Reviews

Seems long and drawn out until you get to the final moment which is a marvellous thing, then you realise how great a film it was, in hindsight.

Possibly influenced Bunuel - some of the tree lined avenues and the religious saturation of a culture, the slowness of the story, it all reminded me of Bunuel. It's also acknowledged to be an influence on Godard's Contempt and it was interesting to see how it inspired parts of that film - the estranged couple cast against stunning Italian Neapolitan scenery. Must be a great story for it to have been filmed so well twice.

This is a great little film. Droll. A twisted tale that doesn't descend into camp or clichés.

The music and set design/locations are excellent, the actors are all well cast and it's great to see so many unknowns... casting of 'names' in the support roles would've ruined this film. It's well weighted and well balanced. It's a kind of noirish art film, without the pretentiousness of most 'art' films. There's a fine quality of levity to this film, the ball is kept in the air. Loved some of the set decorations and characterisations, the music is great too. I had to give it a 10 because it's been so unfairly underscored. I think it's an 8 really.

Probably everything 'Memento' hoped and failed to be.

With the talent involved here, it should have been a much better film than it is. Music by Georges Delarue, director Bob Rafelson...

Basically it's a lightweight romantic comedy which is attempting to emulate classics comedies about a rich girl meets non-rich guy (think Katherine Hepburn) but it just doesn't have the class or punch of earlier classics in this genre.

The cheap looking opening credits/cartoon are the first indication that something is amiss here. The first half is quite OK but after that, you just don't care enough about these people to stay with the film. There's something incredibly shallow about all those involved and the 'comedy' is just too obvious...problem animal, hispanic housekeeper, mismatched/deceived couples.

I don't think it's until Harry Dean Stanton makes an appearance quite late in the film that you think, aaah, now we've got a movie. But it's all too late.

This is a strange film, the kid is outstanding, really amazing for a child actor, but It's like another poster said, it's like the movie has been made by different people and when you edit their bits together it doesn't work.

I think the problem is the script and editing, and Timothy Dalton. There's two basic story strands, one being Timothy Dalton's war experiences and the other being a family whose child is possessed and the intercutting between these two strands just doesn't work, you feel like you're watching two unrelated films cut together. For me, the 'name' stars like Timothy Dalton and Christopher Plummer are a distraction and unknowns would have suited the film better, but eh, I guess it would never have been made without some names appearing in it.

Some of the sound is actually too complex, they have some music and spooky voices underneath the dialogue track and it just makes it hard to hear the dialogue. Feels like you need subtitles at times, but some of the sound work is interesting too.

However....the possession scenes and the child actor are excellent. If you have modest expectations you may enjoy this film. It's almost a good movie.

I was a little disappointed by this very long film, although Mr Scorsese's more recent work isn't great.

Firstly I think Leo Dicaprio is miscast, terribly miscast as HH. He (HH) was well-known to be a tall dark-haired man and DiCaprios makes no effort to shed his 'boy band' looks here, which makes the film unbelievable from the start. DiCaprio is generally unconvincing and out of his depth here.

Some of the other casting is questionable, it takes a while to get used to Cate Blanchett doing Kate Hepburn, it's too hard to forget it's Cate Blanchett, but she does well enough in the role, after a while...it can easily descend into 'camp' this type of role, so it's a relief that she manages to avoid that. Generally the best dialogue is between these two characters.

I think Scorcese was too in awe and too conscious of "Citizen Kane" in making this film and it often seems like a weaker version or a homage to that picture.

The actually building of an aviation empire is interesting, as is the 'war' between rival moguls and their tame politicians but this is also the stuff that makes it a Citizen Kane clone-pic.

I think HH was a phenomenally interesting subject and the film doesn't do him justice.

It's just an 'ok' film.

I have to agree with some other reviewers, there are continuity errors which make the film even more unbelievable than it is, great NZ scenery and cinematography, and also it does resemble "Japanese Story" in many ways (not sure which came first, I think Perfect Strangers may have).

Having said that, I liked it a lot, Rachel Blake is great, Sam Neill is always engaging, but it is a bit too far fetched or too muddled a storyline, which (along with the continuity errors) makes it difficult to 'suspend disbelief'.

One of the aspects I most liked was the 'mainland' sequences with the girlfriends, it was a shame they were so brief, there was a lot to like in those scenes. Well worth seeing, and it does stay with you, possibly because it's a puzzle of a film, whether that is intentional or not is the question.

Overlong scenes and some stupid scriptwriting makes this rather tedious. I think it's supposed to be a portrait of madness, but it takes the rather dated Freudian sexist way there. This film doesn't like women much, perhaps resembling it's maker and his influences.

Only Isabelle Huppert's outstanding abilities make this watchable, even though the script is daft... the 'boy band' male lead is two dimensional and their relationship lacks credibility. No wonder Jeanne Moreau turned down the role of the mother, she's far to smart to be in this. The link to related films is 'Emmanuel', lol, I had to laugh when I saw that, it's about right.

Poor and lazy attempt at getting some aboriginal actors and history on to the cinema screens. Sadly (although there's plenty of funding for this sort of thing) though, it fails on many many levels. One wonders if the funding was just too easy to get.

All the white actors are terrible, the attempt to create 'atmosphere' through use of silence and absence of dialogue is just boring, cinematography is ordinary, and uh it just seems like a lazy filmmakers idea of a quick buck and a bit of PC egotism.

Much as I'd like to see some good oz films featuring aboriginals or stories about them, this isn't one. It's just embarrassingly bad and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Classic tear jerker film, the interesting thing being that the lead is a schizo/genius and played by the charismatic Mr Crowe. Has some unusual plot devices (for it's time, although these plot devices have now become common).

The romantic relationship lacks credibility as Crowe and Connelly just don't seem to 'click' and for me, this lets the whole movie down. Highly watchable, like a lot of Ron Howard films, but, like a lot of Ron Howard films, you feel like you're having obvious emotional buttons pushed when you have to get your hankie out to wipe your tears away, sob, ugh.

Basically a 'whodunnit', a murder mystery, with pretensions and bad acting and a lot of staring.

A lot of bad or just plain weird acting, especially by Tim Tobbins, Sean Penn and Marcia Harden who seem to all be acting in isolation, almost like they are all in different movies - they seem to think that if they all act a bit weird, like staring a lot, that will give the movie the atmosphere it needs, or maybe Clint told them to stare a lot, cos that's one of his favourite 'acting' devices. Kevin Bacon seems like the only person who can act in this movie, but that's not enough.

A dumb plot and poor script.