Reviews

First, find a highly original story such as a book by Maurice Gee.

Second, get a named actor (Sam Neill would do and he's a pretty good sport). Some aspiring young amateurs will come cheaply -- and they'd probably like an excuse to get out of school. If the young ones are meant to be sympathetic characters, so much the better if they're good looking.

Third, leave out all the originality of the story, and replace it with your favourite Hollywood formula, particularly ones with truculent teenagers. Keep most of the character names or you might be accused of originality of your own. Keeping the location might be useful, but not necessarily. Maybe not a good idea to change the location to New York because too many people know what it looks like, and it would cost too much to film there.

Fourth, get some nifty special effects. Fire always makes a good spectacle.

Fifth, get some cheap hair-dye to make some of the main characters' hair red, but don't mention what red hair has to do with the story -- maintain a bit of mystery.

And there you have it.

Easy.

Comments on this list seem to indicate that everyone except some Americans seem to get what this movie was about. The subtle combination of very black humour and acute intelligence evidently is not for everyone.

That's a shame, because if it could be appreciated by the present White House, we'd not be hearing pathetically inane bleatings about fixing the world by taking out the "bad guys". Hint: This isn't just entertainment.

Until such subtlety is understood we'll only succeed in making problems worse instead of addressing their causes. If this movie goes some way to bringing about that understanding, it will be a great addition to the achievements of the human race. Even if it doesn't, I'm glad I saw it.

As others have expressed, there are some flaws in the plot -- notably how a plane could land to rescue Charlotte when it was impossible for one to make drops in the same area, but life doesn't follow very logical patterns, so I can live with that.

I was impressed with the subtle difference between what the Vichy "collaborator" heard in French (we hear in English) and what he says in German. For those who didn't follow it, "... fought for France in the Great War ..." becomes "... fought against Germany ...". I would have preferred to hear the dialogue in the language it was spoken in and read subtitles. After all, the mass market which would be put off by subtitles isn't going to be interested in a war movie in which the main character is largely unsuccessful, so forget the dumbing down.

For me, it was a much more interesting than the normal popcorn-type of war movie. Real bravery and sacrifice doesn't require weaponry and a dirty face but is shown in a more subtle way in "Charlotte Grey" -- notably the agent who in effect takes the bullet when Charlotte's first mission fails. The stories of comrades in arms has been told thousands of times before -- nearly always from a masculine perspective, but seldom is the story of regular people been portrayed as well as in this little Gillian Armstrong gem.

Others have commented on the great photography and the acting and I have few quibbles with what has been said. Cate Blanchette's accent sounded more Scottish at times than at others but in every other way she was as good as I have come to expect from when I first saw her in "Oscar and Lucinda" (another Gillian Armstrong gem). She has such an interesting face that can vary from the almost plain to the strikingly beautiful.

Don't wait for the video or DVD! Go and see some great big screen cinematography before it's too late.

This certainly isn't "Shawshank Redemption". It doesn't require that degree of suspension of disbelief. In other words, it isn't as far-fetched. The idea that someone had clairvoyant capabilities isn't nearly as absurd as the one that someone could smash a hole in a steel pipe with a rock -- AND time his blows to match the thunder!! That would have to be the most absurd idea I've ever seen in a movie -- including the Bollywood ones. Yet people rave about it.

I thought this movie was as good as I thought SR was ridiculous. A gripping story, good acting, great cinematography, and interesting characters with the violence that is a necessary part of the story being depicted in minimal but effective detail.

A movie always has to leave out lots that was in the book -- and Steven King usually puts in a lot of detail that isn't necessary to the story. I would suspect that most of those who rubbish this movie want to be spoon-fed the details. Someone who complained on this site didn't even get the detail that Bobby's dad was dead. If that detail doesn't register with the viewer, it's not the fault of the movie maker. I haven't read the book, and I found quite sufficient detail for a good screen drama. Who knows? I might just read that book too.

Only the two main characters are developed to any extent. We find out only a bit about Ted, and that's what he thought appropriate for Bobby to know. Bobby's telling this story and he sees the world in a degree of detail similar to that of my 11 year old nephew's view. The bit we know and the tantalizing wonderings about what else there is to know about Ted is entirely appropriate for a story such as this. The way Ted waves to Bobby out the back of the car tells as much as a chapter in a Stephen King book. Anthony Hopkins is always great.

Bobby's mother is fairly one-dimensional, but the point is, that's how Bobby sees her until he forgives her near the end. Some might have thought that just how things changed between them could have been developed more. The point is: the fact that he didn't write to Carol as he'd promised he would tells us that something substantial happened. Nothing more is necessary.

I'll certainly look out for more of Scott Hicks.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that this film was so well received despite the story not going anywhere very exciting, explosive, nor very sexy.

Not much like Hollywood and not likely to win Oscars despite almost universally good acting. (Those just aren't the characters who have their actors win Oscars.) YCCOM is much more like Iranian films by Kiarostami such as 'Through the Olive Trees', or low-key Chinese films. If you like this one, you might also like 'Mr Zhao' or 'Ermo', which would probably not be spoiled by transferring to video (but I think you really need a big screen to see the marvellous photography in Kiarostami's work.

A very good choice of music. Lovers of 'cello and steel guitar get a great earful in the same movie. I just had to wait to hear the end of the "Pilgrim" song at the end, but most city slicker were out the door of the cinema before the introduction finished.

My only quibble was with the building site that everyone in the story seemed to know about but we don't know where it was in relation to the rest of the story. Something must have been cut out of the print I saw....

"Angela's Ashes" is not the sort of literary achievement that transfers well to film, but this was a good attempt. I would see anything that has Emily Watson in it because she's such a fine actor. I thought she could have looked a bit scruffier, and perhaps some grey hairs by the time Frank was a teenager.

For me the charm of the book was the levity in the descriptions of the squalor in which Frank grew up. The movie did a good job depicting the squalor, but could not maintain Frank's captivating descriptions which have a childlike charm, and despite everything, largely unjudgmental. The rendition of the First Confession got close to it. I've spent quite some time in Ireland, most of that in Limerick, but I never saw rain as heavy as it was in nearly every outdoor scene. It's wet, but it doesn't have monsoon rain. Even Ang Lee's marvellous "Sense and Sensibility" did that too. It seems that just as we get used to the rain in the British Isles, we have to get used to this type of depiction of it on film.

A good effort, but I thought the scene with the lunar eclipse (which was not in the book as far as I recall), was corny.

And Disney is best when it doesn't suffer from Not Invented Here syndrome. It's hard to believe this is a Disney production with this depth of character and plot.

Hardly anyone on this list mentioned the great Randy Newman music. The song "When She Loved Me" is as fine a song as you'll find anywhere and is used to very good effect. The animation is not what I'd call silky smooth. It does not make the movements of people very realistic, but the facial expressions of the toys are done better than many actors we are accustomed to seeing. Numerous animators are credited. The ones who did the faces deserve some special recognition, but what award is there to do that?

This is one of the few sequels that is better than its predecessor. The Gods Must Be Crazy is the only other one I can think of.

Is your life a failure because in the end, as predicted, you'll die? It's how you get to it that counts.

In any case, there were so many holes in the mathematics and basic plot, I would defy anyone to be equally and identically inept to make the same calculations to come to the same "prediction". Yes, it was fairly obvious that the "retard" would be the sole survivor, but every story is a combination of parts of the 3 or 4 unique stories. Who's predicting what happened to him after that?

I was in my 20s before I learned not to allow plot holes and continuity inaccuracies to detract from my enjoyment of the overall effect of any sort of production. It's rather like the way people you meet can be wonderful despite numerous imperfections. They are unique combinations of unoriginal parts. There's a knack of not deciding until you've seen all the parts what you think. It's worth developing. Even so, most Hollywood trash is still trash.

Everyone has to admit it was an original set. I suspect most of the detractors saw it on a tiny screen instead of a cinema screen without distractions. The suspension of disbelief is that much more difficult in that case. Some of my favourite movies are loathed by people who saw the same ones on video, and I agree -- many of them are loathsome in that format. It is very unfair on the film makers to judge from the video.

I thought just enough was explained and the characters had as much depth as those of most movies that make it to Academy Awards. If you allow the suspension of disbelief, the acting wasn't any worse than that of many famous Hollywood heart- throbs. Despite the desmise of the last few characters being fairly corny, it was a pleasant relief from the big FX sci-fi Disneyland character based movies that have become famous. This was much better.

I was a bit concerned that many posters have thought Humbert actually loved Lolita. Let's not confuse love and lust.

This is the story of a pathetic middle-aged man who cannot disentangle himself from his attraction to a nymphette. It is told almost entirely from his perspective which is tragic and totally humourless, a role which Jeremey Irons does to perfection. He does not find Melanie Griffiths attractive (who appears fat to him but not to anyone else -- remember how spunky she was in Cherry 2000?). His only interest in her is to gain access to the object of his desire. He is acutely aware how inappropriate it is, but he's powerless to resist. Thus the momentum is set for most of the entire film.

With few notable exceptions, movies do not do justice to books, just as videos don't do justice to movies. I would venture to say it would be impossible to find a 12-year old who had the maturity to act Lolita. Not particularly attractive (nor unattractive) Dominique Swain at 15, makes a very believable 14 year-old (but not a 17 year old) and puts in a splendid performance in the title role. Perhaps it was possible because she hadn't had previous acting experience. It made me think of the incredible non-professional child actors in many Iranian films -- though none of those would be given such an intense role as this one.

The sign of good incidental music is that the audience doesn't notice it, only the mood it conveys. It was conspicuous by its absence at times but I rarely noticed it. I had been to a concert of superb Beethoven Chamber music a few hours earlier in the day I saw this film. Since I am of the view that Ludwig wrote half of the world's exquisitely beautiful music, the fact that I didn't notice the incidental music is high praise of it indeed.

I find appealing incidental images such as the flowers in the hospital rubbish bin and the old lady on the porch waving to all the traffic, but some were made a little too obvious. A longer shot would have made these images less obvious and to my mind more satisfying. The rest of the cinema audience had left and didn't see the final few frames after the credits. That sequence might have Bible fanatics upset, but I liked it. Come to think of it, so might they....

The proliferation of 1940s consumerism paraphenalia and the vacuuous pop music did not convey any sense to me of satire, but did do a fairly accurate job of setting the social atmosphere. With no sense of the satiric or comedic, the shooting scene just looked silly. How come this guy's still walking even though he's been shot three times? Since the story is told from HH's perspective, I took that to indicate he did not have a good grip on what was objectively observable.

Excellent photography almost as good as Nicolas Roeg's (e.g. "Walkabout" or "Don't Look Now") combined with great acting and music makes a film that anyone who has ever felt manipulated by another could relate to, even if they confuse love and lust.

Perhaps people who have never played Theatresports just didn't get the point of the badly done accents. Otherwise they'd have realised what a clever self-parody it was. Odd how Jennifer Jason Leigh acts better when she's not serious about it....

Who said Canadians don't have a sense of humour?

A very well constructed story with good characters and imaginative photography and music. Quite amazing to think it was filmed almost entirely in England.

For someone familiar with India, Nepal and Tibet, a lot of suspension of disbelief was necessary, but few would have been so affected in 1947 no doubt. Darjeeling is the Anglicised corruption of Dorje Ling, the original Tibetan name for that region before it was acquired by the Brits. Some vaguely Tibetan and Nepalese clothing was evident, but nobody behaved anything like a Tibetan, though it must be said a fairly good attempt at a Nepalese girl by Jean Simmons. I just had to laugh at the sound of kookaburras in the bamboo in the small hours of the morning, dramatic intensity notwithstanding. :-)

Those small matters aside, it really is a wonderful piece of cinema, with those small matters being probably very much part of conventional wisdom at that time. Another wonderful legacy left us by the Powell and Pressburger team.

More than two years ago, I read that Emily Watson would be appearing in this film, and I've been looking forward to it ever since. Someone else said he was expecting a chick flick and was pleasantly surprised. I expected something quite different from a chick flick and was disappointed. (Says something about expectations -- as if we didn't know that already.)

With two suburb actors, wonderful cello music and a fantastic story, how come the movie is such a dud?

Somehow, it seems to me that had this been directed by Ang Lee it would have lived up to promises. His ability to handle family dynamics is needed here. The annoying use of swooping camera shots that seem to plague everything Channel 4 does tends to make me think they have some flash equipment to pay off by using it every chance they get.

Despite the film's failings, Rachel Griffiths gives her usual superb performance. It's many years since I stopped imagining there was any justice in Awards, so it didn't surprise me that she was overlooked this year. Some years ago I was in America and heard someone on National Public Radio describing how acting ability has little to do with Academy Awards. For women, it has to be a character who is in command of her life with the actor's ability of little consequence. (For men, the character has to have some sort of fragility.) I'm reminded of his comments every Awards. Judi Dench fitted the formula this year.

One day both Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths will be recognised. I hope they don't have to do it the way Kate Winslet did.

This is the first movie I've seen that Tom Hanks handled remotely well. Many things made it better than most war movies, but the final shoot-out was just like any other war movie. Would all those guys really have been out there without helmets? Did they have to take them off so we could tell which character was which?

I know the English will be upset that there was no reference to the other nations taking part mostly because they ignore even the Scottish in their view of THE war between Germany and England, but that's no excuse for Spielberg to leave out any reference to the many other nations taking part. We don't have to have a whole series of characters but they could have been mentioned in the dialogue. Some of the Irish soldiers used as extras could have been Australians or Canadians or whatever.

Seems like there was good reason to leave out the smoke on the beach but did it have to be replaced with the numerous fires that continued to burn during the pouring rain?

The character of the corporal was well written and acted and the morphing at the end was good, but I would have liked it more if geographical and historical details had been more accurate and the laws of physics hadn't been ignored.