Reviews written by registered user
|4 reviews in total|
I probably wouldn't have rented it if I realized it was a woman having an affair with a prisoner, so I'm glad I didn't know that or I would have missed out on this very good movie. As it was, it turned out to be more of what I expected - two people who had been drawn together by sexual chemistry being bonded together from a shared adversity. And the sexual chemistry and tension between Roth and Ormond (or, technically, their characters as portrayed by the two excellent actors) is very strong. This is one hot movie, and it manages to be so with no nudity (although, it does have a sex scene). The movie also keeps tension throughout by showing various people noticing them. That way, you really can't be sure who their future threat will be.
Something about this being a story about a *headless horseman* told me to
check my logic circuits at the door and just enjoy the ride. Maybe the
script could have been a bit better, but I thought it was adequate. Since I
*don't* watch horror movies, Sleepy Hollow not being all that scary is a
definite plus in my book.
Not only will I buy the video and make watching it a Halloween tradition, but I'd love to see a sequel. I really loved Depp's hilarious hero-in-spite-of-himself portrayal of Ichabod Crane. I'd love to see him solve another turn-of-the-century supernatural(?) mystery. Visually, this has got to be the most *beautiful* movie I've ever seen. (And that's in spite of the occasional gore, or maybe even the gore is beautiful...) It's worth seeing on the big screen because of the beauty. It'll be worth buying the video/DVD when it comes out for the fun-house ride thrills, chills, and laughs.
I watched it twice and intend to go out and buy it tomorrow. It's a sweet little romantic comedy--with great scenery and a charming cast. If you like shoot-outs or slap-stick, obviously this isn't the movie for you. But for those of us who like our romances mixed with laughter and charm, this one is a keeper.
I didn't think it was possible. I'd always loved the 1967 Julie Christie
version with Alan Bates as the upright shephard Gabriel Oak. But having seen
this version, then reading the book (amazingly readable) and re-watching the
1967 version, I definitely give my vote to Nathaniel Parker as my favorite
Gabriel. (OK, so he's even cuter than Alan Bates circa 1967, so that part's
Seriously, comparing the two versions and the book (which is more Gabriel Oak's story), it is obvious how the Alan Bates part in the 1967 version was butchered to create more screentime for Terrance Stamp and Peter Finch as well as Julie Christie. It also became apparent to me that Julie Christie was too old for the part. Paloma Baeza is much more realistic (and likeable) as the headstrong, impetuous Bathsheba. I also liked the fact that there seemed to be more passion seething just beneath Gabriel Oak's surface veneer than in the 1967 version. The final scenes where she accepts his proposal and post-wedding are a lot more passionate (still without a single kiss, alas!) than the cool (dispassionate) ending of the 1967 version.