Reviews

Lisa Kudrow is a phenomenally talented actress and this show is a much better fit to her talents that the lame later years of "Friends".

I wonder though, how funny is it to watch a person whose career has ended to scrape/bow/ crawl for something that will never yield any satisfying results (as witnessed in the first 3 episodes). The people in her personal life tolerate her, minimally. Her husband clearly wants no part of her. The step daughter is only using her own ladder of success. A sad reminder how kids today jump from 8 to 30 with no childhood in-between. (However the first time I saw her, I got one of the few laughs I've had watching this show - in the glasses she reminded me of Gilda Radner in her old "jewess jeans" commercial from SNL many years ago). The people she works with professionally *really* want nothing to do with her.

Does HBO really need 2 comedy series dealing with show biz? TV shows, Movies and even musical comedies have dealt brilliantly in the past, but even that works in small doses.

This is a great film. Not only does it give a snapshot of Walt Disney World at the time it was made (1972), it also gives a glimpse into the culture of Disney at the time. They wanted to portray the "vacation kingdom" as a place that not only gave the public Disney-fied entertainment, but was also a controlled/safe environment for the guests. Disney World opened at a time that contained greatest societal upheaval in the U.S. in the 20th Century: the Vietnam War; civil Rights and "Black Power", the Women's Movement, etc. Whether you agree or not, Disney wanted to create a place that was cut off in many ways from the the strife and pressure of the outside world.

It boggles my mind as to why this movie was made the way it was made. I heard horrible things about it and eventually went to see it this weekend solely because I knew it was a chance to see a stellar cast of actors in a really bad film....most of the principles in the film have either won or been nominated for an Academy Award.

The original book and film were a chilling portrayal of how far men would go to control women. The fact that both book and film came about in the early/mid seventies during the height of the women's movement made it even more relevant and both book and film stand the test of time.

The movie I saw this weekend had nothing to do with the original material. Paul Rudnick is a great, quirky writer, but re-writing this material was not his forté. Plus, how much more muddled could this story be? In the original, Joanna was a troubled woman who had many layers to her character.....in this version, she's an obnoxious TV executive who you could really care less about. They couldn't even decide if the women in the film were robots or just had their brains altered. No one can seem to decide on the answer to this issue. They made some lame attempts at real horror by repeating scenes from the original film: Joanna discovering her robot without the eyes and the scene in the supermarket. The supermarket scene was the final horror in the original film....You knew the real Joanna had been murdered by her robot replacement and that there was no hope to be found. In this version, it's followed by a complete, nonsensical "happy ending" that was annoying to say the least.

The only thing I can give this movie credit for is that they brought it into the modern age by adding a gay couple. At least that's something.

Believe it or not, that's what he's created here and it works beautifully. Although a bit more standard fare than what you'd expect from the writer/director of "Dogma" and "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", he does a great job with character, development, story and direction. Ben Affleck is great as the husband / father trying to come to terms with changes in his life and what those changes mean to his life, his family and his budding romance. Even musical numbers from Sweeney Todd are a lot of fun. Good cameos from some of Smith's "View Askew" stable of talent and look for a small role by none other than Mr. Rogers own "Lady Elaine", Betty Aberlin (who had a very small role in "Dogma").

One complaint: Product placement by Miramax in the video store scenes. Every poster and prominently displayed video box was for a Miramax/Dimensions film...just a bit annoying, but not much.

I have seen this film many times as the Timekeeper attraction in New Tomorrowland, Magic Kingdom, Walt Disney World.

Even though this attraction came about in the 1990s, it is very much a testament to the spirit of entertainment that Walt Disney created. It combines all of the elements that Walt was either a master of or created during his lifetime: Movies, story, music, engaging characters, Circelvision and Audio-Animatronics. The story itself is a dedication to great inventors and visionaries of history, using the characters of HG Wells and Jules Verne as the "stars" of the piece with visits to some other memorable visionaries of western civilization.

In one segment, there is a breathtaking view of New York City at night time. I was glad to see that shots of the World Trade Center towers were still seen in the film and not digitally removed....it obviously evoked the memory not only of a place now gone, but also the memory of the people who lost their lives in one of the darkest days in American history.

This is one of the best Circlevision films I've seen in a Walt Disney attraction. Most of the film is dedicated to the natural beauty of Canada, which is breathtaking from the eastern maritimes to the Canadian rockies and everything inbetween. Some of the city scenes are slightly outdated because it was made in 1982, but this could easily be updated, as they recently did with the new version of "Reflections of China" (another excellent travelogue)

This adaption of "Annie" is an excellent piece of film making. The casting,

direction, writing, choreography all come together in perfect balance to entertain people of all ages.

My only wish is that budget and time constraints would have allowed for the

entire original story and score to remain in tact. The Hooverville / "We'd Like to Thank You Mr. Hoover" sequence in the original stage musical was perfect in

showing the effects of the depression, as well as giving us the introduction to Sandy. I only hope that future TV musicals allow the time for the full production, much like the 1993 version of "Gypsy" starring Bette Midler.

I've noticed that some people have commented about the multi-racial casting

and how secretary Grace would never have been a black woman. Historically,

this is most likely correct, but again let's keep in mind that this is musical theatre and for people to just start singing with invisible musicians isn't very realistic either. I'm glad to see that Audra MacDonald was cast because she has the

perfect acting skills, personality and voice to play Grace. Even though many of these stories are traditionally "white", the ability to cast multi-ethnic roles only enriches the piece and is completely appropriate in our modern society.

Every time I see this movie, I'm reminded that this is probably the finest screen adaption of a Stephen King novel (and what was probably his best book).

Kathy Bates performance as Dolores is nothing short of superlative, even better than her turn in "Misery". With a story that moves back and forth through time, you see not only her physical, but emotional and spiritual changes through the years.

Another award worthy performance that was neglected was Judy Parfitt as Vera

Donovan. As Dolores' rich employer who teaches her that "sometimes being a bitch is the only thing a woman has", she is astounding. Her performances as both rich/cold matron with a soft spot to stroke victim years later is compelling to watch.

Jennifer Jason Leigh as the distant daughter who returns to face her own past and Christopher Plummer as the Javert-like investiagtor are well worth watching. So is David Straitharn husband who is nothing short of pure malice.

What makes this movie even more interesting was its transformation from book to screen. The book was originally told as a first person narrative by Dolores to the police following her arrest. The addition of the other characters as 3 dimensional people, plus the added plot point of having Dolores' estranged daughter return to her home town only added to story.

If you want to see a light, frothy movie with with great acting, charm, a good script, snappy direction, then this is the film for you.

>From the moment the retro 20th Century Fox logo rolls on to the screen, you know you're in for an homage to to the Doris Day / Rock Hudson comedy of days gone by. This little gem takes the elements of those films and whips in some 21st century sensibilities (with even a dash of feminism thrown in for good measure that doesn't evaporate when our pair come to their inevitable conclusion).

Zelwegger and MacGregor match quite well together in the battle of the sexes as they (albeit comedically) steam up the screen. Watch for a modern update to the split screen conversations that we remember from the days of Doris and Rock. The mantle of befuddled sidekick is handled expertly by David Hyde Pierce, while we are also treated to a few short appearances by the man w remember from these roles, Mr Tony Randall himself. Sarah Paulson also pulls off a great job as Zellweger's editor / friend / confidant who plays her own romantic cat and mouse with Hyde Pierce.

The production and costume designs are not recreations of 1962, but are lovingly remembered recreations of the period. Both are worthy of Oscar nominations. There is a lot of original music from the period peppered throughout the film, along with a snappy score by Marc Shaiman that weaves itself beautifully into the other elements of the film.

Special mention should also go to Jeri Ryan as Gwendolyn, the stewardess. Her character evokes a period when the job of stewardess was (or was at least thought to be) filled with glamour, excitement and some naughty fun during what seems to be a never-ending layover (pun intended). From the pillbox hat of her uniform to the purple eyeshadow, she almost wants to turn a gay man straight.

I have a very vivid memory of seeing this movie on my 6th birthday in 1971.

Like many kids, I enjoyed it for the fact that it was based on candy and showed kids getting their run of a chocolate factory (I even saved up coupons from cereals and got a "Willy Wonka chocolate making kit"). Watching the nasty kids get their just rewards and seeing the good kid win in the end was quite satisfying. Even the so-called scary stuff was fun....it gave you a nice jump during the movie.

As I grew up and became more educated, the movie became even more entertaining and enjoyable. I came to appreciate the wit and sarcasm present in Roald Dahl's original book and in the story and performances of the film.

An excellent morality tale for people of all ages.

P.S. - Why do they always excise "Cheer up Charlie" from the television viewings? This is the most poignant song in the whole file. Thank goodness for unedited DVDs.

I like to keep these things simple, without rehashing the plot so here goes:

Excellent story, worthy of the wide screen

Fantastic action sequences

Great character development and conflict - After 15 years of seeing these

characters on the small and big screen, viewers become familiar with their traits, personalities and responses. Putting nuances into the characters to keep them interesting after all this time is a tough job, but it was done quite well here.