Reviews

Technically this film was great & it was a good story. The acting was excellent, BUT... it was also an annoying film for the following reasons:

1) She seemed so intelligent, how did she also make such a stupid mistake as to leave in the middle of an opera with a married man where everyone could see her go - what was she thinking?! 2) Why was Lily so damn proud as to not accept help from 2 well-intentioned friends, one of whom actually loved her & she didn't have the sense to follow her heart! Was this realistic? (Oh ya, it's a film!) 3) Why didn't she use those damning letters to re-enter the society she craved (tho why quite frankly, when it was by and large so hypocritical, is beyond me!)? 4) And to cap it all, she decides working is just too problematic so she tops herself! What a waste! 5) Why did Lawrence not chase her more if he was really interested in her? What game was he playing at? So he annoyed me!

She seemed so clever at the beginning - I thought she'd find a way out of her troubles. Sorry but she was a complex & silly woman. (Yes, it's judgmental.)

I'm annoyed that this film has affected me days after I saw it.

7/10 from me

A film of surprising majesty mainly because of its sincerity to convey the tale of a young (American) high school student, touchingly and masterfully played by the then 12-year-old Haley Joel Osment, who, at the instigation of his new teacher's challenge to the class, comes up with a beautiful and simple plan to make a difference in the world, involving doing a good turn to not just one person but three, who then, in turn, return the gift themselves to three more people, thereby very quickly spreading goodness in both directions, in the giving and receiving, in the most unlikely places and ways. Warning: a tear-jerker!

Detailing the battle on the South Pacific Island of Guadalcanal in 1943 and the Americans' final success over the Japanese, this is a most poignant and underestimated war film. Seen through the narrator, one of the American soldiers, the film's strength lies in its depiction of the harshness, misery, madness, and yet also the depth of humanity, on both sides. There are no winners here. Superb acting all round from the plethora of well-know actors, this extraordinary film leaves you pondering about life long after the credits have rolled on by.

It reminds me how fortunate I am not to have been forced to be a soldier as I could not do what so many have been, are still in parts of the world, made to do on behalf of their governments, or renegade armies. May we be forgiven for all the suffering humankind has meted out on other fellow human beings.

Well I'm surprised so many people like Woody Allen's new British film. I only saw part of it on Foxtel tonight but walked away eventually as I was bored, disinterested in the characters, and the story is too close to his earlier film 'Crimes & Misdemeanors', which was far superior, I felt.

I also don't know what all the hoopla is with Johansson, unless you're a guy! The lead actor, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is pretty good as the cold, selfish rags to riches kinda guy, but his darker too black to be likable for me.

Pity. I miss Woody's early, very hilarious films. Sigh. Only 1/10 from me for this film.

Enough positive comments have been made about this film BUT I didn't get the ending! Could someone tell me what happens at the VERY end: Who dies & who doesn't? Replies to salamu@iprimus.com.au appreciated.

I cannot think of any more to comment but I'm being asked to write 10 lines! So I hope this extra will be accepted! Does anyone else have this problem? Why can't we only write a few lines? Beats me.

Casting was good with Bale turning out the most impressive performance to date. Jackman not as impressive. Bale was the more contained & restrained. The brief appearance of ex-Gollum would have gone unnoticed had my husband not pointed it out, as with Bowie acting as Tesla, and a nice job he did too. Now that must be 10 lines surely!

I usually like independent films & this is my second Ozon film which have both had Charlotte Rampling in, and unfortunately they have both been disappointing. Too long takes, too much left unclear, and essentially I was bored. (And I'm French & like slow (but they need to be good) films.) The ending is annoying & left hanging. Why? Also, Charlotte, in character, is often not very likable. For example, she could have just been aloof, and not mean, to Vincent, who was just trying to be nice & helpful.

What this film does do is give one a good idea of how NOT to be in relation to death - one should remember that one's loved ones can die at any time and one needs to be ready to let them go. But our culture doesn't like to talk, or even think, about death, even though it's all around us. How many people die each day? And one needs to grieve adequately before starting any new relationship.

Surprisingly for a film, I haven't seen a bad review yet for this perplexing and frustrating film, at least for me. Unlike the other reviewers, although I would agree that here we have the outline of a good story and there is a certain degree of polish overall, I also felt cheated at the end by there not being a tying up of loose ends, and ultimately, especially after watching the DVD extras about the incredible directorial control Haneke exerted on his cast and crew, I experienced an unpalatable pretentiousness about this film, unfortunately.

I remain puzzled by what was implied as having happened, as this cannot really be simply explained as being unclear. There has to be meaning behind the main events portrayed, and I think that Haneke purposefully left things muddled as he probably likes to stir (read annoy) audiences. Pity - it would have been even better with a bit more at the end. I'm not asking for much!

I've just watched this film and I myself write to two inmates in American prisons, one on Death Row (DR) (and he did not commit murder), so this topic of justice v. injustice is one very close to my heart & sensibilities.

What can one say when one hears that someone has spent up to 21 yrs of his/her life for a crime he/she did not commit, and the only way they finally get off DR was from DNA exoneration.

This is a film that all policemen, the judiciary, and school kids should have to see as a matter of course, but actually I reckon all Americans should see - to realise how many innocent lives have been totally ruined or, worse, lost at the electric chair for a crime they never committed. Why, also, does the law not act, when new evidence comes to light, ie why are people not released when they are found to be innocent. What is wrong with people not standing up for the truth? Is it so hard to do? How can these people sleep at night knowing that they have done nothing with evidence that could mean an innocent person could be released? This is totally beyond my understanding! This world is weird and mad! Films such as this one prove it. But this film was also so gentle in its delivery, so lacking in anger, which everyone had every right to be. (I would certainly have been had I been in their shoes.) It was great to see such fine actors taking on a film like this. It certainly added authenticity. An important film for the world to see: that not everyone who goes to prison is guilty! 10/10, from NSW, Australia

I went to see this film because enough reviewers seemed to have found it funny. Well, I certainly didn't. It was just plain dumb and the story was boring. I didn't find the main lead or the supporting cast interesting enough. The material and acting could have been better handled with a different cast or director maybe. Altogether a very disappointing film. Too much swearing and not enough laughs. And the bottom line is too much emphasis on sex anyway! No wonder some cultures look at the West with derision! I suggest you look at other comedies if you want a good laugh. Even the 1960s British 'Carry On' series is funnier than this and they touched on similar sexual themes. I'd give this film a zero if I was able to vote that low!

I expected to be disappointed mainly because our local film reviewers whose opinions are usually valid were not so positive about this film but I was happily surprised.

I still think 6th Sense was Night's best but this is better than the others he's made since. There were a few twists which were unexpected and the acting was faultless.

It's not your usual over-the-top type of horror movie which I don't like anyway but it would be a disappointment if you had expectations.

Best to go open-minded and be pleasantly surprised. 7/10

(I count 10 lines but this isn't enough according to these stupid regulations! Who makes them?)

I watched this film on a DVD and the benefit of this is the extra material one gets to see, such as the creation of the sets and hearing the actors' input about their roles. So watch it on DVD if you like watching the extras.

Look I really enjoyed this TV series and was glued to my seat every week but the ending came and instead of finding ends tied, nothing made any sense, at least to me. So I am VERY VERY disappointed. If anyone out there can enlighten me on what the ending is meant to mean, please put me out of my misery! Everything was good about this show: the actors, the lighting, cinematography, etc. But the ending...oh! what a disappointment. I have NO clue as to what might have been implied. I don't think shows should leave you guessing COMPLETELY. I mean it could have meant half a dozen things, don't you think. Or maybe there's going to be a follow-up...

This must be a first to have a full-length feature film-doco which has part present day real recollection and part acting of past events throughout the film. It worked for me and I found myself enthralled and gripped with the recounting of a most unbelievable tale. It is good for the world to hear of such stories of survival. Who knows whether any of us will ever need to draw on such courage and determination.

A pity the DVD version didn't contain further interview material or, as someone else has pointed out, what happened when they left the mountain. As to the apparent flack Simon got by the climbing community: who can be a judge in such circumstances? I believe most of us would have done exactly the same.

Left a big impression on me. 9/10

I expected to like this better but the sequencing was irritating which made the film somewhat pretentious. The sex was gratuitous and not believable. It wasn't necessary to have shown the film so, so why it was is unclear. Pity 'cos the acting of Penn and Watts was good by & large.

It's hard to imagine how one could ever pick up the pieces after such a tragedy as befell Watts but life can be like that. The film could have explored some aspects better. The ending was fair though not conclusive.

[I have nothing else to say but the site won't let me say so little!] 6/10

Viewers are really missing the point if they think this film is specifically anti-American! That thought NEVER entered my perception at least. You Americans are just too SENSITIVE! Get a life!

This film is about being human, with all its frailties and mystery. It is an unusual film. I personally didn't find it boring (quite the reverse) or pretentious. I was fascinated!

Overall it can be seen to be a sad film. However, maybe it's all too realistic and therefore that feels uncomfortable. Would people really react like that-taking advantage of another human being knowing they could get away with anything? I don't think it takes much for people's shadow to emerge. After all look what happens when there's a riot? Aren't there looters? What is that but downright theft of others' property.

This film has left a mark beyond its hours. I need to reflect some more as I feel there's unfinished contemplation on its merits and implications.

My only reservation was with Nicole Kidman-I don't know that I felt convinced by her acting. Was it wholly believable? I know I would heartily defend myself had I been in her shoes. Why did she so willingly accept her fate at the hands of these townsfolks who turned on her so viciously, especially when they had made some wrongful conclusions.

But boy, didn't karma (cause & effect) play its hand! There is a moral to this tale if nothing else-beware of your actions lest they come back to haunt you!

Yes there are flaws in this film as in most films, eg some stereotyping of characters, however there have been few films that have touched the difficult and emotional subject of displaced persons, refugee camps and the trauma of ongoing internal strife. I think the right response is that we as viewers should be moved by such a film and a healthy response would be to try to play a part to make this a better world, especially those of those in the West where we live comfortably and in a war-free environment. How can we justify not helping in some capacity?

I personally didn't rate highly Angelina's acting but then it wasn't a part that asked for a lot, and the fact that she is a UN Ambassador in real life means that she brings authenticity to the role. In contrast I like watching Clive Owen. He's an interesting actor. (If you liked him, you may like to watch another of his films, Croupier.) I didn't find his role despicable. So he sold a part of his soul to get supplies through but at least his heart was in the right place. It's all very well finding fault in his manner, albeit correct, but it's easy for us to speak from a distance and not from the coalface, so to speak. I've read enough about relief work to know that conditions can be very dicey and treacherous at times.

As for the romance, even if it might seem unlikely in the normal course of events, when you are in very uncertain circumstances, with life & death all around you, that's exactly when the unusual or unexpected can happen!

And as for the ending, it was more realistic that it not be a happy ending. It seemed fitting to me, but it's funny how we actually want a happy ending! So both Jolie and her husband lived a lie of a marriage-that happens a lot in reality! Whether it's right is another matter.

Worth watching if for nothing else to make people think a bit and take them out of their comfort zones.

Though too drawn out and at least one scene was taken out that would have been good left in (from DVD version, bonus footage), the film had its moments. Of course it's not realistic that Monty would be free in the streets for his last 24hrs. (Why wasn't the film called 24 hrs anyway?! What does 'The 25th hour' refer to?)

What I'd like someone to help me out on: Did the Russian pip Monte in, and if so, why? It bugged me that this wasn't clear and spoiled it for me. From the ending one presumes he went inside, right?

[Can't think of anything more to say to fill 10 lines as required for this comments section!!] 3/5

An enjoyable film until the last minute or so. An adult's film, especially fans of French films, ie quality films with regard to good character build-up without flashy special effects, not necessary when you have a good story, which this is by & large. Good acting by the protagonists. (sorry about having 3 goods in this short appraisal but can't think of another adequate word!)

The previous comments to this movie are indeed polarised! And I think it would make an interesting analysis if one were to know what gender and if happily married or single were each of the respondents with regard to how they wrote their summary of this film.

Personally I found the acting certainly adequate to portray the basic storyline of this movie: a husband & wife with poor emotional dynamics. Why Alexandra didn't leave her husband sooner is one Q I would ask her if I could. There's no point staying in a marriage when it gets this bad.

This is an adult film. I would wonder why a parent would want to take their teen to see this. It is an intended confronting film and one that could make people, especially the married ones, reassess how healthy is their marriage.

The person who considered this film "a dull story" - maybe they don't want to face the reality that many relationships suffer the same horror, in different but similar guises. After all it's a truth that sex is a loaded topic/means of control/manipulation in the 'battle of the sexes', so to speak, especially where the male has more influence/control.

The film covers many important aspects about life & family: what is the meaning of love especially in a marriage; when is it time to call it quits, even with children; is revenge ever acceptable, and so on.

An important film, albeit not one for the masses (too boring I suspect for the likes of today's world of high-tech film sports) if one is courageous enough to see the implications for us all.

this film has raised some useful reflections about life; for others, they just didn't get it; maybe one needs to have some understanding of buddhism to get the main gist of the film, but the film only represents a part of the wealth of wisdom contained within the buddhist path; i think it was a notable effort; certainly the landscape/cinematography was majestic. 3/5

I can see from the comments that some people don't do any homework before seeing a film - there's no point seeing a movie if you've NO idea what you're in store for and then feel like you've wasted your time. (Why are we obsessed with not wasting time anyway?!)

This is a thinking person's film and therefore will ONLY be enjoyed for those who understand that this IS a SLOW film, meant for reflection, but it's a pleasant change to the wham bam shlock we get so fed from Hollywood, in my estimation.

I'd heard so much about the Russian version which I've not been able to find yet that I was at least glad to see this version.

I thought the acting was good; it kept my attention. I'm not a great Clooney fan so I wasn't so interested in his character as in the whole concept of Solaris. But I thought the parts played by the female physicist, Gordon, and the guy called Snow were both very good and the music was ethereal.

Pity they changed the ending to a shmalzy happy ending one, which is not in the original, where you're left to decide for yourself what has transpired.

Overall I can only give it 3/5 though.

Another film that has viewers polarised. I watched this film with anticipation after all the hype and was disappointed. I mean, what was the film really about?! Seems to me that I watched a lot of self-obsessed characters with not too much to contribute to the world. It was too cryptic in an artsy-farsty sort of way.

On the positive, as a film experience, the 3-time zones blended well and the acting was mostly good, especially from Harris, Streep & Moore.

Can't say I liked the film. 3/5

A sad but all too realistic film about the emptiness of people's lives in modern-day Western societies.

I don't know why some viewers were offended by Kathy's bottom or (very brief!) nude scene. She's only representing so many Americans who are overweight, and she's not even grossly overweight! She's only playing what the role asked of her!

I didn't particularly like this film. Jack played it well though. 3/5

There are so many negative entries on this film, I'm surprised it rates as high as 6/10. The only reasonable comments came from George Miller (Australian film director) made in Feb. I really liked this movie. I was interested in the story, the characters, the actors: everyone did a fine job, especially since filming was only over 30 days! It was great to see Mick Jagger in a film: what a different role for him and he was so dapper! Garcia was a strained chap, with not too many options at a particular time in his life. He thought he could get a little money on the quiet. He wasn't to know that the great Tobias Alcott would offer him a role he couldn't refuse, only trouble was, he was gullible and didn't get a contract signed for his efforts. What a thorough bitch his wife turned out to be! No, no, how could one not enjoy this film: if you're up to it, it makes you think about yourself and how you would act were you one of these characters, at least that's how the film made me unconsciously think and that's not a bad way to see this film. It's always so easy to be critical of other people's actions but what if we were on the breadline and a committed writer? But since most of us are not, how could we understand? I think many viewers have been too severe in their comments & judgements. 7/10 for me.

Now I haven't even seen this film yet but I am most intrigued by people's comments as they are SO varied!! The subject matter (the death penalty) is a major one for our times and it would be a pity if this film botched up on trying to intelligently portray aspects about it. Despite the comments seen though, I remain confused as to WHO did IT? Therefore (& I've never done this before) I need to know before I go & see the film, what happened. If someone cares to tell me, I'd be grateful. Please email me at b4peace@yahoo.com

Cheers & happy movie-seeing! [When I eventually see this film, I'll post my comments!]