World War II generation that I've ever had the privilege of experiencing. And the movie conveys its story with the most lovely, most beautiful, most affecting images that I have seen in years, perhaps decades.

As I feel deep gratitude for this generation, I feel deep gratitude to Director Joe Wright and everyone who brought this movie to us. It seems so little to say, but I'll say it anyway: Thanks.

I saw this movie this morning ... opening day here in Tulsa. And on the whole, my own reaction is that it's OK, but that's really about it.

The first National Treasure flick (2004) introduced us to Ben Gates, an engaging, adventuresome treasure hunter played by Nicolas Cage. Now we have a second installment in the franchise, and Nicolas Cage returns as Ben Gates. In addition, Justin Bartha returns as comical sidekick Riley Poole, Jon Voigt returns as Patrick Gates, Ben's father; and Diane Kruger returns as Abigail Chase, Ben's romantic interest.

The story line is full of archeology, history, humor, and adventure that takes our lead characters to Paris, London, Washington DC, and Mount Rushmore.

All in all, this is a pattern with which many are very familiar: the pattern successfully rendered in the Indiana Jones movies.

I won't give away anything except to say that I myself think that the National Treasure franchise is far less engaging than the Indiana Jones franchise. And I have to ask myself why.

I think, first, that scripts written for the Indiana Jones character always seem to me to be more convincing and more engaging. This has nothing to do with historical credibility: in this National Treasure movie, and its predecessor, we in the audience are fully aware that all the "history" in the movie is very, very unhistorical. Same for the Indiana Jones movies. However, in an Indiana Jones movie, the archaeological panoply is to me just so fascinating, and appealing, that I want it to be true even when I know it's not. And, in an Indiana Jones movie, the unfolding story is so much more fun than in a National Treasure movie. For both these reasons, in an Indiana Jones movie, I tend to take a look, roll my eyes, and then promptly suspend my disbelief and follow the storyline wherever it will lead me: it's that much fun and that attractive. Neither this National Treasure movie, nor its predecessor, lead me in this direction.

As for the lead characters, Indiana Jones is so much more appealing, to me, compared to Ben Gates. Indiana Jones, in his trademark hat and bull-whip, is such a wonderful figure, played almost tongue in cheek by Harrison Ford. But the character is so much fun, like the storyline, that again, I watch Ford's Indiana Jones, roll my eyes once or twice early on, and then suspend my disbelief and follow Indiana Jones while smiling through all his fascinating adventures. In contrast, Nicolas Cage's Ben Gates is a very different character, and just has no such appeal for me. In National Treasure: Book of Secrets, we see him at one point prancing comically on a staircase in Buckingham Palace. A few moments later, we see him peeping around a bouquet of flowers at his love interest. Watching Ben Gates in these scenes felt to me like I was watching a sort of metro-sexual version of Rowan Atkinson's Mr Bean character. I just can't see such a character as a heroic treasure hunter. In contrast, Indiana Jones is every inch a treasure hunter and hero. He's also a classic masculine hero, though one who is leavened by that occasional tongue in cheek irony.

About National Treasure: Book of Secrets: I did think this was better than the first National Treasure. The acting in the second movie, by everyone, was competent but unexceptional in delivering the script. The cinematography was good. Th4e dialog was sometimes entertaining. The the script overall supported a storyline, and a character, that didn't really appeal to me very much.

All the same, for light adventure and light entertainment, one could do a lot worse than go to this movie.

It's OK ... but that's about it, IMHO.

I saw this movie in a dollar movie recently ... actually my 2nd viewing, I saw it when it first opened around her, a month or so ago. I liked it then, and I like it now.

First, I really liked the introductory "background history". I would not recommend for a moment regarding this as "real history". But a geopolitical thriller like this needs something to set the geopolitical stage for the story, and this introduction made for a great quick "set up" that to me works very well indeed.

The idea of intermixing this intro with the introductory credits saves time and sets it apart from the rest of the story … which is what a good "set-up" should do. It's very much like having an opening panel, such as we see in a lot of 1930s or 1940s historical romances, that gives us a similar "historical" set-up. "In 1592, King Richard had left England on Crusade. While gone, the Sheriff of Nottingham ruled supreme. Only Robin Hood and his band of merry men stood in his way." In this example, I'm pulling the date out of the air, and everything else is made up, too. But that's the kind of placard they used to use to set up a Robin Hood movie. Well, in The Kingdom, the introductory sequence was an elaboration of that introductory placard. And to me it worked great setting up the story.

And what a great story. Like any good geopolitical thriller, it maintains a careful if sometimes intricate balance between the individuals involved in the narrow, here-and-now action, and the personages and institutions involved in the much larger "big picture" So we have 4 particular FBI agents constantly interacting with and reflecting on the larger political context in Washington, DC and in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. There's just enough dialog about these things to keep the story moving, without overwhelming the audience with the kind of boring "talking heads" scenes that afflict another contemporary movie about the War on Terror, Lions into Lambs. We have plenty of material to prompt from us a personal interest in the individuals involved here, who are presented as convincingly real people, and not as the kind of impersonal stereotypes who sit and lecture each other in Lions into Lambs.

The story is told with an immediacy and a fast pace that kept my attention throughout. Gritty realism is the style throughout and is carried off very convincingly, as far as I can see. All of the actors turned in solid performances from a script that seemed to me to be very convincing. The cinematography was excellent throughout.

All in all, I think The Kingdom is a wonderful movie that quickly engaged me, and then set about establishing and retaining my keen interest from beginning to end.

I just saw this movie today, the day it opened here. And was deeply, deeply moved.

I've got to start with the scenes of a deserted New York City post-apocalypse. These were so very, very moving; and very, very convincing. The clips in the trailers for the movie were good, but you really have to see the full panoply of close-up shots, distance shots, etc to really appreciate the sheer scale of what this movie is depicting. There's something of On the Beach and Resident Evil and of any number of disaster movies and zombie movies here. But none of them do justice to the New York depicted here. This is a New York City we see large-scale and micro-scale in order to show us the environment in which the main character is acting.

And Will Smith is simply brilliant as the sole survivor, Robert Neville. Will delivers movingly and convincingly on a script that really focuses on giving us a picture of "what it would be like" ... to be the last man on earth, living off the land in NYC. This is the real strength of this movie: there's really not a lot of blood or gore or zombie scenes at all. Yet I was riveted as Robert goes through his "typical days" in NYC. Every moment was full of pathos and full of menace, too. And occasionally we got some relief from Smith's trademark humor that blended seamlessly with the rest of his performance to give us "what it would be like" with a powerful delivery that just leaves me almost breathless.

There's an effective use of flashbacks that partly tell us the story of how we got to where we're at in this grim New York City; and the flashbacks also serve to give us an overwhelming contrast between Life Before and Life After the apocalyptic disaster wiped out the city. Yet use of flashback was sparing, which I found all the more effective.

Cinematography was excellent throughout, the storyline and script are brilliant, the use of a dog, Samantha, as a key actor was perfect to show us both Robert as companion and Robert as lonely, isolated survivor.

I won't give away the ending, but think it was satisfying as far as it goes, but not nearly as appealing, from my angle, as the foregoing material. That brings up my one complaint: the title. By the end of the movie, we have some sense of the meaning of the title. Yet it still seems to me to feel cheesy and really unworthy of the movie.

But that's a minor plaint. If you haven't seen this movie, and would enjoy seeing a really powerful story about a survivor in post-apocalypse New York City, hey, go check out this flick. It's really worth it.

I saw this movie today and really enjoyed it. The theater was fairly well filled for a matinée (I went to an 11:15 AM showing) and there was plenty of laughter and even applause from the audience. Both adults and kids really seemed to enjoy it from what I saw and heard.

One thing parents need to be aware of, though, is that the movie in some ways has what could be a very somber central theme: the death of Mr Magorium. I was really surprised at how forthrightly this theme was handled. But it was very, very well done, IMHO, and as I say, the audience, of all ages, responded very positively.

I've seen this compared to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. To this a long-time Willy Wonka fan - fan of the the original, that is, with Gene Wilder - sorry, gang, this movie doesn't come close.

But I'll admit to being hopelessly prejudiced on that subject. I still enjoyed the sheer fun and laughter and color and sounds of Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium.

The script was crisp, fun, and contained some great lines. The script's structure uses one of my favorite techniques for story-telling: making the story-telling part of the story. We page through a story book as we go through the movie, with Eric (Zach Mills) our delightfully enthusiastic narrator. What could be better?

The acting & characterizations were finely done. Dustin Hoffman played a suitably eccentric Mr Magorium. Natalie Portman was an adorable Molly Mahoney. Jason Bateman makes an appealing accountant learning to have fun. Zach Mills gives a wonderful performance as Eric the youthful Hat Collector.

All in all, if you or your kids have any inclination to have some fun in a magical toy emporium, this one is surely worth a visit.

Go ... and have fun!

I saw this movie today, the day it opened here. And had very mixed feelings about it.

The story, and the script undergirding the story, is to me the best part of the movie. The execution of the script was to me partly good, partly not so good.

I think it's the animation that most disappointed me. Maybe my expectations were staked too high based on pre-release buzz. But I'm really just mystified at those who rate the animation nearly perfect. Human faces and human bodies looked like comic book animation to me, except in those sequences in which either darkness or distance, or both, managed to obscure things enough to achieve a vivid genuineness that did indeed give me great pleasure.

Outside views of the Northern Danish snowy fastnesses were uniformly delightful, IMHO. My very favorite sequence was that with the dragon at the end of the movie. What a wonderful sequence. And the end of the movie was true Northern/Norse-mythic in content and execution: I loved it.

Acting was minimal but adequate for character depictions in a broad, sweeping mythic movie like this.

All in all, though, the story ... the amazing mythic story of Beowulf ... carries this movie and gives it what is to me a deeply satisfying telling of a tale that deserves to be told again and again and again.

Now if I can just get to see it in IMAX ...

I saw this movie today - it just opened here in Tulsa - and was amazed at how delightfully engaging a seemingly simple human story can be when a great script is placed in the hands of a wonderful director.

Think of a Hispanic, or Anglo, Tyler Perry who wants to show us that plain people aren't plain, and good families are really good.

As so many have already pointed out, this is a story about a young lady who learns that she's pregnant at the same time that she gets fired from a restaurant in New York City. Jose, a co-worker, befriends her and they spend a day that takes them ... and us ... in a wonderful tour of a city and a family that kept my attention riveted.

The cinematography and editing seemed utterly flawless to me. What amazingly delightful shots, what perfectly timed cuts.

The actors were all superb. Tammy Blanchard's Nina and Eduardo Verástegui's Jose were convincing and engaging. All supporting actors and actresses were excellent. And everyone was simply perfect at carrying forward this delightful story.

I would simply recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys convincing and engaging human interest stories.

This is a wholly delightful, heart-warming movie about exactly what the tag-line says: a man becoming a father, and a boy becoming a son.

The key conceit - a boy who thinks he's from Mars - provides a fine vehicle for exploring a whole series of themes: what's real and what's not; imagination as a means of coping; building trust; loss and healing. The script provides us with a story that very effectively ties all these earthly elements together by means of a Martian connection that is pleasing throughout.

The whole cast does a fine job, with John Cusack providing an exceptionally outstanding performance as David, the boy's adoptive father. Young Bobby Coleman does a fine job as the boy Dennis.

I especially liked much of the cinematography and scene visuals. This is a very visual movie. The scenes of David and Dennis amid the Christmas lights in front of the house were to me very, very appealing. So were the repeated visuals in which we saw a face through a window that partially reflected other things, often lights. The lights on the ceiling in Dennis' room, and the use of photography by both Dennis and David to help convey and capture and mediate reality ... all of these helped reinforce the credibility of the main conceit.

If you see this movie, be sure to stay for the closing credits, presented amid a pastiche of photos and scrapbook-like visuals that actually provide a quick review of the whole movie.

I just saw this movie today and was very deeply impressed. What a fascinating use of an unusual conceit to produce a movie full of humor, grace, and beauty.

The conceit - troubled young man forms a relationship with a life-sized doll - is unusual, and looks like the kind of thing that could only go so far. However, the scriptwriter, Nancy Oliver, elaborates this conceit with amazing skill so that the various subthemes are interwoven into a fascinating and engaging story.

The humor sprinkled throughout the story is to me perfectly calibrated in such a way that the rhythm is never broken: we get a quick laugh and then rapidly move on before any sense of cloying or over-play can set in.

Of course the title sets us up for an important theme: what is real? And the love story between the main character and a doll becomes a foil for examining various other kinds of love. But the primary theme undergirding all others is the love relationship between a troubled individual and a community.

The acting, especially by Ryan Gosling, is truly wonderful. The cinematography and technical features seem to be reflected in a very good light in this movie.

But it's the story ... and the story's execution ... that really make this movie what it is. I think the scriptwriter and director deserve especially strong plaudits for their work in this wonderful, wonderful film.

I saw this movie yesterday, when it opened here, and generally disliked it. I confess that I am not a Wes Anderson supporter: if I liked Wes Anderson films, then I would probably have liked this film, since it does seem very like other Wes Anderson films. But I disliked it probably as much as other Wes Anderson films.

What struck me most strongly this time was that I suddenly realized why Wes Anderson films ... or at least this one ... are so easy for me to dislike. It is because they seem above all imbued with a sort of consistent misanthropy.

Or at least this one does. The stylistic and structural elements are not repugnant to me. The cinematography seemed to me to be stylized but delightful. The scenes generally unfold as highly stylized tableaux vivants only loosely concatenated by a very loose plot structure. But the humor was what was most striking. I felt like I was once again a sophomore in high school, with a sneer on my lips for anyone and anything around me. And that is the kind of view of life that I feel I am invited to in this movie. Everything, and everyone, deserves a sneer, seems to be the Anderson message. Even ... in a particularly brutal sequence ... the death of a child.

Contrast another film maker known for his stylized approach to film: Quentin Tarantino. A Tarantino movie seems to invite me to almost the opposite of a sneer for everything; rather, I feel invited to like and respect and find something good and worthwhile in everything. In an Anderson movie, in this one in particular, I am invited to view everything with an amused contempt.

Thanks but no thanks.

I did love the scenes in India. The acting of the main characters seemed competently consistent with the tableaux vivants they adorned. There is a sort of crisp cadence to the unfolding of the loose concatenation of scenes that to me was appealing.

But all in all, I think I'd rather watch things that don't invite me to that sophomoric sneer that I thought I had long ago left behind.