Reviews

This is a terrible movie. With terrible actors. And actresses. If you wish to watch a better Pearl Harbour film, stick with "From Here to Eternity". Heaven knows Montgomery Clift and Burt Lancaster are a damn sight better than Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, and nicer looking to boot.

This is my favourite anime by far. It has absolutely everything; romance, adventure, action, angst, etc, etc. The animation is breathtaking, much better than the likes of DragonBall Z. There is nothing to dislike about the characters; after a while, you love each one of them. But my favourites are Washu and Ryoko, who are definitely the deepest characters out of them all.

10/10 every time. It's a shame that Tenchi in Tokyo had to stray so far.

Plotline: Bad. Very, very terribly bad. Somehow, it's doesn't really matter.

Characters: Excellent. It's impossible to dislike Goku. It's impossible to dislike Vegeta, too, after a while. Every character is individual, and very colourful. My favourite being Supreme Kai.

Voice Acting (English Dubbed): Bad. The voices change in the middle of the Frieza Saga and again in the start of the Android Saga. It's impossible to say one positive thing about the voice acting.

Animation: Ranges wildly. Very good at the start, slack in the Frieza Saga and absolutely ROCK BOTTOM in the Cell Saga. I could do a better job, and I'm not known for my artistic prowess. However, it picks up again and is top notch for the Buu saga.

Entertainment: The fights often go on for episodes upon episodes, and become terribly boring after a while. The fights, however, are usually very entertaining and remarkably well animated. It is a very humourous and sometimes quite sad anime, but not top of the pile.

End result: 7/10. Not as good as Tenchi Muyo, but not as bad as The Wannabees.

Why anyone finds this frightening is beyond me. It's melodramatic, weak and very, very boring. The plot is almost nonexistent, and the characters are terrible. It's an utter mess. If you must have the "Thing" experience, stick to the original film, or better, the original story entitled "Who Goes There?". In short, this is more like a Scooby Doo episode than a respected film.

It's a good film. It's a very good film, I'll give it that. But it's not as funny as it should have been, what with Feldman and Wilder. It does help to have a knowledge of the Brooks comedies of the 70's, though, to understand some of the jokes. I did like the little nod to Young Frankenstein. However, it is easily forgettable.

How anyone can fault this remarkably funny sitcom is utterly beyond me. The comedy ranges from the most crude to the superiorly intelligent. I particularly like Dougal's (Ardal O'Hannon) take on the death of Kurt Cobain, offensive as it was.

There is nothing to dislike about this; the characters are lovable (especially Dougal), they're hilarious and it is the most Irish humour possible. It's a big pity this show was not as renowned around the globe as it was in Ireland.

Eleven out of ten, just for showing us how unsophisticated comedy can win over every time.

I thought this film was dull. I understood it, though it was a challenge, and saw its point, but I couldn't help feel unsatisfied at the end. Perhaps I wasn't meant to; I usually don't feel satisfied at the end of any film. (Save Jean-Pierre Jeunet's `Amelie', everyone liked that)

Richard Kelly is quite young, so we may forgive him for being so skittish with his plot, but not his debauched characterization. Donnie, the protagonist, veers from suicidal freak to happy-go-lucky in a matter of seconds. He's on medication and is crackers, but it's still not forgivable. It is important for us to feel connected with the main character, and here it is possible only for deranged teenagers with a giant rabbit for a friend. These particular persons are a minority.

I quite liked Drew Barrymore's acting in this; but then again I hated Charlie's Angels and am always up for giving people a second chance. (Save Kate Bosworth)

In short, the movie was well acted, well-cast (Particularly Gyllenhaal, whom I will always applaud) and is delightfully dark. However, like other delightfully dark items such as Black Forest Gateau, the thick veins of the movie are choked by a sour chocolate sauce. There are too many subplots. Now I love subplots, don't get me wrong; they are one of the three Messiahs of the film world (the others being Marty Feldman and Hitchcock) but here it is absolutely ridiculous. There is a jet, time travel, Christina Applegate (who is ridiculous enough by herself) a giant rabbit named Frank, the 80's for chrissake, and something about water coming out of people's chests which evaded me completely on the first viewing. The whole thing is like a drunken trip round a disco first time round; you're supposed to take it with a pinch of salt and not really do anything. Don't think about it, and you'll be cynical. Do and you'll be lost.

I was choosing between this and "From Here to Eternity" at my local video store. I got both, but rathered this, incidentally.

Hitchcock, master of direction, suspense wizard extraordinaire has unleashed another mystery upon us; Jeffries (Excellently played by Stewart) has broken his leg, and takes to watching people out of his apartment window. His neighbours are for the most part an amicable bunch (one feels affection for them after a while) but there is a grey area inhabited by one man. Soon, it becomes apparent to Jeffries that his neighbour isn't of good heart, and it seems that Jeffries has become a witness to a masked murder.

The beautiful Grace Kelly, goddess of the silver screen, also stars in this classic thriller. The thrills, as Hitchcock said of the movie, are not to be expected; one must relax and let the shocks arrive. They take their time, may I add, but when they come it really is quite suprising.

10/10, well directed, well cast, well acted, well everything.

Why Lansbury was cast as Sybil Vane I'll never know.

I am a great admirer of Wilde, as can be gathered from my name, and therefore was expecting more from this film. Henry Wootton, perhaps my favourite fictional character, was misunderstood.

Sanders is excellent, of course, and delivers Wilde's lines excellently, flamboyantly and with quite a lot of wit. However, one cannot help think the man doesn't understand Wilde; indeed, I believe there are few who do understand Wilde, but somehow, Henry needs to be one of them.

I can't fault Hurd Hatfield; the man is godly. Quite handsome, but I believe someone stated before that he isn't as handsome as Dorian is made out to be. He has a more worldly charm that the innocent Dorian.

Lansbury is the main fault in the cast. I read the book before watching the film, and having fallen in love with the pre-Henry Dorian myself, I wanted Vane to be innocent and pure and abiding to canon. I cannot help feel that Lansbury cannot see the point of Sybil's character. Lansbury seems too sure of herself and she is, I'm afraid to say, terribly plain; Vane was supposed to be a dark-haired, slight, gamine beauty. One feels that Sybil was written to be Constance Wilde herself.

The same person who remarked on Hurd as Dorian also said they saw the book to be an autobiography; this is terribly true. The Picture of Dorian Gray was largely responsible for Wilde's imprisonment and ruin. At the trial it was claimed that only a depraved monster could have written it. It is Wilde's autobiography; but I see Dorian as Bosie, as Wilde's lover Alfred Douglas. I see Wilde personified in Henry and Basil, and the book itself has the presence of the author about it.

The film can be faulted in many ways; it is not atmospheric enough, it is badly cast, poorly directed, and the decayed portrait looks like a caricature. It misinterprets the book and tells a story instead of a fable. It is good as a stand alone film but fails as an adaption of the book.

This movie should have been better. You really have everything here to make a good movie; angst, moderate violence, friendship, romance, shocking acts. It promises what it can't deliver; twists and turns and a well thought out plot. There really is no plot here at all. Bernadette (Nora Jane Noone, I believe) does a good job, but somehow the others seem like cardboard cut out characters that one really can't care for. There should have been more interaction between the girls.

I did like the "Bells of St. Mary's" but I'm a notorious Crosby fan.

May I start by saying a pox on those who do not love the cast.

I honestly can't see why you complain. I love the book; I didn't need to read it for school, but I read it anyway and enjoyed it. I understood the message Golding brought about. Then why am I not offended by this movie as I was by Lord of the Rings?

This film is an excellent translation of Golding's novel. It is stark, bold and well directed. The young cast are frighteningly talented, especially Chapin and Edwards. This has everything I expected and much more. Perhaps I was wishing for a more vivid "Lord of the Flies" scene, but it brought it's message across and kept everything in the book alive. I marvel every time I see Edwards' Piggy. I can't understand the capacity the boy had at such an age. Jack was well portrayed also, as was Ralph.

The ending was perfect. I admit the music did throw me off a tad but everything else just came so willingly. The emotions of the boys practically leaked out through to me, and that one little boy in particular (I've forgotten his name, I'm afraid - is it Percy?) looking up at the sea-captain just personified everything that the ending symbolised. This film is one of my favourites and I cannot see how anyone could fault it so drastically.

I can't find fault with one thing. My favourite film. I love Wilde, and this really just captured everything. I found this accurate, witty and touching. The court case in particular moved me, as did Finch's portrayal of the man himself. This is excellent and has stood the test of time.