Reviews

I give the film a 7. It was a really good film however, Anne Bancroft was legendary, Dustin Hoffman was good and Katharine Ross was good. The plot was just fantastic and will be remembered always, the acting was of a high quality, script writing high as well. Some good lines, good soundtracks, fabulous acting and amazing directing. I felt all the performances were good and shone, the plot was good and showed unique understanding of the issues it dealt with, some good entertainment. I felt the script was written and acted well, there was a good plot and everything needing to be their was. It was a straight forward plot but could have been better. A 7!

An average effort, but a brilliant cast.

This brilliant cast consisted of Jack Nicholson, Danny Devito and Louise Fletcher.

I was expecting better- Acting was average, funny and talented in parts yet dreadfully bad in others. Fletcher certainly didn't deserve an Oscar for that. She gave the weak, feeble performance but didn't deserve an Oscar. Nicholson shouldn't have been cats in the film seeing as how supposedly good he is. He didn't shine. Nobody else in the cast shone either.

Genre- Was quite amusing in parts and dramatic in others. I thought the genre was done well and some particularly dramatic scenes were done really well, not Oscar winning but well.

Overall, a very average effort and very average results.

King Kong was really good.

Genre- Thriller- The best thriller of 2005, a true adventure following tales of King Kong for over 3 hours, the genres and therefore target audiences were all hit to perfection, really good.

Special Effects- All the special effects were really good it mist have taken a lot of time to make but well worth it. Really well done.

Acting- The acting from Naomi Watts was really good and talented. The rest of the acting was good, above average and entertaining. All the actors were above average well done.

Because of the above was done really well near to perfection, the only thing for me bringing it down to a 7 was the 3 hours, too long, some unnecessary scenes which dragged on and certain other minor changes could have been made to help it get a 10 too, could have been better but could have been worse.

A truly good thriller! 7 close to 8.

This Musical receives a 6 from me- What it did well to achieve a 6- Acting- Angela Lansbury was really good, very good acting, eccentric over the top acting, but all worth it to suit the character. The three children were also fantastic as well. The acting was really good from all.

Genres/Target Audiences- Well Comedy and Family were two of the genres they did this well as it was a real family movie, a real family film and comedy with lots of family and childish humour it was great!

Badly- The plot and the structure- I'm afraid the plot and the structure didn't go together- The plot was too unrealistic for a comedy and the plot could have been more inventive I think, more entertaining and appealing to those who wouldn't normally be interested and at times the film was hard to follow.

So overall weighing it up- 6!

A reasonable effort is summary for this film. A good sixties film but lacking any sense of achievement. Maggie Smith gave a decent performance which was believable enough but not as good as she could have given, other actors were just dreadful! A terrible portrayal. It wasn't very funny and so it didn't really achieve its genres as it wasn't particularly funny and it wasn't dramatic. The only genre achieved to a satisfactory level was romance. Target Audiences were not hit and the movie sent out confusing messages. A very basic plot and a very basic storyline were not pulled off or performed at all well and people were left confused as to why the film wasn't as good and who the target audiences were etc. However Maggie was quite good and the storyline was alright with moments of capability.

4.

This was a good video! It showed Hilda Ogden talking to Betty Williams/Turpin about the old times. Sort of a reminiscing about the old times and the old characters who have walked the street. It was really good. Betty was Betty and Hilda was superb. Jean got straight back into the famous role she played after an absence of over 10 years. Great!

The archive footage was good and acted very well and the scenes between Hilda and Betty were good, funny and very memorable. Great! Well done to the makers of Coronation STreet for this. Well done! A 6 close to a 7!

Well, poor! That is what I say! How was this a good adaption? It was shoddy! The acting from Dench and Firth was abysmal. These two high class actors who are really good were very poor in their adaption and their acting, not in character and not focused. The rest of the actors performed very averagely with only Witherspoon standing out to be the best! The script was adapted averagely to fit the original play and the genres were not really hit very well, it provided light entertainment for target audience but still very poor! A poor effort, a poor try and a poor gain! POOR!

I was disappointed with it all, the only reason it gets a 3 was because it provided some light entertainment, some comedy and light humour and a little of average acting. Parts of the film shone and made it to a 3, the rest dragged it down, pathetically.

A 3!

A good film! Enjoyable. A good family movie which was one of the best animated films I have ever seen. Really good family viewing. I bet families flocked to the cinemas worldwide to see this. It was well worth it! Good family film. Good acting and voice overs, performed well, good acting abilities from all, good one liners, good script, performed well, hit target audiences and genres it set out to achieve, really good and amazing. Slightly better than Shrek 2 as well. Well done to all cast and crew who put in all efforts to make this movie great family viewing.

Well done, great for children. Overall, I give this an 8. Well done.

Very Good. High Comedy and High Animation.

Children will love to see this comedy about an ogre. It is very good. The plots and story lines hit right on target, good one liners, good moments and generally very funny. Acting- (Voice Over Animations) Very good. All of the actors performed a highly successful animation. They all provided the correct tone of voice for their characters and performed very well to fit with the scripts, its clear they have really got behind their character and tried to make them into a figure of delight for their viewers.

Genre- They have tried to hit all genres they featured. Comedy, good one liners, acting was good and was funny (comedy) a few sad dramatic moments were performed well with acting and romance and fairytale all in their performed well. A good story.

Screenplay- This was good, well written good funny, enjoyable family humour. A good film for all to enjoy courtesy of the screenplay. A very well done!

Overall a good film, performed well, animated really good. But not as good as its predecessor!

A 7!

I give this a 3.

Singers can never ever act so what is the point in them acting? That is the question I raise. Dreadful, Hiddious and bad. The acting was unbelievable. It didn't hit target audiences who were left disappointed, it didn't reach out it's goals for genre as they were barely hit either. The only comedy came from a few humourers one liners which proved the films success. A few dramatic stunts and a reasonable storyline saw this through. It was a good film for fans, but for everyone else and on a judging point of view it wasn't very good at all! A 3.

Contains Spoilers!

I enjoyed this film! A good film and a god effort. The genre of this film was drama and comedy. And a perfect comedy drama it was. The comedy was certainly their from fantastic one liners and from the plot itself with a funny outline of Sarah Jessica Parker going to meet her boyfriends family for the first time. Great one liners, fantastic comedy situations and really funny elements. The drama made the film be very moving also. Many near me were crying when certain dramatic moments occurred such as when Diane Keaton's Character passed away. The dramatic story lines which occurred happened to a high level of drama and the comedy which occurred happened to a high level of comedy, so therefore the film was good because it hit its genre and target audience very well. The acting was superb. Diane Keaton was great, if she doesn't win an award for her performance it will be criminal. She was extremely funny and comical when appropriate and extremely dramatic and moving when appropriate. Overall a great actress, probably one of her best roles. Rachel McAdams has yet again improved with time. In my red eye review I said she was good and will be offered better roles in future as she was good in Red Eye, she was even better in this as the stroppy young adult, very funny. All the actors and acting were and was amazing apart from Sarah Jessica Parker who I didn't think adjusted to the role as well as she should have. Bar minor problems like that a good movie. But overall a good movie. Highly successful in what it set out to do. An 8.

Diabolical. That one word sums up the whole sorry mess. I laughed once, slightly. The plot is so old and done so many times I knew it was bound to fail especially with the dreadful actors on hand to help. The genre, comedy it wasn't at all funny, the one lines which were meant to be funny were badly done, no lines showed any true passion for anything or the story, no meaning and just awful comedy situations awful comedy plots, awful plot and all acted badly to bonus that. Moving onto the other genre, romance. This was poor also. Done better with a bit more passion and humour than before but nowhere near excellent. Just poor. The acting was appalling from the "Two Guys and a Girl" actor who because he was on that dire TV show presumes he can act. He can't believe me. No talent. The whole movie was a sorry, sorry mess and I regret seeing it. In summary- Plot was bad Genres and target audiences were NOT hit! Acting was just unbelievably bad!

I give this whole sorry mess a 2 out of 10!

Another overall score of 7 out of 10. -Prohibition was a main, huge and big point of the 1930's and its good that it has been brought up in this film alongside gangster Al Capone. What the film does well is their capacity to keep level the gangster side of the movie and the crime and the 1920's feel with an American feel. All the theme and genres are kept to well they hit their targets with success and the acting is reasonably good. Kevin Costner is excellent in this, a few others could improve but Kevin is still very good. It had moments of tension and moments which ensured it hit its genre and target audience. A typical 80's gangster movie which proved very good. The writing was also very good as well, good lines, good camera work and good stunts. A 7 is a good mark from me personally it is above average and therefore a good movie and an excellent attempt at making a movie. Despite this I feel Kevin Costner was good in his role and I would reward the film with 3 awards for Writing (Screenplay), Director (Film) and Acting (Kevin Costner and him alone).

7.

I thought it was a very good effort. The film was just good. Judi Dench was superb however, she put in amazing talent to her role. She was very funny at times with her one liners which were classic and other times she was highly dramatic giving good performances. However Judi's good acting was one of the only highlights of the movie. Thelma Barlow (Coronation Street star Mavis Riley/Wilton) was also good. Delivering lines to a high entertainment value. She too was extremely funny and was purely their as a supporting character. She was very good. Judi and Thelma excelled in this film. Another good point was the scenery. The London streets, the theatre, The theatre rooftop and a lake. Also France which featured was also good. The film was based on true events and therefore was also very pleasing. However, the bad points must come. Will Young cannot act and nor could a few others. The film got a rather bit too tedious in parts as lots of dancing and music was shown and the production of the shows at the theatre which got quite boring and was overly played out. Overall I think fair play to the cast for a good effort and a well done to Thelma Barlow and Judi Dench as they really did act and were outstanding, just a little let down by the sickening, dreadful and frankly appalling Will Young, who should stick to singing not acting. Parts of the film were dramatic and parts were comical and both were done well. A good effort, I reward 7 points.

A good film. I thought the film was good and hit it's target audience. For a genre of horror and thriller it hit right on. People had a few moments when they were scared, lots of anticipation and moments of building up which were all done really well I thought. The acting from Kathy Bates was outstanding. I thought the plot was good, wasn't boring and it just was really good. Moments of shock, horror, scary moments and it was just really good. I thought parts could be better. I think a few more moments of scarier scenes, more anticipation, more characters and some was done a little unrealistically and fast and skipped a lot. Some of it was untrue to the nature of what humans would do and what would happen, etc.

But for everything else, good. Well done a good try. I reward an 8.

Average. Average effort was given and poor performances I must say. As a whole and on a whole the film wasn't very good. A weak, poor and insulting performance was given by the cast and grew. Screenplay did, acting did, but nothing was good or outstanding, nothing was funny in it's comedy genre it was OK, nothing was hitting the target audience, it was OK, everything was OK, never good or outstanding, always OK or average.

With the script and acting they had they could have made that movie so much more successful yet the didn't. A poor effort and Bette and Co, I agree with the producers, best not make a sequel.

Average in terms of what was achieved, poor in terms of what wasn't achieved that could have been.