I enjoyed the animation – especially the facial gestures, but the characters were such stereotypes of “their time in history.” I know it is easy to oversimplify history into its major events, and that obviously the movie was going for a retrospective of the 20th century. However, I didn’t feel like it brought anything new to the table. Gangsters in the ‘30s, drugged-up musicians in the ‘60s… It started off well, but lost its personal perspective as the filmmakers simply started jumping through their checklist of American pop culture. It has some strong scenes, but overall left me feeling let-down.

A good film, but not great – mostly by the casting of Murray in the lead. From what I’ve read, making the film was a labor of love for Murray. He is very charming in the movie, and I think his acting was okay, however, I never bought into the idea of him being the character. Possibly because Murray, to me, has a very modern/contemporary style from the way he delivers his lines to even his physical presence. I haven’t read the book or seen the original film, so I may be wrong, but so many of his scenes felt borderline improv, or at least reworked with him in mind. It created a detach for me from the gorgeous ‘20s setting and plot, and I was unable to ever fully immerse myself in the film. I thought the actress playing Sophie was incredibly good, but the actress playing Isabel was hit and miss – I felt that the film was trying to keep her from being too unlikeable, but she’s a very unlikeable character if you look at her actions. Like the previous reviewer, I was also let down by the ending of the film, more because I thought Murray came off as more unaffected by what had happened, rather than being accepting of his life which is what I think they were going for.

I don’t think it is physically possible for me to give a “Not Worth Consuming” to a film with Ewan McGregor in it, but this one came incredibly close. It’s a “suspense/thriller” type of movie – however, every “twist” in the film was not only predictable, but the entire movie seemed to be the characters giving out a Cliffs Notes version of a better movie – making obvious every step along the way so that it would have been impossible to be misdirected – which is pretty much the entire premise of a suspense/thriller. Then, just in case you somehow got lost (maybe you went to the bathroom for 45 minutes or something), they had another character come in to make the “realization” for you. So the obvious question after watching this movie is “What the hell?” This is not only McGregor, but the hugely talented Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams as well – all three of which have pretty good clout and deserve a better film, it certainly wasn’t their acting that killed the movie. All three have made much better choices in the past, and although no one is immune to getting stuck working on a stinker – it makes me curious as to how much of the original film idea was changed between them signing up for the film and it getting to the audience. Some scenes, especially the last coda scene involving the police officer “discovering” the identity of the body, screamed out “Added After Test Screening.” Maybe it was always a terrible movie, but parts of it almost had sparks of “goodness” – the scenes between Ewan and Michelle on their “dates,” Hugh Jackman’s transformation, the way Ewan’s character used small details to decipher larger pictures. Was there at some point a better movie that was deemed “too hard to follow?” or was it always just terrible – I guess unless there happens to be a director’s cut floating around, we’ll never know. Definitely skip this one, unless like me you happily download Japanese commercials just because Ewan is in them.

I give it a worth consuming because it is a good story and good actors (ridiculously good casting), however, I was completely turned off by the editing style Stone chose. I was kind of shocked to realize it was his work, as it felt very amateurish and “MTV-esque.” With such a good story, great character actors, etc., why did he feel the need to continuously jazz up scenes with random shots of lightning, etc.? It was as if he was worried the audience would lose interest if they weren’t constantly assaulted with a new image every couple of seconds.

The movie is kind of odd. It takes the exact cast from “Four Daughters” and puts them in a different plot, however all of the daughters are paired up with the same men as their boyfriends and the blonde Lane sister gets to choose once again between bad boy John Garfield and the other guy. Very trippy. However, I really liked it and I really love the “Four Daughters” series as well – just lovely, wholesome entertainment – felt very much like the ‘40s version of “Little Women.”

If you have ever doubted Audrey Hepburn’s acting talent versus her iconic status, this is the movie to watch. Removed from the fashionable clothing that defines her image and made her a film star in such movies as Roman Holiday, Sabrina, and Breakfast at Tiffanys, here Audrey spends most of the film in austere nun habits (which she does somehow make look elegantly chic). Moreover, a lot of her work is done silently, an amazing feat since the film’s main premise is a woman’s internal struggles with her faith, her ability to make sacrifices and give up control, and underlying doubts whether or not she is making the right decisions. The film on its own is beautiful – an insider look into a very private community, and the writing is first class – however, Audrey’s performance is what really makes the movie.

This was one of those DVDs that I felt compelled to pause periodically in order to call my boyfriend and tell him how much I was enjoying the movie. It’s not that he’s all that interested – had never heard of the movie, of course. I guess I just feel that if I’m going to wait 22 years before watching a movie and discover that it’s fantastic, I should at least pass on the news.

I guess I should read the book to find the answer, but maybe someone here would like to clue me in instead…

Why do the vampires keep going to high school? It’s not like they are grade schoolers who people would question if they weren’t in school. Edward’s 17 – just say you graduated already. If I was blessed with everlasting life, I don’t think I would spend my days doing high school over and over again.

Definitely one of the 25 best books I’ve read in my life. I wasn’t expecting much since I wasn’t a huge fan of the movie – but what a different experience altogether. I know the movie is classic, but the book could really be filmed much more true-to-word than it could have back then (when two people rolling on the beach was considered scandalous). It’s not just a book about Pearl Harbor, or even military life, but about the every man’s struggle within himself to live up to his own integrity. Loved every page of it.

I just fell in love with Happy-Go-Lucky. Sally Hawkins is amazing and deserved an Oscar nod. You start out the moving thinking she’s basically a nutter, and you kind of end up the movie with that impression as well, but somewhere along the line you begin to understand her and why she is the way she is, and question why you can’t look at life with the same joyful outlook as she does. It’s a nice change of pace from some of Mike Leigh’s other recent movies (Vera Drake, All or Nothing, Secrets & Lies), which are much more serious. If you have to have a lot of action and plot twists, this isn’t the film for you. However, if you can enjoy a good character films, this is definitely one to check out.