Reviews

As a Christian, I am often conflicted with the movies our 'community' produces. Too often a beautiful story can be marred by a lack of quality writing, acting, and production.

So I admit to feeling tense as I sat in the theater this morning watching I Can Only Imagine, with an expectation that some cringe-worthy line or delivery would happen at any moment. Happily, this story-in-film hits the trifecta: quality writing, quality acting, and quality production.

It's not perfect. What film is?! But in a world where abuse happens all too often, here is a story of redemption, reconciliation, and hope, and it will impact anyone who sees it in a positive way. The worst of the abuse is spoke of, not acted out, making this a safe and inspiring movie choice for almost all ages. The faith of the main character is also portrayed in a subdued way--not with Bible-thumping or speeches.

See it, regardless of your belief system. And bring Kleenex.

I don't even know where to begin to warn movie lovers to avoid this time-waster. The plot is nonsensical. The rock creatures are ridiculous. The acting is good, as you would expect from Crowe and Connelly, but they can't save this really awful movie. I haven't seen a storyline this bad in a very long time.

I was hoping for some good special effects of the flood, since the geological impacts of the event are so intriguing, but even they were sub-par. Now I understand why the marketing team made the movie out to be so controversial--because it was the only possible way to generate an audience. Hopefully these actors will go on to work in the great movies for which they were previously known and this movie will disappear into the great unknown.

I didn't expect to like this movie as much as I did. Originally a friend and I went to support the film, not really sure we would like it all that much. But wow! What a great story! There is more going on than the ads portray, with many different characters and situations of all kinds. There are some clunky scenes that weren't well-edited, but overall it's a good story not too far outside the realm of reality.

The acting was better than I expected it to be based on other comments and reviews. I've concluded that most viewers are over-rating or under-rating the movie, depending on their perspective on God. As a Christian, of course my friend and I had an appreciation for the subject matter, but as movie-lovers we also enjoyed the film.

When I saw that Suzanne Bier was the director, I decided to rent this movie on the spot since she directed my all-time favorite film "After the Wedding."

However, 'Love is All You Need' is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. About the only thing is has going for it is the solid acting of the cast, which gives Ms. Bier their best efforts despite the vacuous story line.

One implausible incident piles upon another, until the viewer has completely lost interest. The characters of Leif and Bennedikte (?) are so unrealistic that they are downright ridiculous. Leif is a dufus who is so heartless and stupid that he brings his young arm-candy lover to his daughter's wedding mere days after he's caught sleeping with her by his cancer-stricken wife, Ida. And Bennedikte, the groom's aunt, is a mean-spirited, cruel mother who publicly berates her daughter for obesity and goes so far as to try to teach the daughter to induce herself to vomit so she can lose weight.

While the movie is lacking in plot and script, it is not lacking in immorality--an attempt perhaps to garner viewers who might be titillated by nudity and gay lovers making out.

The only reasons I give this movie a '3' instead of a '1' are because the message is a positive one, and I thought the ending was nicely done. Also I believe Pierce Brosnan's wife died of cancer not long ago, so this was perhaps a subject that held special meaning for him.

I was really looking forward to seeing this movie but what a disappointment. The plot is unsure of itself, the acting adequate but not great, and the Philadelphia Eagles angle is poorly executed.

We meet Pat right off the bat when his mother shows up at the mental hospital to take him home, where we then meet his father (Robert DeNiro). Within ten minutes their characters are easily discernible-- mom is the peacemaker; dad is OCD, a huge Eagles fan, and prone to get in a fight or two. Pat is bi-polar, refuses to take any medication, and is living in a constant state of anxiety.

The mental illness at the heart of the first half of the film disappears about the time Pat agrees to take medication, at which point it becomes a romance. (supposedly it's a comedy too, but until the closing scenes there was little that was laugh-worthy). Pat begins a relationship(refreshingly chaste) with Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), agreeing to be her dance partner in an upcoming competition in exchange for her doing him a favor regarding his ex-wife.

The second half of the movie is dominated by a combination of Eagles football, which Pat's father worships, and the growing friendship between Pat and Tiffany. Unfortunately, none of the Eagles drama rings true if you live in the Philly area, as I do. Philadelphians have a distinct accent which goes undetected in DeNiro's portrayal.

Sadly the schizophrenic plot, the stilted and rough execution of lines, and the lack of a genuine Philly feel outweigh the the satisfactory ending. Overall, this film was not horrible, but not very good either. I can only guess that the Academy smiled upon Silver Linings Playbook because of the mental health angle. Wish that had been more fully explored within the context of the second half of the film.

The 'R' rating is for a conversation in the diner between Pat and Tiffany regarding a sexual experience she had, for partial nudity in a flashback scene, and for numerous uses of the f-word.

This is a well-done documentary that will answer some questions about Barack Obama and leave you with many more. The film is visually and intellectually stimulating and although it has some flaws, it is extremely well-done. Using Obama's own words from his 'Dreams' book, the author draws conclusions that are hard to dispute.

I was especially intrigued by what the author refers to as Obama's Founding Fathers, which are a stunning contrast to America's Founding Fathers. There were a couple of minor things about the film I didn't like, which I won't mention as it might spoil others' perceptions.

My feelings after seeing the movie were mixed: I am scared of this man, and yet I feel terribly sad for him because of the childhood he experienced. He was moved from place to place and missed out on having a father for most of his growing up years. How could this kind of childhood NOT have a negative impact on a young man? Every person in this country who plans to vote should watch this film before casting their ballot. Sadly, many of those who like Obama as a person seem unwilling to consider what his ideals and goals are for our country, and I don't know how the message can get through to these folks. It's dangerous to not know the truth about this man.

With all the big names in this movie I was expecting something really great--something well worth the price of two movie tickets. Unfortunately my husband and I were both very disappointed. The story line is very lacking, and the ending will leave you wanting more. The acting was superb, and some scenes were very powerful. The first half of the movie has you wondering what direction the plot is going to take. When the defining moment finally arrives, you expect a dramatic series of events as the characters twist and turn to make lemonade out of lemons. But there is nothing besides lemons in this offering. No resolution, no happy ending. If you're looking for a smart, interesting drama, skip this one.

This is a movie that needed to be made. Unfortunately it also needed to be about twice as long to even come close to giving a more complete evaluation of education in America today.

The message of the movie is frighteningly undeniable: the American education system is failing, and it's largely due to two things: 1) a generation of kids being raised by their drop-out parents or stressed-out grandparents (who now value what they missed); and 2) bad teachers who CANNOT be fired due to union regulations and tenure. I suspect that many, many teachers in Wisconsin are cheering what their legislature just did to end collective bargaining. Perhaps positive change is coming for the kids! What wasn't mentioned in the movie was the fact that the majority of failing schools are in our inner cities (my 13 yr-old asked halfway thru why they weren't talking about schools in Montana or Nebraska--well duh!). Sadly there are a host of reasons that inner cities struggle more with education the most but these weren't addressed by the director.

I learned a lot, yet was left wanting more. One unanswered question for me was: isn't home school an option for some of these folks? Our local school has a virtual charter school available online--it's completely free and they even provide a computer for the student. Surely this could be an option for some of these kids! And what about putting some volunteer opportunities into the end of the film for those who want to do something to help these kids?! I hope Guggenheim does a part 2 and maybe even a part 3. This issue is much bigger than what this film covers.

This is an excellent film about one thing: a man who overcomes a problem that has plagued him all his life and that interferes with his ability to function as the King of England.

There is no romance, no action, no mystery, no sub-plot. But despite its limited focus, the movie works beautifully. It is moving, funny, sad, triumphant,historically accurate, and lovely to look at. The screen-play, acting, photography, etc. are about perfect.

The 'R' rating is for two brief scenes with coarse language; the rest of it is squeaky clean. My husband reluctantly agreed to take me but agreed it was an excellent movie (a 7 out of 10) and was glad he went.

I will admit up front that I didn't watch this entire movie. Why? Because I couldn't make it past the first 30 minutes.

The mother and father are portrayed as adult children with a child of their own. I suppose if I had kept watching, the father, Bruno, would be revealed to be the true infant who proceeds to grow up during the film.

Whoever wrote and directed this movie obviously has no experience with childbirth. The young lady who has just given birth is shown dashing around, chasing and being chased by her boyfriend, and also telling him she wants to sleep with him. I've given birth 4 times, and can guarantee you that running, chasing, and sex are not something that new moms are capable of doing! Ridiculous.

I only scored this 3* because I didn't see the whole thing, and perhaps it gets better as it goes on. Please, don't waste your time.

This movie has some pluses--it's well-acted and beautifully filmed--but the story itself is sad and depressing.

A man, Tolstoy, who teaches love and respect of others, is unable to practice such characteristics with his own wife. She, on the other hand, is manipulative and not easy to get along with.

I can't comprehend how two people who have spent 48 years together could be separated at the end of life, nor how Cherhov (sp?) insisted on keeping the wife away. Who would do that?! The one redeeming quality is that Valentin seems to recognize that love is more important than being a 'Toystoyian,' although he might be confusing sex for love.

Nothing in this movie made me glad to have seen it, other than admiring Helen Mirren's ageless grace and beauty.

I found this movie on cable last night and watched out of curiosity. The story is more about the relationship between Jack and Louise than it is about Socialism and the Bolshevik Revolution; yet we see how both of those played out in their relationship and learn a little bit about both throughout the film (which is 3 hours, by the way!) I thought Beatty did a fairly good job with his part, but I've never been a fan of Diane Keaton and this role is no exception. Nicholson is terrific, as always. The interviews between scenes were spot-on.

The active Socialist movement in the U.S. began in 1905 under the name "Intercollege Socialist Society." It was started by author Jack London, among others. Their numbers increased until about 1921, when Socialism fell in disrepute after the failed Bolshevik Revolution. At that time the ISS went underground. However their work continued, eventually under a different name (League for Industrial Democracy), and is still active today under multiple branches.

Reds gives us a grim, real picture of the inside world of the beginnings of this Socialist movement, as experienced by two historical figures, both writers. A modern remake by some brave producer would likely be well-received with all the cries of Socialim that are heard within the country today.

Inception is one of those movies that allows the story to develop and build. In the first 20 or 30 minutes I had absolutely no idea what was going on or where the movie was heading, but part of the movie's appeal is to try to figure those things out. And after 30 minutes you have enough of an idea to want to stick around for the rest. Unlike some, my husband and I didn't have any trouble discerning the dream sequences from reality once the movie got going.

There are two things that are appealing about this movie: 1: The complicated and unique storyline and 2. The acting chops of every single person--not just DiCaprio. I think these things are driving the high ratings.

However, the movie has flaws: 1. Lacks any depth of personal relationship of the characters to one another. 2. One of the main characters (Saito) speaks with an accent that is very difficult to understand. 3. There are a LOT of things in the last 1/3 of the movie that don't really make sense once you think them through. 4. Poor sound quality and way too much shooting and car chasing.

It was worth seeing once, but don't expect anything more than a sci-fi/action film because it doesn't deliver anything beyond that.

Is it a comedy? Is it a detective story? Drama? What's the genre here? I guess it doesn't matter all that much, since this movie misses regardless of what it's trying to be.

Before you watch this film--if you ignore my advice and rent it--you need to know that the main character has a problem with lying. We don't know why; we don't know when it started, and we don't know much of anything else about what's motivating him.

Not funny, not interesting, not entertaining. It gets a '10' for confusing and maybe a '5' for Matt Damon's acting chops. The story line is a '2.' Hard to believe it's based on real life events......guess I'll need to rely on wikipedia to clear up some of the missing details.

One of my top 5 favorite movies is Suzanne Bier's "After the Wedding." This movie is as close to perfection as a film can be. So I was anxious to see another one of her productions and had to actually purchase a copy of Brothers in order to view it. With such rave reviews, I thought it would be worth it (fortunately paid only $7 on amazon).

Unfortunately this movie a disappointment. The plot line holds so much potential, but for some reason it just doesn't work. Connie Nielsen, whom I loved in Gladiator, doesn't give us much of a performance here, and her hair is looks unwashed in a lot of scenes, I assume that's due to the highlights she had at the time.

The actor who portrays Michael did a superb job. He is put in a terrible position while in captivity and we feel his anguish as the film progresses after that incident.

The brother who becomes a potential love interest is so unappealing as to make her interest in him hard to understand. He's unattractive and smokes incessantly, and I hate to be shallow but honestly, how could anyone be attracted to someone who smelled like smoke all the time?! I did like the final scene and was satisfied with the ending. But everything else was so-so. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

The various crying scenes were not well-done at all, and in a movie which involves so much gut-wrenching emotion, it was vital the actors get those scenes right. But they failed miserably.

Rent it if you want to see it, but don't buy it. I give the story an 8, but the acting a 3.

As someone who absolutely loves a good movie, I really enjoyed this film. It has a great message (people need people; people need God), good acting, a good storyline, and it really keeps your interest.

My group of 40-something women friends all thought it was well worth seeing. Judging by the size of the crowd (mostly teens), it won't be in theaters long,however, so see it immediately or be sure to get it on DVD as soon as it comes out.

The first 10 minutes I was skeptical....it was feeling like an amateurish attempt at film making. But that feeling was gone quickly. In fact, I would give the actual filming a 10. Some unique techniques were used that really made it a cut above. Also it was laugh-out-loud funny at times.

The story drags a little bit about 3/4 of the way through. And some of the drama could have been eliminated (such as Jake's parents' relationship). The dialog didn't flow at times, usually between Jake and Amy. And a few other flaws I can't mention w/o giving away the too much.

But overall this movie will make you want to treat those around you with care and concern, and will motivate you to watch for those among us who get lost. Every youth group leader should take their church kids to see this. It could literally change the world if even just a few kids began to reach out like Jake does in this movie.

Great message w/o preaching.

What's wrong with this film?

The plot line is dull and fragmented. Way too much screen time is spent on various ridiculous fight scenes. The lighting is very dark in the film, with lots of dull colors used in scene after scene. Rachel McAdams, who has a relatively small part, is the only character who offers any kind of visual color. The accents used by the actors can be hard to understand.

The ending is a set-up for a second movie, but I don't expect this one will generate enough of a following to warrant a part two.

Wish I could say something positive, but honestly, it's dull and not worth the time or money. Then again, as a forty-something mom maybe I'm just not the demographic at whom the movie was aimed.

It is impossible to describe this movie without giving away some of the plot details.

Within the first 15 minutes, you will be asking yourself three questions:

Who is this man, what is he doing, and why is he doing it?

The acting is phenomenal (although I'm not a big Smith fan), especially the actress who plays the part of the Hispanic mother.

This is a very smart movie--makes you think as you're given pieces of the who and why but can't quite put it all together. By the end, it all makes sense.

I would have given it 10 stars, except it gets a little slow about 2/3 of the way through.

Enjoy!

Don't waste your money or your time on this movie. A neighbor recommended it as 'decent' and 'worth watching,' but I couldn't get beyond the amount of time it took me to walk two miles on the treadmill while trying to like it.

The movie frequently reverts from the past to the present, but Josh Brolin, who plays the part of George W., looks almost identical despite the extreme differences in age.

The dialogue is stilted, as though the screenwriter wanted to make points and then just wrote them into the script--there's no flow at all.

Bush is made to look like an incompetent, uncouth fool. He chews with his mouth open, talks while eating, and in general has the manners of a four-year-old child. There is nothing about him to like or dislike, so there is an empty feeling about why Laura is attracted to him or why he has so many friends.

The members of his administration are, in appearance, excellent resemblances of the real thing, but again, their lines are stilted and the dialogue just doesn't work.

Like George W. Bush or not, this movie is not worth your time.

To fully appreciate this film, you should know as little as possible about it. Don't read any reviews which might include plot revelations prior to viewing it.

This is a film-lover's movie. It covers a wide range of emotions from start to finish. It's not your typical happily-ever-after story. The layers that are peeled back over the first 3/4 of the film are pure enjoyment. This movie is terrific--acting, storyline, directing, pace.

If you like it the first time, watch it again. Once you know all the plot details it's fascinating to go back and see why certain characters say and do what they do, and why Ms. Bier films the way she does.

The acting is beyond superb. Some have called the movie too much like a soap opera, but I would say it's more like the emotions of real life ebbing and flowing throughout.

In a time when social justice is the topic of the day and wealthy capitalists are hated, pay attention to how the poor who are without hope of even something as basic as a meal, let alone an education, have their day-to-day lives improved by the benevolence of someone with great wealth. Maybe money isn't such a terrible thing after all. It can do a lot of good for those who are needy.

Enjoy!

I absolutely loved Abba when I was a teenager in the late 70's. With the big names in this movie, I assumed it would be at least average and maybe even good.

Sadly, this movie is a huge disappointment. I'm searching for the right words without being too critical, but frankly, they don't exist. No plot, no (singing) talent, and no satisfactory ending. Hard to believe Meryl Street, Pierce Brosnan, and Colin Firth stooped to this level. Without them the movie would have been laughed out of Hollywood.

Please don't waste your $$. Buy an old Abba CD instead and enjoy the real thing.

Unbelievable.