emisue02's reviews

Try watching this movie sometime with a white woman who is the adoptive mother of an African-American child. I happen to baby-sit such a family and watched the movie with the kids' mother. I don't know how she sat through it without throwing something at the screen-not that this is necessarily a criticism. This film is very thought-provoking, though I think for the wrong reasons. The main focus is all about color and whether people should raise children of different races. Jessica Lange's character had a small speech in the courtroom about how love makes a family more than race, but it was just glossed over and the focus of the film went right back to race defining families. Maybe I just see this differently because of my close association with a family where the parents and one child are white and the other child is not, but family is not about race-corny as this may sound, it really is about love and support. The ending, as some other reviewers have said, is very wishy-washy. My viewing companion and her husband, who joined us at the end, liked it because they want to have a good relationship with their daughter's birth mother. I agree with them on that, but if the movie is going to deal with legalities so much, it should resolve those legalities at the end of the movie.

I've dubbed this movie "Love Actually, Or How Far We Can Stretch Emilie's Heartstrings in 2 Hours" for a reason-it's amazing!!!! The three climaxes at the end of the movie, where the three main plotlines come to a resolution, are all an emotional roller-coaster ride. I can't say enough good things about this movie. Yes, it has some flaws, yes, I think it has a few too many f-words and nude scenes, but as I tell people, you forget about all that and just get so caught up in the sweeping stories. The music is brilliantly used, especially at the very beginning and the very end, to weave the stories together. I'm "high" for days after seeing this movie that's so full of wit, charm, and Capra-style belief in triumph of the good things in life,namely love.

This has to be one of the most confusing movies I've ever seen. I've seen it four times now, and there are still relationships and little things I'm unclear about. It took me two viewings to figure out whodunit. Still, it's downright enchanting. It plays up the period really well with costumes and scenery and attitudes. This picture made me fall in love with the acting talents of Maggie Smith, who was the comic relief in a rather grim film. The rest of the cast, some of the finest British actors of today, are wonderful as well, though I could have done without so much of Ryan Phillipe. It was well-written in addition to being well-acted, and the fact that I keep watching it to try to unravel it's unending layers tells me that it's well worth my time.

That's my favorite line from this movie, and it's spoken by Maggie Smith's character, Caro, to Vivi over the phone. It's now how my roommate and I tell each other good-bye. That aside, I really liked this movie. I adored the book, which I read after the movie, and I wish the movie had been a little more faithful to the book, but it's still really good in its own right. The interaction between the Ya-Yas is great, especially the "car chase." The book is one of the most sensual books I've ever read, with a lot of attention paid to the smells and touches of the scenes, and I think the movie communicates this in its own way. It's also just a good time, the type of movie you can watch over and over, which I certainly do.

I first saw this movie at the age of 12. At the time, I dubbed it the worst film in existance, despite my growing obsession with Julie Andrews. Looking back, I figure I probably hated it so much because I didn't get it. I still confused "homosexual" and "homocidal," for crying out loud! Willing to give it another chance, I watched a DVD of the stage version a few months ago and actually kind of liked it. I'd always liked the music (can't really go wrong with Mancini) and it was actually funny. I found myself laughing quite a bit. I then watched the DVD of the movie, but with commentary done by Julie Andrews and Blake Edwards, the star and director/writer of the movie. They're also husband and wife, which made it really cute. They were very funny talking about the most acclaimed film they made together and I still saw the movie and heard quite a bit of the dialogue. Long story short (I know, too late), it's not the worst movie ever made, it is funny (especially the very end), and the music is still great. Maybe someday I'll even re-watch the movie without the commentary and like it even more--but don't push me.

This is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen! It's a wonderful spoof of film noir detective stories with tons of gags and great acting. The cast is phenomenal-who wouldn't love Maggie Smith, David Niven, Peter Sellers, Peter Falk, and a host of others all together. The ending was priceless, but you'll have to watch it for yourself to see just how priceless.

I love the board game and this movie is one of the funniest I've ever seen. It's very Mel Brooks-esque, with subtle yet ridiculous comic bits all over the place. I don't feel the need to describe this movie that much-it defies explanation. It's just hilarious-that's all one needs to know.

This movie has so much energy that I can't possibly find a way to end my analogy. It took me awhile to figure out if I liked it (being a huge fan of traditional musicals like "The Sound of Music"), but it was just loud and fun that I couldn't help myself. The score is wonderful and Catherine Zeta-Jones...wow. She was what impressed me the most. Her voice was great and she more than deserved her Oscar. Queen Latifah and Richard Geer were equally good and while I like Renee Zellweger, she doesn't have that great of a voice-she reminded me of Vanessa Redgrave in "Camelot." However, this whole piece turned out way better than "Camelot" so I have little room for complaint. More movies should be this big and bright.

The chief cardinal sin of film making, in my opinion, is for your film to drag. This movie drags beyond belief-what was the point of that concert Sissy Spacek's character was preparing, anyway? Way too much time was devoted to that. The music was beautiful, but it served no real purpose. Second sin-choppy scenes. This is what I hate about almost all modern movies-the scenes are very short and don't have any aparant flow. My friend who watched this with me and I decided that if we had to see either Ruth or Matt Fowler watch boring late-night TV because they couldn't fall asleep just one more time, we'd scream. Thankfully, after about the 4th showing of that, it stopped. I wasn't overly impressed with the acting either. I'd seen "The Lion in Winter" the weekend before this, and that was good acting-this was not. All the accusations that the characters fling at each other aren't backed up by actions in the film, or at least very few of them are. I felt nothing for these characters, which I should have since the two main characters lost their only child to a violent murder by his girlfriend's ex. This scenario should generate powerful empathy and emotion, but it didn't. I was so bored by the end of this movie, and the ending was totally predictable, so even that didn't help much. I have no idea how this was nominated for 5 major Oscars, including Best Picture. Thank goodness it didn't win, or any faith I still have in the Academy would have been completely lost.

"Camelot" is the story of the King Arthur legend, but it takes this legend from the incredible book, "The Once and Future King" by T. H. White. I just finished reading the book and found it very entertaining and insightful. If the production team of this movie had any clue what "entertaining" and "insightful" mean, they would have done a much better job with this movie. Why in the world do you hire people who can't sing to play the leads in a musical? If you absolutely must, then you find someone to dub their voices. Men can get away with sort of singing (i. e. Rex Harrison, or even Richard Harris in this movie), but women can't-it just doesn't go over well. Julie Andrews was one of the greatest musical stars of all time and had the part on Broadway, so why didn't she do this instead of Vanessa Redgrave? She's a better actress in some respects, but let's face it-Julie can SING like no one else. She got a Tony nod for her part in the Broadway version, but one of the executives on this film (I don't remember which one) said "Can you picture two men going to war over Julie Andrews?" Maybe they would if they had let her sing-you know, that thing she does better than anyone in movie and stage musicals of that era.

But even with the horrible miscasting, the movie still has flaws that probably date back to the stage version. The songs are wonderful, but that book just doesn't lend itself to being a musical. It's rather tragic, which musicals usually aren't, and it's very introspective and filled with social commentary. The last two can usually work for a musical, but not this one. Having to bring out all of T. H. White's descriptions of chivalry and the concept of "might for right" in dialogue somehow degrades them, making them come across as trite. However, without them, the movie would have no point. My advice-get the original Broadway soundtrack and the book, and maybe Disney's "The Sword and the Stone," instead.

I watched this movie on TV last night and thought it was adorable. Julie Andrews (my all-time fav) was great in her well-done switch from her usual elegant, classy English lady to the cockney Nanny. Eloise got on my nerves a little bit because she was so overly-dramatic, but that's how she's supposed to be, and I'm sure I came across the same way when I was 6. All in all, I'd say it was just an adorable movie, and I can't wait to see the next one this holiday season.

That was all I could say after watching this movie as my heartbeat returned to normal and I started to breath evenly again. This is one hell of a movie-such a roller coaster ride. If it wasn't so funny in certain spots, it would never have gone over so well. That's what's missing from historical pieces like "Elizabeth" today-there's no humor, or very little of it. Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole (in his second stint as Henry II, but this time in a far better movie) provide most of it in their constant bantering. I've never seen a couple, on screen or off, that loves to hate yet hates to love each other so much. Take when they enter the court-"Just grant me a little peace!" "A little peace? You're too modest; why not eternal peace?" Or after Geoffrey goes through a complicated "he knows that we know" speil-"We're a knowledgable family." But underneath all the hatred between the sons, and between Henry and Eleanor, you know that Henry and Eleanor love each other-they just can't live with each other. Henry wants Eleanor when all the sneaking around reaches a climax, not Alais. Watching them shift back and forth between love and hatred is the heart of the movie, and both actors are absolutely brilliant at it. Phenomenal movie, even if you aren't too clear on medeival English history. Watch "Becket" to get some backstory (also staring Peter O'Toole as Henry II) and Disney's "Robin Hood" for an exaggerated but pretty accurate picture of what followed. But know beforehand that neither of these films measure up to "The Lion in Winter," so make sure to watch this one again to know what good acting and filmmaking is all about.

I adore this movie-it's so cute! Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn are both wonderful in this movie and allow you to see the subtle changes in their relationship, culminating in a deep, powerful love. The disasters they encounter are amazing, from the mosquitoes and leeches to rapids and a broken propeller, yet through the magic of Hollywood they manage to survive it all. Usually that's meant to be an insult, but not here-you care about these characters and want them to come out on top (literally, when speaking of the river). Highlight of the whole movie, though: Boggie making faces at the hippos. Totally unexpected and hilarious. This movie is full of charming surprises like that, which make it very enjoyable, viewing after viewing.

Julie's good, as always, and the guys falling off the roof in the middle of the thunderstorm always crack me up, but I can't honestly say I like this movie all that much. It magically gets better every time I see it, but only marginally. I think my biggest complaint is that it's kind of confusing and just plain too long, even with the director's cut. For sentimental reasons I like this movie somewhat, since it brought my favorite movie star (Julie Andrews) and her soulmate (director Blake Edwards) together-in fact, they were married the morning of the Hollywood premiere after he proposed on the set, if I have the story right. Anyway, bottom line: not the best from anyone involved, and maybe if I see it ten more times, I will actually grow to like it. I doubt I can sit through it ten more times, but we'll see. Check for another review in about thirty years or so to see if that has happened.

Being a huge fan of Hitchcock, Julie Andrews, and Paul Newman, I should hate this movie because none of them were particularly fond of it. With that said, you know what's going to follow: I don't hate it. It's not my favorite movie, or the best work from any of those three great talents, but it's actually pretty good. I love how we find out things in this movie as Sarah (Julie's character) finds them out, particularly about the "real" reason Michael (Paul's character and Sarah's assistant/fiance) is in East Germany. It has all the suspense of Hitchcock's best films and even though you're pretty sure what's going to happen at the end, just knowing that Hitchcock directed it makes you question until the end. Could have gotten by just fine without Julie's bushy hairdo, but for a chance to gaze into Paul Newman's eyes I'll take what I must. The chemistry between the two stars isn't like hers with Christopher Plummer or his with Joanne Woodward, but it's not a total fizzle either. They're believably in love, and if they weren't, the movie wouldn't work since Sarah would have much less of a reason to care about what happens to Michael. That is the driving force of the movie, and it works. Again, not the best, but not the worst way to spend a few hours either.

Walt Disney was constantly inventing and reinventing his animation, always wanting to try something new and go one step further than anyone else even considered. One of the great products of that drive was the original Fantasia, which I have adored since I was a little kid(see my very flattering review of it) So when this one was released, I thought great, another Fantasia. No, not great.

First of all, WHY were celebrities introducing the segments? I realized the narrator of the first one is probably dead or at least incapable of narrating another film in the same manner, but there have to be plenty of unknown, intelligent men (or women) willing to give an informative, subdued introduction to each segment. Apparently the current Disney studio heads didn't consider the search to be worthy of their time. Secondly, did anyone else get sick of the Humpback whales after, say, two minutes? Thirdly, the "Carnival of the Animals" has probably close to a dozen movements, each with a different tone and style that could have been blended together to make a long, beautiful segment like the old Fantasia's "Nutcracker" or "Dance of the Hours". Again, apparently not worth the effort, according to the Disney studio heads.

This all comes down to one thing: this Fantasia wasn't made because of an overflow of creative energy or because the creators were concerned with making a quality picture. This version was made to capitalize on the old masterpiece. The only piece in this version that even comes close to the original is "Rhapsody in Blue", which was very well done, captured the spirit of the time in which the music was composed, and was the unequaled high point of the film. I want to like Fantasia 2000, and some of the segments are really nicely done, but after seeing the first one, I can't honestly say this one deserves a whole lot of praise.

What do you say about a movie that is forever synonomous with my childhood, that made my grandmother say "spit-spot" whenever she wanted me to hurry up, that made me run around my backyard with an umbrella in hopes of being swept away in the wind, that made me want that frilly pink dress Mary wears in the chalk painting more than I've ever wanted a dress in my life? This movie is absolutely delightful, and is rightfully considered Disney's greatest achievement. Julie Andrews (my favorite actress and singer) gives an incredible performance that I appreciate more and more as I get older. Dick van Dyke is equally wonderful and so is everyone else-the depth of characterization is amazing, even in the supporting players. You know that there's way more to Mary Poppins than she'll ever let on and that she doesn't want to leave at the end, but she does because her work is done. The actors, music, artwork, script-everything-just click in this film and make you want to watch it over and over again, which I certainly do.

A lot of people say they didn't appreciate this movie until they were adults, but I loved it from the age of 6 and still do. It's in my personal top 5. Being a musician myself (piano and flute, VERY amateur), I love how Disney took some of the most well-known classical music and made beautiful and often amusing pictures to go with it. I personally don't like the "Rite of Spring" segment, but that's fine-it's allowed one bad segment, and the "Nutcracker" and "Pastoral Symphony" more than compensate. I also love how the narrator gives background on the music and the animation but isn't a well-known actor. (Perceptive readers can probably guess that this was my biggest gripe with Fantasia 2000.) It really gives the impression that you're in a concert hall and these are just the pictures that run through your head while hearing the music. All music does that to me, and congrats to Disney for taking that little phenomenon and making a movie out of it. This movie is personally responsible for the invention of surround sound and, if you think about it, it was the first music video. Disney was never afraid to take a chance, and this proved once more that he didn't need to worry at all.

This movie is adorable. I went to see it the day it was released in theaters just to see Julie Andrews on the big screen-I vowed to like it no matter what, just because she was in it. I kept my vow, but with very little effort. I don't know what it is about this movie that makes it so cute and so rewatchable (I know that's not a word-bear with me). I guess everything just works-Julie and Anne Hathaway and all the other performers work really well together and it's actually somewhat intelligent. Yes, it's rated G (which I think is great anyway-go Garry Marshall for not giving into temptation!) and it's meant for young girls, but it isn't a movie that insults your intelligence. I can't explain it, it's just a cute movie. Can't wait for the sequel.

Casablanca is the closest thing to a perfect movie that has ever been made. It's the perfect length to tell its story but not drag, and it has suspense, humor, drama, romance, music, and everything else you would want in a movie. Screw the AFI-Casablanca is the single best movie ever to come out of Hollywood and I doubt it will ever be topped.