Film Reviews by MD

I watched this again after nearly twenty years, and considering it's a film in which the main character gets stuck in a time warp, I'm pleased to say it's still as good as it was all those years ago - truly a film that has not dated, and which comes across fresh and engaging even when you know the whole story. No need for details, other than great plot, great script, great performances = a classic.

So, this is yet another film about a tortured musical genius! That needn't be a problem if it's done well - think "Amy" - but everything about the way this was done just left me cold.

First, the structure, with its split between the 60s and 80s, was really laboured; just as you were getting going in one era, it switched to the other era, and it wasn't as if there was any connection between the two - it seemed totally random.

Second, the 80s part was pretty weak. Cusack was not at all convincing, the whole bit with his shrink was way OTT, and I never felt I was gaining an understanding of Brian Wilson; it was just scene after scene where you felt sorry for him, but nothing more.

Third, the 60s section just didn't do full justice to Brian Wilson's genius. It focused a lot on the later Beach Boys stuff, and the creative angst of an individual who wanted to go beyond what his fellow band members were capable of, which was okay up to a point, but what about all the great stuff they did before that? Instead of celebrating his genius, it made him look simply weird, nutty, whatever, a sort of latter day Mozart.

Overall, I was left feeling "robbed", meaning that I felt the film failed to give me any real insights, failed to give a balanced portrayal, and failed to entertain me. I know others will completely disagree, which is fine, but my whole point is that this film is like Marmite - some will love it, others hate it. Just be aware of that when you rent it.

Sequels are so damn difficult, aren't they? The first movie was another animated feature that seemed so fresh and inventive, full of great gags (both sight and sound) and a neat little story. Needless to say, this follow-up revisits the same characters and main location, but with mixed success. The plot is not a bad one, but nor is it fully engaging. It gives the opportunity for some wicked satire about modern parenting, our ever-so-controlled Politically Correct universe, and American culture in general, but it also flags too often, with 'comic' scenes that fall flat and too many weak ideas that just don't come off. Overall, it's perfectly fine, and most kids who enjoyed the original will probably enjoy this too, but it just doesn't quite have the spark or killer idea to make it memorable.

It must be my age, but I just could not get into this movie. I'd read the critics' reviews (very positive) and I'd seen the trailer (which looked okay), so even though I did not think the subject matter was likely to be "funny" or "provocative", I thought I'd give it a try. Seeing the 70s so brilliantly recreated was fun, but not much else was. I did not gel with the main character, and quite frankly the plot seemed pretty daft and pointless. Yeah, good luck to the girl, very natural she should want to do what all teens do and experiment with sex, but I did not enjoy watching it, a few funny moments notwithstanding. Like I said, must be my age!

I am a novelist. Goldren rule of books is to capture your reader in the first few pages, grab his/her attention, really make them want to read on. Should apply to movies, too, right? Well, not this one. It starts in treacle, goes into molasses after 5 minutes, and sinks in quicksand after ten. I tried sticking with it, but turgid dialogue, and no humour or comedy anywhere in sight, killed it stone dead after 20 minutes. Maybe the remaining 80 minutes was great, but quite frankly I wasn't interested in finding out.

I'm not sure why this was made into a movie (it is such a difficult book to convey in another medium) or why Redford takes the main part (he is way too old and never really convincing), but it was a well-made effort that captured some of the essence of Bryson's humour and insight, and actually had a few laugh-out-loud scenes. Of course, the scenery is impressive, and it's an interesting, if narrow, snapshot of Americana, but the 'story' itself just wasn't strong enough to really get me involved and enthusiastic. It is probably the sort of film you'll forget pretty quickly, but it makes for a pleasant enough diversion.

4 of the 5 reviewers here to date were not overly impressed with this much-praised movie, and I tend to agree with them. It may not be an original idea (see Numbskulls), but it was certainly a clever concept that offered lots of opportunity for Pixar to work their usual magic, except this time they didn't. It was way too adult for kids, and way too childish for adults; there were some great moments and one or two really fun scenes, but there were also long stretches of fairly bland, almost tedious, material which has NEVER been the case in previous offerings from this studio. The tone was awfully downbeat for much of the movie, and I got fed up with Sadness being such a drag. And, yes, the concluding 20 minutes was all too pat and contrived. I am pleased to see Disney allowed something like this to be made, but I just don't think it had that X factor that made all the others such a delight. Watch the outtakes, etc, with the credits, and see if you don't think they are better than the feature movie!

I watch loads of films, and I try to be receptive to different ideas and approaches. This film, though, floored me completely. It is WEIRD from the very first frame, and despite one or two touches of neat black humour and the odd good satirical dig (all in the first third of the film), it is mostly incomprehensible, pretentious garbage. It is overlong, very repetitive, and abysmally scripted, acted and directed. Sorry if I am missing something, but my advice would be, do not waste your time with it, even if you are a big fan of one of the famous names involved. It really does warrant 0 stars.

Not one of Nancy Meyers's best offerings, but a pleasant enough diversion if you want something light and (reasonably) fluffy. The set up, in which de Niro's old-school businessman joins an internet start-up company, is highly implausible, but actually well handled. He has a lot of fun with the many "this is now, that was then" moments, and the film in general has plenty of nice touches regarding modern living. Hathaway is solid without being really convincing, but the film's real weakness is the second half, in which de Niro gets sucked into Hathaway's personal life, and a sub-plot involving his own growing relationship with an older woman (Rene Russo) is randomly introduced. Here, the movie seems to lose focus and direction, and the inevitable "feminist" message at the end is only very awkwardly put across. On the whole, it's too good a film to dismiss out of hand, but not good enough to be truly satisfying, hence the dead centre 3 star rating.

This is a beautifully crafted and emotionally engaging film for the most part, helped by a very good script from Nick Hornby and a cracking central performance by Saoirse Ronan. I thought the first half particularly good at documenting the immigrant experience. However, a weaker second half, the result of the main character not revealing even to her own mother something that in real life she would have done in an instant, spoiled my enjoyment considerably, and left me feeling rather ambivalent overall. What was the point of it all? So, worth a look, yes, but ultimately a fleeting half-pleasure that promised much but did not quite deliver.

I am neither a great fan of Guy Ritchie films nor very well versed in the original TV series on which this is nominally based, but people who seek to run the film down either because it IS directed by Ritchie or does not conform to their nostalgic memory of the TV series are missing out on what is essentially a neat little film. It is the kind of movie they used to make in the 60s, but done from a modern angle, neither too serious nor too reverent, and essentially just a bit of good fun. Of course, one could be critical about any number of things, but why bother? The story is clear, the performances absolutely fine (Alicia Vikander does a great job of breaking up the macho vibes of the two leads) and the direction mostly very understated, a huge plus compared to other Richie outings. I watched this at home with three generations of my family ranging in age from early twenties to an 89 year old; we ALL enjoyed it. Hey, that has got to say something is right with this movie, and i certainly think it is worth a viewing.

I rented this because I like the play Macbeth and the film had great reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I wish I hadn´t. From beginning to end it is mostly very disappointing, a slow and turgid telling of the tale that is merely pretentious when it thinks it is being clever, and boring when it thinks it is doing something new with an old story. I did not give it one star because there were a couple of neat touches, but overall I would avoid it unless you are a real Shakespeare freak. A perfect example of how wrong film critics can be when reviewing ¨highbrow¨ films.

This will not be everyone´s cup of tea given the arcane subject matter and the rather bleak tone and message of the film, but it belongs to that line of films made on a low budget outside the Hollywood machine that pleasantly surprise you. The last 20 minutes or so seemed a bit contrived, but otherwise it was really well made, with strong performances and a story that held your attention even as it tried to make some very cutting points about America and it´s so-called Dream. One scene about half way through in which the main character gives a speech about what America really stands for was priceless. If you like movies and are not afraid to be challenged by tough subject matter, this is worth 2 hours of your time.