salterbach-612-414926

I have read all the earlier Stephanie Plum books by Evanovich and I'm a big fan, and I was eager to see this movie. Before going to the theater, I read the other reviews here on IMDb, and was disappointed by the comments in those reviews and I **ALMOST** did not bother going to the theater to see this - but none the less, I was determined to see this movie version. I just saw it this morning, and I was wonderfully surprised by how excellent this movie version is!!! I thought the characters were all well-cast, that the plot followed along at a good pace, and was true to the funny quirky spirit of the book. The scenes in NJ's "berg" were real to life and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie! If you have read the books, and are a fan, then give yourself the chance to see this movie on the big screen in the theater. I love Ranger (I am a "Babe" fan) and the actor for Ranger, and the actor for Morelli (for the "Cupcake" fans) was also good. I'd love to see the 2nd book also made into a movie with the same actors.

I recently saw this IMAX movie, and although I did love the visual presentation of Van Gogh's works in IMAX (gorgeous!) - and for that reason alone, please do watch this film; the narration has problems.

The heavily French-accented narration by the male character, posing as Van Gogh, was very distracting. I realize that Van Gogh was Dutch, and that while he spoke French when living in France so in real life he did have an accent - BUT this male narrator did not have a clear pronounciation of English words. And after all this movie is the release for English speaking audiences.

I found myself straining to understand his speech so much, that it distracted my visual enjoyment of this movie. (The female French character (i.e., the scholar), who also speaks in this film does have clear understandable English, so it was okay listening to the female. Her voice was not distracting.) And like the other reviewer here, I too was wondering why they had the 3rd person, a male movie director, being shown so prominently within this film. The movie director's appearance in the film did not serve any purpose to further understanding Van Gogh.

so, overall, go see this to enjoy the visual images of Van Gogh's works in IMAX; but don't expect too much from the narration content.

Overall, I liked this movie. Technically, it is a well made film, and well acted. I enjoyed watching it and recommend it for a good entertaining film.

However, I just want to say that the film is not always that factual, at times. I would recommend reading a biography of Chanel (such as "The Gospel According to Chanel") to get a more realistic idea of her life.

This film has some fact, but also includes some idealized fantasy of her, which makes for good storytelling for a film. The film is good; the factual part, not so much.

The film shows Chanel as very skilled sewing and as a skilled pattern maker - but I believe in real life she was not that skilled; she could sew straight seams, but not necessarily intricate tailoring; she was more the creative genius with the fashion vision; she hired the skilled seamstresses and hired someone to make the patterns from her ideas and her rougher designs.

This film does cover the early part of Coco Chanel's life - up to about the beginning World War I. And in fact, it was because of the start of WWI in 1914-18, that Chanel got her big break in designing fashion - but the film does not include that historical background.

(As an aside, I think that a film would not have been made to cover her whole life, because during World War II, Chanel did live in Paris with a Nazi lover for a few years - and the whole part of her WWII years is usually hushed up. She then later lived in exile in Switzerland after the war with her ex-Nazi lover. So, they would not want to have included this unpopular part of her life in a big budget film, as it would be too controversial.)