Reviews written by registered user
|10 reviews in total|
I love Rohmer's films. I just saw this one for the first time. It was fairly satisfying, deficient primarily because the lead actress was less interesting and appealing than most of Rohmer's women characters and actresses. I thought the movie might end with the lead male character falling asleep on screen for the fourth time during the film. But the presence and performance of the young actress Anne-Laure Meury redeems all. And, by the way, who is the wife of the aviator?
I recently read Philip Roth's novel but have yet to see the movie, mainly because I haven't read much good about it. I am surprised that only 500+ IMDB users have rated the movie (as of 12/01/04). I know the movie disappointed at the box office, but I wonder why more IMDB users have not seen it or rated it.
John Sayles is my favorite American director-writer from the early 1980's to the present. I have seen most of his films, and this is the worst. The film lacks most of Sayles' distinctive touches as both a writer and director. It lack dynamics, interrelationships, and any interesting development. This films compares extremely poorly with one of my all-time favorites, Nicholas Roeg's "The Man Who Fell to Earth", which has the similar theme of an alien from outer space coming to the United States. There are a few outstanding moments and shots in Sayles film, but its level of interest can be demonstrated by the fact that ITS alien uses his energies to repair pinball machines by merely touching them.
This is a wonderful and touching story. I was struck by the performances of James Dunn and Peggy Ann Garner. Dunn is very good as the father, and reading a brief biographical sketch, it is interesting to see how his life at that time was similar in significant ways to the character. Peggy Ann Garner gives the most incredible performance I have ever seen by a juvenile. It would be worth the price of admission many times over. I highly recommend this film.
I rented this turkey, thinking I was going to see a classic comedy. I have
to be rather sensitive in what films I watch with my wife, due to her
sensibilities. We didn't see the whole thing, stopping before the actual
dinner get together. The movie was pretty mediocre, and I don't appreciate
thinking I'm going to see a comedy and end up with what she said "was
to a tragedy". In any case, it wasn't our cup of tea.
Anyone who has enjoyed the films of John Sayles and/or likes independent films should see Return of the Secaucus 7. It is the story of several 1960's radicals who get together on an every so often, and the film occurs about 10 years after their college days. The interactions among the characters are interesting. The production values are not particularly noteworthy, but there is an authenticity to everything in the film. Many of the actors have few, if any, other credits. Comparisons to The Big Chill, made 3 years later, and highly indebted to this film, are not merited. Sayles film stands on its own. I personally much prefer The Big Chill.
I have read very little of Proust's great work. I found TIME REGAINED to be a marvelous film, one which further encourages me to read REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST in the future. The movie seems to me to be divided, unintentionally, into three parts. In the first, the photography is exceptional, the use of a moving camera among the best I have seen. This part deserves comparison with the Fellini films mentioned in another comment. However, the second section, which deals mostly with homosexual relationships, sees the imaginative direction almost grind to a halt. In the final section, some wonderful direction takes place again. I think it would have been helpful if the characters had worn name tags (just kidding). The acting was very good, and John Malkovich was outstanding. I saw a video of SWANN IN LOVE (the first volume of the work), and TIME REGAINED was infinitely superior as a filmgoing experience.
This is the first movie I have seen based solely on the viewer comments I have found on IMDb. I'm not sure how I became aware of this film on IMDb, possibly by its high rating. The comments were positive, but I was promised a great ending. I found the movie to be more of the same ghoulishness which passes for entertainment these days. It was not my cup of tea, or, in this case, blood. Whatever possesses writers to dream up this stuff is beyond me, I'm pleased to say. This is the first film I have seen by this writer and director, and although the combo did better, in my opinion, than the "American Beauty" combo, there is nothing there to encourage me to see another film by either. This was also the first time I have seen Brad Pitt, who looks like my nephew, and he wasn't good at all. I'll will give long consideration to going out of my way to see any film from the 1900's or 2000 on the recommendation of such comments.
I saw this movie twice in two days. Of course it's an outstanding film, but it didn't get any better the second time around. There were no special vibrations or hidden beauties to be found in seeing it again.
This film's sharp focus photography contributes to its being one of the most impressive visually that I've seen; it is one of my personal favorites. The editing, sets, music, and acting are all superb. The restored version contains many explicit sexual scenes. One does not view this cult classic because of its science fiction plot, but rather because of its technical achievements. I find this an emotionally involving movie. "Hello, MaryLou".