Reviews

The litmus test for me when seeing a movie is whether I am still thinking about it (or at least moments from it) the next morning. With Miami Vice the result was a resounding zero, zippo, nada, nichts. Watched and forgotten in a flash. That's how mediocrity is spelt.

Because this is Michael Mann, who even at his worst is still a masterful craftsman, the movie isn't a total disaster. If what you see on screen was displayed as a series of photographs in a gallery, you would be pretty pleased. Sadly though, a film requires more and when it comes to plot, story, script, acting, well let's just say I really regret the time, money and effort that I spent going to see this in the cinema. I so wish I had waited and put this in my rental queue. It still wouldn't be a good movie, but I'd be less annoyed.

Plotwise the film is quite straightforward, not in the slightest bit clever and even a bit boring. Story – what story? It all feels very much, been here already, seen that, done that. Without wanting to give anything away, particularly the story lines between the two main characters and their female partners is very same old, same old.

In all fairness, I may have gone into this with the wrong expectations. Maybe Mann is trying to keep it all particularly low key, matter of fact, kind of downbeat to show the basic mundanity of crime. If that's the case, it worked. But not in a good way. Normally it takes a few minutes when you sit in the cinema to start really concentrating and get into a movie. Here, I was still fidgeting in my seat about halfway through the picture. Somehow I just could get into the darn thing.

On the plus side, there were a few moments when my heart really lifted and beautiful stuff happened on the screen. Those moments were far and few between though.

As a side note, I wasn't impressed by the hand-held camera work they used in some parts, it's great on a TV series like The Shield, but up there on the big screen it kind of feels amateurish and inappropriate. (Feel free to totally disagree with me on this one.) Talking about dodgy, I am not American, but quite a few of the accents sounded distinctly off to me. On top of that, I sometimes had difficulty understanding what Gong Li was saying, but this may well be due to sound quality issues.

Overall, because I love Mann's previous movies, I trotted into the cinema with high expectations. Way too high as it turns out. With all the money and talent spent on this, it should have been so much better.

Judging from the ratings here, this is one of those 'love it or hate it' movies. I didn't either. I just thought it was very mediocre, forgettable and way off Mann's best work.

One of those movies that left me intensely frustrated. It's good but it should have been great. I am left with an overwhelming feeling of a wasted opportunity.

Johnny "he who can do no wrong" Depp delivers a great performance (I freely admit to being automatically positively predisposed to the man, but it really is a great performance). Samantha Morton also shines. Because of this, the movie engaged with me emotionally while I was watching it (ok, I cried), but beyond the tear jerking, it just didn't engage my brain and therefore will not linger in my consciousness. I felt that I should have come out of this film more compelled to consider some larger questions: for example how is it that potentially brilliant people so spectacularly self-destruct? But it just didn't click.

Where did it go wrong? The script just seems a bit flat. The whole thing could have done with some comic counterpoints. Too much muddy, sludgy greenish screen tinge and misery gets a bit wearing after a while. The editing jumps in places in quite an odd way which left me slightly confused and asking what just happened? How did we get to this emotional place?.

My main criticism is that Laurence Dunmore makes the common mistake all inexperienced directors tend to make. Maybe it's a rite of passage, or a lack of belief that the audience will get it, or simply an inability to loose any of the good shots. Whatever the reason, the movie lacks pacing, is too slow in parts and as a result feels overlong and a tad boring. I looked at my watch coming out of the cinema and was surprised how early it was.

A word of praise for the music, Michael Nyman delivers an excellent score. It subtly enhances the movie when it needs to without you noticing it and it breaks out into your consciousness at the appropriate moments. First class.

Is it worth seeing? I have rarely have had such difficulty answering the question. I was looking forward to seeing the movie and wanted to like it. Having seen it, I won't be rushing out to buy the DVD. Nevertheless, because of the quality of the performances, on balance it's a tentative yes. Frustrating, I know. Just the way I feel.

This movie reminded me why it is still worth going to the cinema. It's the kind of movie that sticks in your head for the longest time and really makes you think (in a good way). For some reason, I cannot shake this film out of my brain.

I am not going to attempt any explanations, this is the kind of film you need to see for yourself and think out for yourself. I am mostly writing this to say that you should not miss this one. The relevance of this movie to the world we live in cannot be overstated. If I make it sound too cerebral, be assured, the movie is also entertaining. Plus the cinematography is beautiful.

It seems some people have problems with the quite explicit sexual scenes or with the level of violence, but I have to disagree. The violence shown is never gratuitous. Equally with the sex. It is necessary to the story, both as a counterpoint to the violence and to show how the characters are affected by what is happening.

I am not saying this is the best movie ever made. There are moments when the pacing is a bit on the slow side. My main gripe is that the child actress chosen to play the daughter does not look right at all for a family which is supposed to be so ordinary and this actually took me out of the movie. (Somebody spends way too much on haircare products for a child this young.) But these are minor quibbles.

Much more importantly 'A History of Violence' is one of those rare films that can have a lot of relevance to you, if you let it. See this.

Your typical, made by committee, middle of the road Hollywood chick flick. Neither good nor bad. Just solidly average. The script is writing by numbers. The characters are cardboard cut-outs. Don't go looking for any sort of character development. The quality of the actors pulls the movie upwards, the lack of pacing by the director pulls the movie downwards (films like this need to have a snappy, zippy pace to gloss over the obvious nonsense of the storyline). There is the odd moment when the actors start to shine and you get a glimpse of the emotional depth they would be capable of, if they were only allowed to.

The Britain depicted in the movie is the usual pastiche sold to Americans. Enough said. The one thing that made me really laugh was watching the actors quite clearly freezing their behinds off in skimpy clothing in what was supposed to be a sunny outdoor wedding. There is no such thing in Britain. If you live in the UK and have ever attended a wedding, you know exactly how they feel.

If like me, you enjoyed Will & Grace and are curious about this movie, watch it by all means as bit of a guilty pleasure. I would however strongly encourage you to rent this instead of buying it. With the money saved, buy yourself a nice bottle of white wine to sip while watching. It'll be a much better investment.

The good half: any movie that allows the characters to breathe and develop gets my vote for starters. The slow and continuous descent of Sam Bicke into his own little mad world is much more realistic and potentially gripping than depicting a more dramatic sudden turn towards violence that we so often see in the movies. The supporting cast were without exception excellent. Great cinematography.

The not so good half: my main complaint is that as so often with Penn you feel you are watching a masterful display of skill and technical ability but there is a lack of emotional connection with the audience. It's the equivalent of looking at a painting that you know in your head is technically brilliant but doesn't deliver the emotional punch in the gut that all really great art does. I kept thinking that if this role had been played by Al Pacino or Dustin Hoffman, I would have cried at the end of the movie (which also means I would have cared enough about the character to think about him afterwards) . As it was, I just wanted Sam Bicke to loose it and get it all over with, it was getting so frustrating.

Overall I felt that the movie was like taking a big dose of medicine: you know it is really good for your – emotional tour the force, political message, intelligent movie (though not as intelligent as the director/writer clearly thinks he is), historical lesson blah blah – but it just didn't make my mouth water.

If you want to watch a brilliant movie about the death of the American Dream that will haunt you for years to come, do yourself a big favour and watch Volker Schloendorff's 'Death of a Salesman' with Dustin Hoffman instead (just released on DVD and worth every penny).

This is a show about two guys fulfilling a long held dream of adventure. During a four month journey they travel on their motorbikes from London to New York the long way round through Western Europe, little visited parts of Eastern Europe (including Kasakhstan, Mongolia and Siberia), Alaska and Canada. We see the preparation and the actual journey.

I can't stand reality shows, don't care about actors private lives, don't like motorcycles and only bought the DVD because my husband had seen some bits on TV and nagged me into it. I also didn't want to shell out for the DVD as I was very sceptical that we'd want to see this more than once.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We ended up watching it in one go until 2am on a workday. Definitely want to watch it again. What a thrill ride.

I enjoyed the show because it engaged me as a viewer on many different levels: it was fun to watch two guys (three including the cameraman) having an excellent adventure. Interesting to see countries and cultures we know very little about (Kasakhstan, where the hell is that?). Touching and humbling to see the Unicef work they visited on the way.

There are funny bits and really scary bits, amazing and interesting people they meet on the way, moments of hardship and friendship, individual endurance and teamwork.

Travelling is a state of mind as much as being in different locations and we get treated to all the highs and lows you can expect on such a difficult journey. Ewan and Charlie are very honest and open about their feelings and thoughts. The show is as much about what they are experiencing as people as about the actual journey itself.

Ewan McGregor is of course a natural showman, I was quite amused to watch his transformation from bespectacled actor to somewhat scary easy rider. This was a nice visual reminder of the influence a long journey has on you as a person.

I found the show inspiring. Ultimately it reminds us that we are all just people, regardless of our race, location or occupation.

The boring bits: The camera-work is good to excellent (I would have liked to see and know more about the cameraman, after all he was part of the team). The soundtrack is good. Solid production values. A few nice extras on the DVD. In short, you get value for money.