Reviews

If you're a fan of the original series, your take on this revamping will probably depend on how much a purist you are. The pilot begins with an interesting premise that offers thorough background information on the origins of the team. It's a slick looking production, in that it takes advantage of the locale and the attractive leads. Having said that…the series would work better if it had created new characters. Anyone who loved Jack Lord will find Alex O'Loughlin a poor substitute for Steve McGarrett. He hasn't the same charisma. When recreating characters from an original series, it's inevitable that there will be viewers who object to the substitutes. Had the producers started fresh with new characters, but kept the spirit of the original formula intact, there would be less tendency to compare the two series; each would stand on its own merits. In that respect, the new Hawaii Five 0 has a tough act to follow. None of the lead characters share strong chemistry, although with further episodes this might improve. The strongest element this new series has going for it is a well written plot; the dialogue could be crisper but as characters develop and writers get a stronger feel of the material, that might happen. Overall verdict: no better than the other crime dramas currently on the air but certainly promises room for improvement.

This study of relationships within a dysfunctional family has all the elements of an overwrought soap opera. After viewing the film, I considered that there was an overabundance of drama, with many plot developments straining credulity. Having said that, I was unaware of these flaws while watching the film. Astonishing performances raise it above the material. Young actress Tatiana Maslany gives a compelling performance as Ruby, a 13 year old desperately in need of parental guidance. Abandoned by her mother, left with a father emotionally unable to be that provider, Ruby flounders. She makes numerous bids to grow up too fast, flirting with danger and tragedy results. Yet amidst much grown up and juvenile angst, there's a core of tenderness at the heart of the complex relationships, a ray of hope that suggests this family may be down but not altogether out. The well seasoned performers portray this subtlety effectively, with cinematic rather than soap opera results.

Not as gripping as it could have been but the essence of Jodi Picoult's story is intact. An interesting aspect of the novel was the graphic novel intersecting each chapter, which explores the father's psyche. His conflicted feelings for wife and daughter are revealed vicariously through his illustrations and story-telling. His wife's obsession with Dante's Inferno, the class she teaches at university, becomes his obsession, too, since he explores the same theme through his comic book characters. Had this been a big budget film with animation telling this aspect of the story, it would have been visually intriguing! The father's sensitivity and artistic bent is an essential part of the central conflict and does not come across convincingly in this TV movie. On a superficial level, this film tells a story of a family in trauma, but the actors are not compelling enough to ring true. Any husband and wife who have struggled with raising a teenage child will probably agree this is a weak portrayal...but a young audience might identify with the teen angst of Trixie, the troubled young victim.

Many years have passed since I saw this film and I remember it fondly. I was not a Fonzie fan, so any bias I might have would be that Henry Winkler might not possess the necessary acting chops. What a error that would be! Winkler gives a fine, understated performance. Those reviewers who say he's not quite as miserly as the original Scrooge miss the point: Winkler brings the miser into the 20th Century and makes him more believable, less larger than life. I'm partial toward the Alistair Sim version but that's very much a Victorian presentation of the story and has to be judged on those standards. As a modern retelling of a beloved classic this works very well and the supporting players all do an equally fine job. It's a modest film that's mindful of the old axiom "brevity is the soul of wit" and this is a cinematic demonstration of that very notion. Worth watching at least once and if it's on again this Christmas, I'll certainly tune in again.

The evocative opening scene of Five Miles Before Midnight held promise. I anticipated a moody piece of film noir with an intriguing female lead rather than the usual male. I was also hoping for more of Jean Pierre Aumont, who distinguishes any film he's in, but his role was little more than a cameo. However Sophia Loren, though lovely to look at, does not yet have the dramatic punch to carry off this role, or perhaps she only required better direction. There was ambiguity suggested about how faithful she was to husband Tony Perkins and this could have been put over nicely with a more well seasoned performance. Perhaps it was simply their pairing together--I didn't think they possessed any chemistry. It's hard to believe she ever found anything attractive about Perkins well established immaturity. What woman would? In any case, she doesn't breathe enough life into her character of put-upon housewife and near the film's conclusion, she goes overboard in a frankly unbelievable personality transformation. Also, the "surprise" ending was no surprise to this reviewer, who wonders why she didn't see the obvious way out of her troubles much earlier. It is however, an entirely watchable film and one of those that you kind of like to poke fun at. Certainly there are worse films out there!

I'm fond of this film and it vexes me that so many "reviewers" rank it below the Peter Jackson trilogy. A filmed novel is always interpretive; in particular an animated film relies on the artist's vision and should be judged on its own terms. Speaking as a purist, this is a finer homage to Tolkien than the updated version. While this film has its flaws it stays truer to the source, especially so far as the characters are concerned.

In the Jackson version Tolkien's Frodo is barely recognizable: from the first scenes he is portrayed as a weakling, constantly wavering, manipulated by forces around him and never standing on his own two feet (this is physically and metaphorically true.) You wonder why fate chose this limp biscuit to carry the one ring to the Cracks of Doom. Jackson unforgivably rewrites Tolkien and robs Frodo of his finest moment when he allows Arwen to rescue him from the Ringwraiths...Bakshi's version respects the original, presenting a Frodo who demands the wraiths "Go back and trouble me no more!" Bakshi sustains Frodo's character as Tolkien conceived it. We see his decline as the weight of his burden increases. Frodo is so pivotal to Lord of the Rings you wonder why Jackson took such liberties (he does so with numerous characters)since character development propels the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Bakshi's film better explores the companionship between Legolas and Gimli in a few judicious scenes that are completely lacking in Jackson's version. Similarly we see Boromir horsing with Pippin and Merry, furthering the idea of fellowship. For my liking the camaraderie is more developed in the animated version than the live action.

Tolkien's poetry is an important ingredient in the novels and Bakshi makes tribute to this in one of my favorite scenes: when Frodo sings the "Merry Old Inn" song, minutes before stumbling into Strider. The cheery tune is chillingly juxtaposed with the darker theme music when seconds later, invisible to his friends but visible to the wraiths, Frodo is dangerously exposed. This is one of the most atmospheric portions of the film and chills me whenever I see it.

The well documented budget/time restrictions limit this film's final impact but had it been completed it may have resonated with more viewers. As it is, it's worth a look. Even its detractors admit that Peter Jackson derived much of his inspiration from this prototype.

Too often films that intend a message become mired in details, and performances suffer, becoming mannered. "V for Vendetta" deftly avoids these pitfalls and stands out both as a thinking film and as pure entertainment. The plot is driven by thought and action, increasing its appeal to a wide audience. Upon its release I thought "V for Vendetta" would be a sleeper, a cult film appealing only to those of a certain oeuvre; the huge positive response it's generated from film goers of all bents is proof of its success. I attended the theatre with my teenage children who each enjoyed it for different reasons. Viewers familiar with the graphic novel may take umbrage to deletions and changes within the story but the spirit of Alan Moore's vision is intact.

Few actors can carry a starring role without benefit of facial expressions but Hugo Weaving is delicious...his mellifluous voice carries just the right weight for the hefty speeches his character makes, never over the top.

Natalie Portman surprised me: I always considered her a lightweight actress but she gave a well measured performance, earning kudos as her character develops throughout her ordeal.

I've always liked John Hurt; he adds interest to any film and is perfectly cast in a mercurial role.

There's no doubt the years will be kind; this kind of film holds up well and is destined to become a classic.

I read Archie comics from age 5 to 13--they were like old friends. That was many years ago but I'm still sentimental about them and was eager to see this movie after learning about it years after its initial release. When I finally got the opportunity I viewed it with a bit of trepidation; I'm more or less a purist and for me its success would be dependant on the characters physical resemblance to their comic book counterparts. Personality was important too but the artwork was a big part of what I loved about the comics. I wanted the movie to respect the Archie tradition. I was disappointed that of the original teenagers only Veronica and Reggie bore a strong physical likeness to their comic book originals but during the course of the film Archie, Betty and Jughead seemed to transform...the actors ably portrayed the essence of the characters and convinced me that yes, this is what they would look like and act like fifteen years after graduation. As far as personality goes, that was well captured, too; after all, we all grow up but retain our essential character. There are places where the plot stretches credulity but that's part of the Archie heritage...the comic books were often madcap beyond belief! Except for some unnecessary sexual innuendo which didn't add much to the story, this was a tender hearted look at the power of friendship to endure teenage angst and be the better for it. (For the record I agree with everyone's comments about Jughead and the forgettable rap song--I dare say genuine rappers would be offended! Is there ANYONE out there who liked it?)

This war film offers a unique slant on the German political/social climate during early 1945. Because it was conceived without the benefit of hindsight it's that much more interesting to view 60 years later. While the story is necessarily compacted to allow for the drama of various characters to be inserted, there is a solid story at the core. Good performances...Raymond Massey was particularly fine in a relatively low key role while Peter Lorre plays a repentant Nazi with equal effectiveness. The female leads here are also great, especially Faye Emerson as the hotel "hostess." There are some dated elements of propaganda (a painting of Hitler hanging in hotel lobby prompts one guest to comment "I'd like to see him hanging another way") All the same this film offers thoughtful character studies of human beings at their best and worst while under duress. Some plot loopholes exist but they do not greatly detract from story; the brisk pace holds viewer attention from beginning to end. A worthwhile way to spend an hour and a bit.