Reviews

--you don't want to miss out on the superb performance by Samantha Morton, when, as Mary Stuart, she finds out that she is doomed. I saw this film on DVD- and when Ms Morton's scene was played I had to repeat it. It is incredible acting all 60 seconds of it. Just watch her wonderfully subtle facial expressions as she becomes aware of the inevitable consequences of her actions. Now that's about the only thing that I was moved by in this film. Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush always deliver great performances, but this was not the stage for their talents. The history was often wrong, the settings were too lavish and the writing was paper thin. I enjoyed the first installment enormously, but I was almost enormously disappointed by this film.

I couldn't wait to get out of the theater. There is so much wrong with this picture that I hardly know where to begin. I'll list just a few of the aspects that annoyed me most. First, it was overlong- there should have been a lot more celluloid on the cutting room floor. Second, the science is largely wrong. Snakes do not attack people that way; real aircraft are not built to allow animals to get up to the cabin or cockpit as easily as these snakes did; commercial planes flying at altitude (20000+ ft) do not decompress that way- you get immediate fog and ice and everyone suffers terrible head pains from pressure differentials- and then there're the affects of hypoxia which were largely ignored in this film. Planes don't go up by pulling back on the stick. You need to increase power to go up. Planes also have structural limits to dive velocities. You can't just push the stick down and go as fast as you want. Above certain speeds the plane could have severe structural damage. All this was very distracting and annoying for me. Maybe the movie should have been made as a comedy- perhaps then these issues would have been tolerable. I know my opinion is in the minority here. I guess the creators are playing off peoples fear of flying and snakes.

Regarding 'Scoop', here's my scoop: 'much ado about nothing', or if

that's not strong enuf, another jibe, apologies to the Bard: 'full of silliness and fluff, signifying nothing'. 'Scoop' is just a silly, unimportant farce, good for a few laughs but not much else. SJ's performance must have suffered both from the direction and writing. She's really capable of much better. The best joke was when SJ observes of Woody (who plays a stage magician posing as her father): "The problem with you is that you always see the glass as half empty", to which Woody replies, "No, I always see the glass as half full, only it contains poison!" The audience I sat with enjoyed it and laughed a lot. I also had a few laughs, but not much else. The cinematography was very good. It looks like Woody is abandoning the Apple for London town, if his last two films are any indication. Sehr interresant.

After viewing this documentary, I did some additional research on this company, Kozmo.com and discovered just how ridiculous the dot.com business model (if you can call it that) was. The DVD that I viewed had some additional information on the founders of this company. After the company failed, the CEO, Park, is reported to have gone off to the Harvard Business School. Incredible, but not surprising. I thought the documentary was terrific in that it perspicuously presented the 'scam' that was perpetrated by this company by going after funding instead of profitable and meaningful business. Kudos for producers and directors Wonsuk Chin and Sam Pai.

I guess I expected Revolution OS to show not only the history of LINUX and OpenSource but also why these softwares are better than their commercial counterparts. I was pleased with the presentation of the history, as I had not been previously aware of it, but I was less than satisfied with the documentary's complete lack of any demonstration, however brief, of the software and an explanation of why it's better than Microsoft Windows. There's a scene where Bill Gate's is responding to the issue of free software. Some of his remarks make sense- but it was difficult to focus on the ideas because at that point there was absolutely atrocious and intrusive music 'pasted' into the background and I couldn't help feeling that I was being manipulated. I also did not get how some of these developers make their money. Someone has to create the software. This takes time. People have to eat and they need to pay for their food to eat. If they are giving their time away developing free software, where are they getting the money for food? I would have liked the documentary to address that issue. I would also like to say that I do use OpenSource software and find it to be quite good, and since it's free, remarkable. I think the OpenSource movement is revolutionary, but I'm not sure this film brings this across.

I saw this movie when it first came out and was moved by the great acting of James Dean. Last year I finally read the novel. And then I went back to the movie once more. The acting is still great and the music is good, but it's not East of Eden. This is sad. The novel is truly inspired. The movie does not tell the story that John Steinbeck wrote.

This delightful movie had me laughing long after leaving the theater. The script was vigorous and the musical selections were a joy. I found the camera work to be quite interesting, especially in the part where the two woman were arguing on the street about wedding invitations. The camera moved from one to the other with varying speeds that were in sync with the intensity of their emotions and expressions. This increased my empathetic response to the scene.