, I admit I was prejudiced from the start – the ads turned me off – I dislike Tom Cruise (how stupid do you have to be to be a Scientologist?) and what was up with that hair? I understand he’s trying to mask his identity but that fake hair calls attention to him. Also, the plot of the just looked dumb. Unaware taxi driver participates in shootings?

Then a coworker convince me to give it a try. Knowing I like Noir films he said I would like it.

I like Noir films, I like films with character study /developemnt/exploration. I enjoy films that have some action but more dialogue. I should have liked this film.

I felt no connection to, no interest in, no empathy for any of the characters (not even the poor taxicab driver). I did not feel there was self-realization or any bonding going on between the two characters. Both actors were adequate if unexciting. The scenery was nice (there were a few nice shots of LA at night), but not spectacular. The “action” sequences were just there in the service of the story. The plot was boring and generic. I barely cared enough to watch the thing all the way through just to find out what happens. (Out of the entire film, only that scene in the jazz club interested me that was interesting, well filmed & had a nice twist.)

Maybe it’s just the director’s (Mann) style I don’t get. I remember seeing Heat and being surprised that everyone was raving about it. It was interesting but not the end all be all or anything too original. (I can think of several Chinese films that have done that bad guy/good guy bond/find similarities much better- City On Fire to name one.)

I felt like this film was trying for something but failing. Was I supposed to find the last bit of Tom Cruise’s dialouge philosophical interesting? Was the last shot supposed to be “ART”? It seemed trite and almost a bit pretentious.

P.S. for someone who’s supposedly an acclaimed director why did he need to bow to the ever-encroaching product placement by including lingering shots of a Bacardi ad? I took away a whole star just for that!

Please read the reviews on us.imdb.com for this movie, they are more thought out and intelligent than mine, but since I see only positive reviews on this site, let me add some comments of my own.

I hadn’t realized, but it was funded by some “School of Enlightenment” cult that follows the blond lady who claims to channel some ancient being called Ramatha (or soemthing like that).

I know a little about neuroscience and a very tiny bit about physics, but even so I could see that they would try to take a scientific fact or theory and bend it so that it fit what they were trying to say. In essence A=B and B=C so D…. what?
I have heard that one of the legitimate scientists interviewed is really mad at how they used his commentary to support their claims.

Many have commented about how if they claim that the power of thought can lead you to walk on water, why didn’t anyone demonstrate it?

And do you honestly believe the Native Americans could not see Columbus’ ships? Did they not have ships of their own? And even if they did not know what they were how could they not see them? How could anyone learn anything new if they can’t see it?

The frozen water blessed by monks and labeled experiment has been completely debunked and never replicated.
And I didn’t bother researching it but the claims that MEDITATION alone reduced by a quarter the amount of crime in DC seems utterly ludicrous.

This was full of logical phallacies and seemed intellectually dishonest.

I would suggest avoiding this at all costs!

I wanted to like this film. It could have been a really good film about an aging star having to deal with getting old and losing popularity and power. And it is still worth watching just for Bette Davis’s performance – her portrayal of desperation mixed with pride in herself (not always in a bad way) and her desire to make quality pictures are all admirable. She is not being greedy for money or merely seeking adulation, she seems to genuinely enjoy her life.

However, I am DEEPLY disturbed by the ending and message of the film. This seems part of the 50’s backlash encouraging women to retreat back to the household (after allowing them some independence during WWII).

The film reiterates over and over and over that Margaret is not a woman because she enjoys having a successful career. (What is she then? Too “manly”?) Being a woman is equated with strict gender roles that revolve around finding and keeping a man and above all else being a stay at home wife who does not have any ambition.

Instead of it being pathetic that her ex-husband could not deal with being married to a more successful spouse – they blame her for not being a stay at home wife!

Clearly being an actor energizes her, gives her purpose and makes her happy. Yet she is knocked for having ambition and drive—that’s “unwomanly”.

Finally, in the end, just as you think she is ready to realize that she is no longer at the pinnacle of her career and that maybe she is about to gracefully segue into playing lesser roles with dignity—she is lectured (under the guise of a movie pitch) about how she is “not a woman”. SPOILER….. So she rushes home and into the arms of a big strong plain hardworking man who has shunned the falseness of Hollywood (and who she barely knows).

I found this very disturbing and in the end it ruined the movie for me.

So worth watching if you are a Bette Davis fan—but ignore the message!

From a modern sensibility, it’s sometimes hard to watch older films. It’s annoying to have to watch the stereotypical wallflower librarian have to take off her glasses and become pretty and stupid to win a man. Especially such a shallow and inconstant man. He’s obviously a player (I wouldn’t trust him to stay true to her) who doesn’t want to settle down, who only looks at dumb attractive women and always calls them “baby” (ick!). Even after she totally changes her appearance and her life for him, he only goes to her after he’s (supposedly) rejected by another woman and learns that Connie spent all her money renovating a boat for him. I wanted her to stand up to him, not pathetically chase after him! His sudden conversion within a few minutes was totally unrealistic and did not work for me.

Apart from that subplot, I did like the movie. How can you not like sailors dancing with each other?! (You can tell they were from San Francisco…. ;D) The “rehearsal” dance was great, watching Ginger Rogers purposefully fall in and out of the “correct steps” was great. The last dance scene “Face the Music” with the beautiful costumes and the art deco set was beautiful. And I really enjoyed “We Saw the Sea” (though they did use it a few too many times, as if they realized it was their best song).

Anyway, the plot was a bit weak, like most musicals (IMO) – and the songs were OK, but the dancing was worth watching the film for. I wish they could have showed some shots of San Francisco since that was were the film was supposedly set.

It’s also weird to see such a lighthearted naval film with the knowledge of what Hitler was already doing at that time. I have to try to suspend all knowledge to submerge myself into a made up fantasy land.

Warning: Spoilers ahead….

I’d read and quite enjoyed the book. The commercials looked good, the casting was great. It seemed they’d captured the feeling of the book. I was really looking forward to seeing.

Of the people I viewed the film with, both the people who had read the book and the people who hadn’t hated this film!

I was fine with most of the deviations from the book, I know they have to cut stuff and rearrange things. (Some minor things that bothered me: I wish they had kept in the part about BR having kidnapped him. And, I thought it was more effective for him to discover he didn’t want any more cigarettes rather than have the doctor order him to stop smoking.)

However, the complete about-face of the ending RUINED the entire film.

I felt the point of the book was to show him reconsidering why he does this for a living and turn his talent for spin “to good”. However, the movie has him continue on in successfully spinning lies/propaganda for evil.

Why on earth would you make this film and not show the growth of the character that the book does? I thought this was the very point of adding the kid subplot and the only reason I tolerated it. It effectively showed the kid becoming manipulative like him and I thought when he turned to his son in the court and thought about what he was doing to him and teaching him, he would have an epiphany and change.

What was the point of changing it? Was this considered a more “realistic” ending. Well, I’d rather have him redeemed and likable – as in the original story.

Especially given our current climate of constant lies and spin from corporations, the government and the media, it would have been nice to see that manipulation examined and shown to be wrong, not glorified with a triumphant end for the spin-meisters.

The ending of the book was not to make this an issue about “free choice” or a message about “parenting” (Was this SUPPOSED to be ironic that he talks about responsible parenting while clearly turning his kid into a manipulative clone of himself?) The point I got was to think about what you are doing and the impact you have on others around you.

I have not seen a worse movie adaptation in a long time! I am very angry at the jerks that decided to pervert the entire point of the book!

AVOID THE FILM. Read the book. It’s twisted but funny. The satire is there, but also a message.

5/10 because I loved the acting (except Katie), the satire and for the rest of the film up to the false ending. The ending deserves a 1.

From the DVD “Slapstick Symposium: The Harold Lloyd Collection” by KINO VIDEO:

Released Nov. 2 1919 Directed by Hal Roach
Harold Lloyd’s first Glass Character two-reeler, “Bumping Into Broadway” stars Lloyd and Daniels as theatrical hopefuls- he as a playwright, she as a chorus girl. <<

Has some very clever chase scenes, original slap stick.