Great Movie, but Invites Resentment
595884
I understand why the reviews of this film, are all over the map.  Its marketing campaign promised some kind of intriguing spy? movie with some action.

What the movie delivered was an intriguing (retired)spy movie with almost NO action.  And a man having a middle age crisis-where he is no longer at the top of his game, but not ready for the retirement home.  This movie is about a loner - who becomes lonely, and I found it fascinating- but then I'm a loner. :D

If you approach this movie as a Drama - about the corrosive effects of being a loner and the karma of being an assassin on the downslope of life - and you are a fan of Clooney, I think you will really enjoy it!

I love how it perfectly captured the terrible feeling of being someplace beautiful, and idyllic- but being unable to enjoy it due to your own demons.  In this case demons being inside his head AND external enemies tryring to find and kill him

This isn't a great movie, but if you go in with accurate expectations, I don't think most people will be disappointed.
1717820
I seem to fall between the two camps of critical reaction. The majority who feel this is a classic, great film,
or the sizable minority who call the film boring, historically inaccurate, and all surface. I lean strongly
to the positive, but I understand the complaints, e.g., being bothered that the film never really examines
how hated the French were for their earlier colonialism. That larger context is part of what makes these
Brothers targets. One passing mention is hardly enough to deal with a huge element of the underpinnings
of the story.

Exploring that would only make the Brothers seem even more brave and help us understand that they took
a huge risk just to be there even before things get 'bad'. At the same time it would make the hatred they
faced from the terrorists and the Army not just seem like random 'evil' but something that had roots.

To be clear, that hatred and violence is unforgivable. But understanding how something happened, or why
your enemy hates you is part of the path to peace. It is something these wise, well-read monks would have
known about and must have been part of their thoughts and discussions, though its largely avoided here.

I also agree that the film is slow in parts, sometimes needed to establish the rhythm of the monks' lives,
but other times getting repetitive with no seeming advantage.

In addition, besides the two main characters, the other monks are largely one-note sketches, and the
sudden turn around of those who wanted to leave - maybe the most fascinating action in the film - is
largely under explored. Some of the time spent used on repeated rituals or re-tread conversations could
have been used to deepen the understanding of those men and their heartrending confusion.

It also bothered me that those who wanted to leave are never given strong or convincing arguments.
They're almost made to seem cowardly, or 'wrong'. The film could have gone further in it's compassion
towards these men, understanding that this was a complex decision, even on a theological level. When
does God want us to martyr ourselves and when would God rather we not sacrifice the gift of life to find
a way to live to fight another day? I can think of a number of third choices between surrender and simply
running away. These men must have examined those options, but there is little sign of it here. I have no
problem with the film's conclusion, but I wish it had felt both sides presented with equal weight and
seriousness, as I assume must have happened among the real monks.

But my biggest problem is that the film's style, while inviting thought, is somewhat emotionally distancing, so
while my brain was deeply engaged, my heart was less so than I wish it was. I wanted to weep for these men
and for the world, but I found myself more caught in mind than in emotions. I believe the story was strong
enough to carry both sides.

Now, all that said, I still think, unlike many of the professional critics that raised these points, that this is a very,
very good film, made with intelligence and passion. It is visually simple but stunning to look at. Its slow pace adds
to the meditative feel that eschews inflating drama for its own sake, and allows us a taste of the peace these men
experience by living in their simple, giving way, even in the midst of war. And there are scenes of sheer brilliance,
where whole stories are told on peoples' faces with little or no dialogue. Scenes where a combination of photography
and acting capture a huge range of complex emotions. We watch fear, joy, transcendence, defeat, and loss run through
the hearts of these men within seconds of each other without a word needing to be said, That is film-making of a high order.

Ultimately, this is a film that deserves and needs to be seen. A plea for peace and courage in the face of hatred. But that
doesn't mean it isn't a flawed work, or that acknowledging those flaws dismisses those very good things the film does
accomplish.
39530
The Sixth Sense is a fantastic movie, one of my childhood favorites. I remember it all, the ghost passing by the bathroom door at night, pukey girl in the tent, and the twist ending that had us on the edge of our seat. I had the tape of this and would watch it every day in the summer. I am very glad this is out on Blu-Ray, but as soon as I began watching it, about 30 minutes in, I already had a bad feeling. The picture is terribly grainy in a few bits, most notably the scene where Cole goes to calm his mother down at night. Cole's mom's nose has a bleed on it (slight red ghosting effect) during the "Picture scene" and Malcom's hair bleeds a bit too in some scenes. And the special features were disappointing too, they were just the special features on the Vista Series DVD. Sound quality is OK, but other than that, you're better off buying the DVD.
1950481
Although the acting in this movie is quite good, especially by Spencer Tracey, it is highly controversial. Many people, including myself, are offended by the negative portrayal of creationists. I also found out that the movie, typical with "The Hollywood Twist" is far from the reality of what happened in real life. ...
4270099
So much has been said and written about Jackson's LOTR that I want to keep my contribution brief and clear.

1) All in all I have greatly enjoyed the three films, and, while  I'm aware that, as with any work of art, LOTR cannot conform 100% to the individual viewer's taste, I found only minor causes for criticism-- except one: The killing of the Mouth of Sauron by Aragorn. In my opinion this one brief moment badly harms, almost ruins the credibility of the whole trilogy. With one swift stroke, the king-to-be here loses his dignity, moral integrity, and sense of justice, the most important attributes of a ruler. If only for a moment, he gollum-like displays his cowardly and inhumane lower self and (in my opinion) forfeits his right to wear the crown of Gondor. There was no need for this scene-- it is contrary to the spirit of all the rest of the movies (and the books). On first watching the extended version it shocked me so much that I had difficulty savouring the ending. Okay, it's only a movie, but ... what a pity. :-(

2) My second remark concerns the bonus material, which (like with the other two dvds) conveys the exceptional commitment and cooperation of both cast and crew and the wonderful spirit Peter Jackson was able to generate and maintain among the team for so long. On watching and listening to all the enthusiastic interviews and moving footage witnessing people's dedication and friendship, I can't help hoping that this same collective, positive energy will also inspire other groups working on more serious issues such as famine, AIDS, climate change, or deforestation. The LOTR project is the living example of what true commitment can achieve; that lesson in itself is extremely precioussss! :-)
3875195
I cannot begin to find words as compelling and articulate as most of its other five star reviewers of this film and Jeff Goodblum's remarkabel acting, so I won't much try. But I am disturbed by the types of expression used by those who reviewed it negatively. Had they seemed thoughtful or expressive rather than bitter, impatient, thoughtless, simplistic, childish even, I would consider their comments valuable. As it is, what a shame for them to so scathingly bring down a fine film deserving of five stars all 'round almost as acts of vengeance, or as if kicking something trashy off their shoes. I pray for more spiritual depth and joy in their lives and perspectives.
4864354
The film itself is very well made and pleasing to watch.  Buy it today, by all means.

My extreme distaste is to the fact that in the book this is based on, the British actually fight (and beat) an American ship in the war of 1812 (which the poor Brits had to fight at the same time as the Napoleonic war).  What's the matter with you Americans?  Can't you stand to see a little defeat on the big screen with some great historics to go with it?  You won the damn war in the end, anyway!  In most historical films the British are portrayed as evil and tyrannical (Braveheart, The Patriot), or else just bumbling, and ultra-posh.  What a load of Hollywood Hogwash!  It's like in "The Last Samurai", where you just have to have some American heroe gloating over victory.

Free your minds people!  (Take no offence, please.  I think Americans are great!)
475564
This is a really decent movie that is spoiled by the poor subtitles. If it was re-released with correct subtitling, and new packaging, for the english speaking audience in the US, I think it would be very well received. My wife and I enjoyed seeing a movie that showed the Japanese side of WW2. Showing the human side of the war, from a Japanese standpoint, allows us to understand that no one thinks that they are the bad guys in war. Every side believes that it is in the right. And every side has their reasons for doing what they do. This understanding can help us to see our "enemies" as real people, with real feelings, instead of sub-human beings that we should hate and kill. If all sides, in any given dispute, maintained this awareness, perhaps we would fight each other less often, and with less viciousness. Sadly, our tendency is to de-humanize each other, in order to treat each other viciously, supposedly to win. How tragic this is.
1125827
I really enjoyed the movie, and there's no need to repeat what has already been said (descriptively).  I had one problem that made me uneasy.  I saw Daniel Day Lewis, but the voice I heard throughout was Sean Connery's:  not just the accent. It was if someone had done a study on all the nuances of Sean's voice and sought to replicate it.  Still a great movie, with a great twist at the end.  Reminds me of Master Poe's (Kung Fu) line (after he had driven off a robber): "Can any man afford so much arrogance?"
1118883
I like some of the tunes in this movie soundtrack. The movie is so sweet and wholesome in a lot of ways. I even watched the movie twice in one sitting. It really touched my heart. Gosh, I'm so deeply in love with Lynn-Holly Johnson. Who isn't, right? I feel like a kid with a big crush. The only thing that was really disappointing was all the foul mouth cussing. I'm sure some will find that funny and have a good chuckle. As a partially some what of a decent Christian. I did find the G.D.'s a bit overboard. I lost count at a certain point. Yes, it was loaded. I don't want to discourage anyone from buying the movie. I'm just disappointed that the writer, and other decision makers allow that sort of verbage in an almost wholesome family entertainment movie. Okay, enough bickering. I was upset, and had to vent off some steam. Get the movie and sountrack. I still recommend it. If the foul mouth cussing bugs you. Try and ignor it, and enjoy the rest of the movie. It is a really touching movie. Go for it. Enjoy! :)
790376
Tremendous performances by Eddie Marsan and Joanne Froggatt; Eddie's character is so full of pathos, empathy and goodwill.  What he does on behalf of the deceased who have no family or friends to bury them is a worthy theme for literature and drama.  He makes me want to have as much love of mankind as he does.  But, just when you believe that his life will finally flourish, having met Joanne's character, tragedy unfolds, and it's so unnecessary!!  Totally hated the ending of the film.  As a philosophical treatise, it may rank high on the ironic scale, but as a story unfolding about a human being who's just trying to find some measure of happiness - and who richly deserves it - the irony feels misplaced and spoils the effect of the film.
1701795
I love it when movies make me feel something and goes beyond merely telling a good story. This movie was well done. Ralph Fiennes did a great job playing a selfish husband. Keira Had every reason to feel slighted and unloved. While you can't condone her behavior, you can see why she could desire it as a way to experience happiness in the midst of such a double standard in her marriage. The way the three of them (her husband, his lover, and the duchess) ate their meals together was positively horrible. She was trapped in a loveless marriage, and despite her love for her children, the continual rejection from her husband robbed the little joy should have had. I have to say that scene where she handed her only baby boy to her lover's family (on her husband's order) made me cry. I felt the agony of the character's hopelessness and grief. The saddest part of all was the fact that this story was based on a true story. So it wasn't just a fictional tale, but based on this duchess's life and her painful experiences. I enjoyed this movie despite the sad themes.
2511976
This was a movie I've been wanting to see since I was 11 years, so by the time I finally got a chance to see it, I was highly anticipating it. I liked it the first 4 times I saw it, but after the 5th time, I didn't like it as much. What changed? Well for one Allen Payne, who was convincingly in New Jack City, had an inconsistent performance as Jason. Sometimes he looked like an Oscar winning actor, other times he looked really amateur. His delivery of his lines at times was horrible and seemed really forced. Bokeem Woodbine as Joshua, had a much better performance than Payne. Woodbine's portrayal of Joshua is charismatic, intimidating, and compassionate. There were times you hated Joshua and other times, you ended up rooting for him. Woodbine's performance was one of the best in the film. Another excellent performance is Treach as Alonzo, the leader of a bank robbing crew. Alonzo is charismatic, menacing, volatile, and compassionate. Treach does an excellent job displaying all those emotions. At times, Alonzo is hatable, but by the end of the movie, you actually feel sorry for him. As great as Woodbine and Treach were, this movie goes downhill thanks to Jada Pinkett Smith. She didn't seem convincing as a romantic lead and an object of affection. Her delivery of her lines was off as well at times. I'm not saying I hate this movie. However it could have been better. I'm probably in the minority for what I think about this movie, but that's ok. For those of you who have never seen this movie, you might like it to the point where it will leave a lasting impression in your mind forever. But I see this as a movie that gets doomed by two inconsistent lead performances. Jason's Lyric being one of my favorite movies isn't a tune that I'll be singing!
4928640
What is the world coming to when a movie by the Farrelly Brothers makes me cry?  I knew I was being set up for something Hal (Jack Black) goes with his new girlfriend Rosemary (Gwyneth Paltrow) to the Children's Hospital where she volunteers and has a great time with the kids.  I knew that Hal was missing something and I could not figure out what it was either (except that it was not contagious), and when the revelation came it floored me almost as much as it did Hal.  We live in interesting times, to say the least.
You all know the basic premise of "Shallow Hal."  Our hero is only interested in what women look like.  There is an unnecessary prologue in which Hal's dying father imparts some drug-induced wisdom that supposedly programs Hal to be shallow.  However, he apparently learned how to be inept with women all on his own.  Then he has a chance encounter with self-help guru Tony Robbins (played by self-help guru Tony Robbins in a brilliant bit of casting).  Now when he goes off into the world, Hal will see the inner beauty of women.  Actually he is told it will apply to any "person" he sees, but it does not work on Hal's best friend, Mauricio (Jason Alexander), which would have been interesting, and apparently only works once in "reverse" over the course of the film.  Hal is suddenly having great success with a bevy of beautiful women, but it is Rosemary with whom he is completely smitten.
Granted, there is an inherent flaw in turning inner beauty into outer beauty for a man who has been totally obsessed with the latter, because on the intellectual level that defeats the whole purpose of the fable being told here.  In a sense, Hal now gets to have his cake and eat it too.  I wonder if this film would have worked the other way around, where we always see the truth and get only brief glimpses of what Hal sees.  But then Gwyneth Paltrow is not going to be playing the lead, and that would have been a shame.
As long as I am making outrageous comments about this film I might as well say that Paltrow's performance in "Shallow Hal" is better than her Oscar winning performance in "Shakespeare in Love."  Forget about the scenes where she wears the "fat suit," it is the rest of the film where she does a marvelous job of acting like an overweight person.  Usually Paltrow's character is like fine porcelain china, but this time around her character has some weight (sorry, you knew that was coming), and in this film she is the most attractive she has ever been as far as I am concerned.  For most of the film Black tries too hard, clearly aware he is in a Farrelly brothers film, but in the key scenes (including the one that made me cry) he is on target and when it comes to playing an annoying sidekick Jason Alexander is in a league by himself.  But everybody's favorite supporting character is Walt (Rene Kirby), who has spina bifida and establishes the standard by which we judge Hal and the rest of the males in this film (Why doesn't the "inner beauty" charm work on him?  Because he is male?  These things bother me).  Remember that this is one of those films where you have to watch the credits because there is something at the end.
The trailer for "Shallow Hal" gives away virtually every major sight gag in the film, which is actually good because you gloss over those while you watch it and keep your focus on the relationship between Jack and Rosemary.  One of the other surprises of this film is that most of the jokes are at Hal's expense and not Rosemary's.  But once you get past Paltrow's performance and a tearjerker scene, this ends up being a relatively minor surprise.  In the end, "Shallow Hall" is the least funny Farrelly Brothers movie, which is actually appropriate.
3894177
I just watched this on my Kindle - which I love being able to do.  It's a moving movie and my heart hurts every time I watch it.

But am I mistaken that part of a scene is missing or did I just imagine it?  The end of the poker scene, I thought there was a part when Jesus talks to the black soldier about "this is one place where you are welcome".  Was that removed? and if so, why?

That scene is just as true today as it was when the movie was made.  And even when the book was written.

Additionally, the scene where Jose is discussing how to get fired is missing.

Other than that, it's amazing.  I think everyone should see this movie.  Understanding that in war it's the young men and women that suffer and die for old men's decisions.

War is fought for Liberty?  Liberty for who?
968343
I was torn on how to rate this movie, but felt so strongly about it that i had to. One the one hand, it's brilliantly made. Harron's directorial eye for everything from scene pacing to lighting to interior decor (Bateman's all-white furniture and spotless apartment is perfect) makes the movie work very well. She gets the satire, and even (at times, anyway) manages to keep the movie itself from descending into to the misogynistic filth of its subject matter and protagonist. So, yeah, well-made. On the other hand, i hated it. The violence made me feel like i was being repeatedly kicked in the stomach, and i never really did sort out whether i was supposed to like this guy or not. Naturally, he's a Clockwork Orange-style antihero, but like that movie, after a couple hours of brutality we're meant to feel pity for him because being rich and handsome makes him sad. Really, it comes down to the fact that, as well-made or as well-acted (Christian Bale is astounding; and really it IS worth seeing if only for his performance), or as well-intended the message about the soul-nullifying effect of materialism, it's just not really fun to watch. I like scary movies; this one was too scary. Then again, a lot of people love it for the same reasons i didn't like it.
1173011
This movie is a classic. There are many funny parts when hooch tears everything apart in tom hanks neat clean home. But sometimes i think i prefer k-9 not that k9 is better, both are great dog comedies, but the dog in k-9 with jim belushi lives at the end. To me, i find the ending to turner and hooch to be devastatingly sad, even though there was a brilliant attempt to make it less sad, and not completely ruined, the scene that was put in at the end when the puppy looked like hooch when we didn't know that camile and hooch mated till that point. But still, it's awful when it shows the dog being shot in the air, it's a little graphic, and to back that up, this film was on tv the other day on tnt, and they had to cut that part out, when it shows the bloody spot on his fur when he is shot. It's a bit much, there is enough violence in movies. I'm fine with people getting killed in films because it is fake, and the animals also getting killed is fake, but still too unbearable for me, and animal lovers. Not that the ending ruined the film, because i can still enjoy the film, and laugh at the parts that were meant to be funny as a distraction from the horrible ending. Also, the way that hooch died. Like k9's do, and any animal that loves his owner, they will risk their own life for you, it's a reminder to the world to treat their dogs/pets/any animal good and humane, because you wouldnt believe how loyal animals are. They would put their lives on the line to save you, just out of love for you, and they don't ask for much in return. What person do you know that you can honestly say that about?? End animal cruelty now, and raise your children right, to respect and be kind to animals who are more capable of extraordinary things than you would realize. They are living breathing beings, and they should be respected and cherished. I cant even watch animal cops on animalplanet, because of how stupid and ignorant people are. Hopefully in the future there will be less animal abuse and animal neglect. There is always hope for the future.