Reviews

I waited a long time to see this as nothing I heard about the film seemed interesting. Now, I am glad I waited and went to the less expensive matinee.

I am left feeling that America has an awfully short memory. There is nothing in this film that hasn't been done, story-wise, before. A lot of the themes seemed to be left over from an earlier age. Vacuous teens and the pathetic lives of the materialistic middle-class were done to death in the sixties and seventies, with better sex too. I had hoped to see something more original but I guess a lot of very young movie goers will never see all the old films so this is their introduction to some very tired, overworked old themes. That left me wondering out loud what all the hoopla has been about, so I tried to find something redeeming here.

The director did a good job with the material he had. Not too hard to stand above that script. (music, costumes and sets were mundane, nothing striking, but well executed for the setting.)

The acting was the one saving grace. Spacey and Benning played characters I have known. They gave realism to the pathos. Their portrayals with the material they were handed was excellent. The real standouts (because of their newness) were the younger actors and actresses (ladies, there is nothing wrong with being female).

Wes Bently showed real talent in his restrained portrayal of the edgy - otherwise stereotypical - young rebel. He saved what could have been a joke.

There has been a lot of talk about Mena Suvari in this film. She was OK, but nothing to live up to all the hype, foul mouth notwithstanding. (Note: I am fully aware that hoards of young girls now talk like this character. It is not cute or funny, it's kind of pathetic, which was the point I suppose.)

The real shining talent here was Thora Birch as Jane. She managed to breath what little life there was into this film while managing to look much better than Suvari doing it; no mean feat. She is stunning in both talent and beauty and there is a great future for this fine young talent, as well as the others.

Chris Cooper's portrayal was true to the script, I am sure, but it left me with "Huge Hollywood Stereotype" running through my mind. His acting was excellent, the script wasn't up to what he brought to it. The character was disappointing, in the least. Allison Janney as his very disturbed wife was a little over the top too. It left me thinking the screenwriter and director were both really straining to paint villainy with these two characters. It smelled. Has no one heard of originality? Nicholson did the last credible evil Marine Colonel. There may never be another.

That about does it for me. I know I sat near the rear of the theater and saw four couples leave shortly after the garbage mouth scene from Suvari. I think she did it well, though. Too bad this is what we have degenerated to. She doesn't represent some far-out rebel, but a main-stream young woman. How sad.

As for the film's theme, decadent America has been done to death, so forget it and look for something new, will ya. I would have even liked to see Benning naked more than Suvari, at least that might have been more real and seemed less crude, crass, exploitative and pedophiliac. Besides, she's every bit as beautiful as the younger girls in this film.

I am not a fan or "horror" movies and seeing this movie was a relief to me because it isn't one. It is much more. This is a brilliantly done retelling of an old tale, masterfully told and beautifully presented.

The original Washington Irving story is still there but with some new twists. For example, Ichabod Crane, played by Johnny Depp, was a schoolmaster in the original and he's a detective here, but it works.

Christopher Walken is appropriately menacing as the Hessian Cavalryman who becomes the horseman and Richardson is tinged with just enough evil to be interesting. Christina Ricci is fetching and mysterious as a young lady interested in Crane. Her portrayal is as outstanding as she is beautiful. The remainder of the characters are excellently cast. The casts performances are tight and true to the story throughout. Casper Van Dien as Brom Van Brunt is surprisingly good as well. Van Dien has a fight scene with the horseman and Crane (Depp) that is a striking and outstanding example of action and how it should be executed for maximum effect. I have to say here that I went into the theater expecting to be disappointed with the special effects after seeing the trailers. I was wrong. This film came alive in this telling and the effects were flawless.

My favorite aspect of the film, however, was the sets, lighting and the overall mood Burton and Emmanuel Lubezki, as cinematographer, accomplished here - it really mesmerized me. This is done as a brilliant film noir-esque piece.

Even the gore was in context.

This is a great film.

I went to the film prepared to be disappointed. You see, I read "Eater's of the Dead" years ago and it remains one of my favorite Crichton books. It is imaginative and masterful. I always wondered why it had never been made into a film as Crichton's other books had. When I saw the production announcement I eagerly awaited news and was disappointed early on with stories that the book had been greatly compromised and they had coped out early with a name change.

Hollywood didn't disappoint me. The film was a pale shadow of the book. The entire premise of Neanderthals surviving into the middle ages was completely lost in this silly characterization of some lesser unnamed bad guys.

Also conspicuous by its absence was the uninhibited rampant sexuality of the Northmen. The sanitization of this aspect of the book just added to the disappointment.

Some of the fight sequences were well done, with some of the better two-handed swordsmanship I have seen on film. Some of the actors portraying the Vikings were surprisingly good too. In that regard i would have to say that the casting was quite good. They almost made up for some of the other shortfalls, but not quite. This could have been a remarkable film, Hollywood again chose mediocrity. I would score it a bit above Hollywood's average though for the sets, costumes, swordplay and the great scenery.

The togetherness in this town is really something. One man's misfortune assures he will be well remembered for ages.

The cast is ideal in this fine offering set in a small Irish village. Inventive and very funny.

I expected to see another mediocre romantic comedy like You've Got Mail, but I was surprised that enough was different here to make it interesting. The London neighborhood and the characters entertained (although hearing the starring flat originally went for $500K was a bit much.). Especially entertaining was Rhys Ifans as the flatmate "Spike". I had to resist feeling insulted at such a portrayal of a Welshman in order to admire the performance though. He was very good, even down to the recent cultural shift among some Celts to revert to the pre-British spellings of their names; that I applaud.

The sets and locations lent an air of realism, too; lots of small details. The Camera work took great advantage of these and gave us a visually rich film without it being "in-your-face" - it caressed.

The remaining performances surprised too. This was the best I had Seen Hugh Grant. He was perfect in the role. Just enough modest loveability for the ladies in the party. Then there was Julia Roberts. I do not know when I have enjoyed her more in a film. It wasn't the part, the script or her character. She just seemed "on" for this in a very engaging way. It was a delight to drink in the different looks and degrees of costume. She looked very fetching in the scenes where it appeared as though she were sans makeup; just basic glowing beauty.

The only negative aspect of the film for me was the multiple breakups. I would have preferred seeing a slow maturation of their relationship. Still, that wasn't enough to spoil the overall effect. It was refreshing and entertaining to feel good at the end of a movie after some recent things I've seen. Oh, there's room for all those dastardly realistic, rend-your-heart-to-shreds kind of things, but sometimes I just want to go to a movie to feel good. Most telling was at the end of the film, the audience spontaneously applauded; a real rarity. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. So much so I hated to see it end. Bravo.

It is probably impossible to assess the content of this film in other than the context in which it was developed and presented. My own first viewing was in 1968 a matter of mere weeks before having to report for duty in the US Armed Forces. At that time I did not know whether or not I would have to go to Viet Nam as many of my friends already had. Some had already been killed or wounded in action. In this context, the film is one I will never forget.

John Wayne made this as a political film in an attempt to counter the rising tide of what he and others like him saw as treasonous protests against the government and the military over the conflict in Viet Nam. This horrid almost-war was tearing many families apart in controversy. Wayne wanted to make a patriotic statement of support for the Armed Forces who had been so good to him. He was denied several attempts at enlistment in WWII and was classified 4F. He made films to support the allied war effort then and hoped to show support again even though this was never a real war. Instead he was widely ridiculed by a rabid leftist press.

Yes, the film was definitely not accurate in the way we have come to demand of today's films. Such accuracy may have been impossible in the political climate of the day. There was deep seated anger in the upper military echelon for not being allowed to wage an actual war. Every engagement between forces was won by the Americans, but they were forbidden from the beginning to the end from pressing an attack. The result was perhaps history's worst military "Catch 22"; fight and then wait for the enemy to regroup, rearm and reattack. I still know military people who hate the entire media for the brow-beating they gave the military and Congress, who - in turn - forbade the military from pressing more aggressive action.

Wayne was also attempting to counter people in the entertainment industry whom he and others considered traitors (then and still) such as Jane Fonda, who visited and spoke in support of North Viet Nam.

It was this climate Wayne stepped into. His effort was genuine but it resulted in a cameo of the war rather than something palpable. Something that good has yet to be made. Much of what went on, real high drama and touching personal stories, has been almost entirely ignored by Hollywood. Thus, this also remains one of the few films of the hugely controversial era.

Now, this is a story. It is easy to come to like the characters in this film. It is a strangely warm, thoughtful, caring movie about the trials and tribulations of growing up among the vast bluecollar yesteryear of the late 1950's and of a few young men who dream and strive for a better life. All of the actors and actresses here deserve a round of recognition. Bravo.

I thought it was OK, but I saw this film with three women, all of whom loved this film. That made me wonder why and ask questions. Well, it emphasized the importance of loving those around us and not being lost in pursuit of a dollar. It stressed that "real" people only get one shot a being someone's parent. It endorsed the old fashioned concept that a man and a woman could really love each other and be happy with that. Michael Keaton was appropriately warm and sensitive in the way many women wish their men really were (just a tinge of "bad boy" is more than enough). Kelly Preston was lovely and lovable in just the right way (made me envy John ...). The kids were all believable as, well, kids. All in all, not a bad way to spend a couple of hours. People who try to over-intellectualize these things are missing more than the point, they're probably missing out on just a bit of life as well.

OK, the biz touted this as an ideal movie to take a date for Valentine's Day. This is true if suicide is on the agenda. This was a hugely disappointing, depressing movie. The woman I saw the film with was so ticked off at the ending she is still ranting as I type, hours later. It could have been a warm, wonderful love story. They canned that for "drama" or "tragedy" or some other attempt at "art". In these days, many people already lead lives filled with stress, disappointment, tragedy, loss and a whole host of other things listed under the heading "Life Sucks". Sometimes people just want to see a movie that is comforting or uplifting in some way without being saccharine. There has been a real glut of films with horrible endings of late. I am sick of it. I want some escapism. I'd like to feel good for a change when I leave a theater without having to see a "kiddie movie".

In this offering of the early years of the reign of Elizabeth I the emphases are on early suitors for her hand in marriage and on the struggle between the two factions of the Protestant and Catholic clergy. Although the film was completely a masterpiece of film art, it misses the mark slightly with it's obvious anti-catholic bias and it's habit of ignoring historical fact. Although many films such as this do use a good deal of artistic license, it would be just as interesting - perhaps more so, to portray the events that shaped a future world accurately.

If one remembers the makers have played havoc with history, it surpasses mere entertainment. It is a joy to watch.