Reviews

Flipping channels I happened upon this movie. Sometimes that's best.

Highly underrated for several reasons. First, of course, is the story that is in a way a throw back to the old days of street racing with a souped up Chevy or Ford, and this taken to a somewhat fantastic level of some of the best engineered automobiles in the world.

Second, the acting that is spot on, especially, but not only Imogen Poots. You will see more of her, guaranteed.

Third, and at a deeper level, the story is a metaphor, what all meaningful stories strive for. It is about taking risks and expanding the boundaries that bind us.

Most of all, it's great fun, something we have a problem with in our culture. I laughed often. Give it a try, despite the negative reviews. And get in touch with that part of you that wants to break out of the constrictions that life places upon you.

And it has some of the best "chase" scenes I have ever seen.

For me, this is a profound film because of its simplicity in expressing that it is necessary to face oneself alone in order to experience the amazing connection that we have with each other and everything else in the universe, or life itself. Aside from the CGI, if you have experienced this facing yourself, you can't not appreciate this film.

Most of the negative criticism of the film has been that the story is full of clichés. Or that the CGI was off, or that the story is simply too simple. I remember living in Chile in 1963 and as a 15-year-old watching Fellini's 8 1/2. I nodded off. If someone had asked me then, I probably would have responded that it was boring, that I did not know what it meant. This film has something in common with Fellini, it's just more personal, and dare I say it, just as universal in its comment on being alive and human.

The tell here is that few comments I've read mentioned "corny."

In 1969 I was being asked to go to Vietnam. I could not do this. My father in his kindness paid $400 to retain a lawyer to advise me on what was involved in being a conscientious objector, and that was what I pursued. This involved writing an essay for the draft board to state for them why I could not do this. That experience resulted in some 17 pages from examining myself, going to the guts, spirit, soul, and was literally facing myself, looking in the mirror, and the most terrifying experience I've had in my life.

I am 66, have a wife, son, two grandkids. Viewed many films, read many books, experienced some stuff that might challenge anyone's imagination. But a child might know what this story is about.

It is not pleasant to be alone, at least for most of us, simply because we are connected with everyone and everything else. If we were not, there would be no responsibility and life would be ultimately boring.

I've seen films from the Angry Red Planet through 2001 to this one. I've watched the NASA videos, and so it is curious to me that some criticize the CGI.

The greatness of this story is that it is about you, about me. It is about what-if, and most about what now. You are there. You are going to die. What will you do with your time, whether hours or minutes, or seconds.

Space is a vacuum. Emptiness. I am certain that many of you have experienced this vacuum right here on the planet. What a wonderful thing that, in this story, some one of us who is a kind person with a good heart might experience the same thing and survive. Provides a bit of hope.

Greg McCormick Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

I haven't viewed this film yet, but it intrigued me enough to purchase it, arriving in the next two weeks. From those reviewing it, one important story element is our ability to choose, and the consequences of our choices.

From my experience, part of the human process is first desire, second fear, third control, and they become mixed up. Before seeing this film, reviews do not speak of existentialism, perhaps the philosophy most relevant to this story. So I give you the following regarding choice and existentialism, with a grain of salt, so to speak, for it is about philosophy, which is only a mirror and not perhaps to your personal taste.

"Perhaps the most prominent theme in existentialist writing is that of choice. Humanity's primary distinction, in the view of most existentialists, is the freedom to choose. Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes choices that create his or her own nature. In the formulation of the 20th-century French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, existence precedes essence. Choice is therefore central to human existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to choose is a choice. Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the risk and responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. --Encarta Encyclopedia" Why am I writing about a film before I've seen it? It's in this film. Catch 22. So watch it.

Greg McCormick Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

23 or so minutes of uninteresting film. Lot of time in a film. Uninteresting people, unless you are actually there at the party. Stories are about us. Doesn't even need to be your age group, economic group, any group. But the story depends on some bit of interest in the difficulty, pleasure, angst, whatever, happening to those involved. In other words, we must feel some empathy with the story's characters, whether it's Star Wars or Cloverfield, or especially your own life.

23 minutes of watching these people live their lives. So what? If the story is confined to you at 20-something, then it;s only empathy for your age group, and that is certainly not going to give you any support once you reach 30. I like fluff as much as the next person, but I also need some balance. This story simply has no connection to real life. Even the fantastic must have a connection to everyday life, yours and mine.

It's always the extraordinary in the mundane, the ordinary. So, the imagination becomes so important in our everyday lives, let alone films. Even if your 20-swomething, remember when your were a kid? What did you use the last time you experienced a travesty, something painful, a loss, a taking away? Probably in some sense, it was your imagining something better, or at least something different.

I have worked in a bureaucracy for over 40 years, yet the most uninteresting people I have met and worked with, I would place in Cloverfield and make you a better film for their quirkiness, and certainly their innocence -- they are totally who they are. Would you truly trust any of these personalities in Cloverfield?

Call me nuts, call me crazy, but I watched The Avengers recently, and it's all "pie in the sky," so to speak. "Much ado about nothing? except special effects and superheroes acting without any connection to you and I. I do not need superheroes, but do require a certain amount of support and affection from my own superheroes, just a few friends. I do also need escape, but escape becomes boring quickly.

If you enjoy film stories, and perhaps feeling, my recommendations are three (these three are not difficult to view, but more difficult is Antonioni's The Passenger, which I've been able to watch only once):

Bin Jip (3 iron) a Korean film Another Earth Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

Take care and pay attention, Greg McCormick Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

I once took a film course that discussed what film is about. I took away from the class that the medium is eclectic, involving in its expression elements of so many other arts -- painting, sculpture, music, dance, and time itself. Bin-Jip, 3 Iron, is an expression that distills the eclectic nature of the medium into an emotional purity that asks us each a question. What do you think/feel life is, what is the purpose of your life? The great gift of this film is that it allows for my (your) particular experience, whatever your take on life.

Little if any dialog. Very fine cinematography. This film reminds me of the great New Wave French films of the 1950-60s. Ultimately, it's about the built-in desire we have for control of our lives, and the simple fact that we each need to accept that we need assistance, not perhaps from our fellow human beings so much as faith in some other force.

An exceptional film.

Just viewed Another Earth which I chose in all innocence, not knowing a thing about it except a bit of information from a description that intrigued me. I chose wisely. Hopefully you are reading these comments after you have viewed the film. While reviewers here are, for the most part, on the money, and aren't overly expository, this is a story that is, above all, honest.

Many years ago, I read a NY Times magazine article discussing the talent of actress Glenda Jackson, in which the comment was made that she, like any great actor, is honest in her expression. I've learned two things about acting: The first is that acting is not pretending, is certainly not lying. Then that each of us is an actor, just perhaps not as professional or expert at it as some. But we act every day, we express ourselves, we connect, we experience. It really is much less complex than one might think.

I highly recommend reading co-writer/star Brit Marling's biography at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1779870/bio. My sense is that she is primarily responsible for the story, and that director Cahill enhanced the project by contributing his filmmaking talents. A quote from the actress on IMDb: On why she decided to become a screenwriter in relation to her being an actress -- "How terrifying to surrender your life to being chosen all the time. Having to be chosen and re-chosen. Writing so that I can act became a way of having not more control over my future but not having to wait for permission. You can choose yourself." There's the honesty. I'm all I have, but that connects me to everything.

I do not appreciate only two comments from reviewers: The cinematography is just right. Home movie style (or more professional when appropriate. Film is eclectic, and this is most amazing when it works, for story is always most important, and to have so many tools at the fingertips to share a story does provide a challenge. Actually, the truth is that two of my favorite directors began as cinematographers: Peter Weir and Nicolas Roeg (I find it curious that they're both Australian, but then it seems that all of the world's most popular religions originated in desert-like environments).

I too was wondering how the two-earth thing might be handled, especially since I have a long-term interest in physics, have photographed what anyone might call "ghosts," and have had experiences that, if shared, might cause anyone to label me as "nutso," "crazy," or simply "bananas." Then two thoughts occurred: One is that physics could be responsible for helping us human beings to learn more about how to be more human, and know more about why we even conceived of gods. Second to this, and more important for this film, is that no matter how big or small the earth-2 is in various shots, it's just like real life --- we use our personal filters to view the world, and now we are experiencing another's filters, that is, becoming involved in their story. The lack of fleshed out physics serves only to highlight the quite honest performances, the heart of the story. In any case, the science serves to support one of, for me, the truths of life: Life is a dialog, and the participants are, of course, you and your experiences and, of course, all those human beings in your life and, of course, the mystery.

If you think about it (not too hard) we really don't want an ending to the story. One of the achievements of this film (and I think this is Brit Marling's contribution) is the great tension created, like in the best adventure stories that, in the end, are not so much resolved as given new life. We are given permission to own it. The rest is up to each of us.

Greg McCormick Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

9 out of 10 for what I perceive this film is expressing.

There is something really special, unique even, about this film, whatever you think about story or acting, that follows at the end below.

How to show the extraordinary in the ordinariness of people's lives? And present it in an interesting and entertaining way, without being judgmental? First, choose three of the most accomplished actors of the past half-century. Then make the story about good guys being naughty, sorta in the anti-hero vein. Finally, add feelings of genuine affection, friendship and love.

This is an actors movie, and will be especially gratifying for those who appreciate consummate acting. But there's more to it. Many years back I read an article in the NYT Magazine discussing the work of Glenda Jackson. They described her as an "honest" actor. Honesty is a quality of every great actor. Honesty comes from innocence, perhaps being totally honest with oneself. These three (actually four considering Harden) actors are so accomplished that they need not convince us – they *are* their characters. What acting is about. Just like life. We each find something interesting in our lives, and this not only connects us with others but provides a way to express ourselves and find friendship, even love, but most certainly, the possibility of a kindness within that is particularly human. The quotes below touch on this.

kosmasp - And is it a bad thing, that this movie works mainly because of the three main actors?

skunkgyrl - THE MAIDEN HEIST (there is a more to the title than you might think) is like getting together with old friends for a chuckle. . . .the results are a fun film that has some gentle hidden messages about friendship, relationships, and loving your job. . . It is a pleasure to see three fine actors such as Freeman, Walken and Macy pull off this comedy, aided by the absurd character Marcia Gay Harden inhabits. It is well-scripted full and it is very obvious that these actors are having a great time with the film.

dexteruk - Anything can take a persons fancy, and become an obsession, a piece of string, how mundane it is to some, could be someones obsession, and they could know all manner of things about it.

So here it is. What is truly special about this film is its ending, or the plural, "endingS." Endings are extremely important to any story, and especially in film because of its immediacy and closeness to everyday reality (and notice how many novels have an epilogue). Dysfunctional endings in films (and I'm not talking about endings that leave things hanging, as these can be quite an effective device to involve us in the story) that come to mind (and ruined fine stories) are The Temp and January Man. Dontya want an ending that provides a new beginning, or at least gets you to ponder further? This film has four, yes, four endings. The test of this perception is to view the film from when Christopher Walken is snorkeling in the ocean on to the end, first discovering each of the four endings, ending the film in your mind after each of them, and using your imagination to find out if each would work in terms of the story. Really. There are four endings. What the artist creates is not always conscious. They are each a channel. And so I don't think that the four endings were by design. But they are there. And wonderfully refreshing.

If you are not this character, you will most likely have known someone like him, or identify with the universal and existential loneliness that we each feel at some point in our lives. I have a fuzzy memory of reading that Polanski made this film in response to having been ostracized from France for sins committed cajoling with a minor. He may also be revisiting the treatment of the Poles in WWII.

I think the reviews posted here are generally accurate. As alainbenoix put it best, "Meek, tiny, almost insignificant. Polanski finds the invisibility of his characters and makes something enormous out of it." From my experience, some years of therapy, and my wife's many years as a psychotherapist, a primal issue for all of us is abandonment. Telkovsky feels isolated because he can't connect with his fellow human beings, even though he is given opportunities to do this. His paranoia is fear driven, and the sad part is that, unlike many of us, he does not go through the experience, perhaps learn from it, but confronts it as an impenetrable wall, and retreats within himself. The result, the denouement of his process? Watch the film.

Polanski's art is to make this process interesting visually, and in some sense, an ordinary story an adventure. While I am partial to the clarinet, I've not often heard it used with such meaning as in this film.

Also, great acting from all, especially from Polanski, I think because this story is so personal, even intimate for him. Impeccable, involving cinematography. It's a story about faith, or the lack thereof, and as all great stories do, it provides a mirror into which we can look and see ourselves reflected back.

Gregory

Much underrated (although you don't trust me, I spent a few years on the planet, and am very picky). Truly great scary story. So I came back to edit, and it is to say that this story is, rhyme, understated. Film is your bedtime story come to life. Film is an eclectic medium, taking from all the arts except perhaps the tactile, and who knows how long before we will be able to feel the story physically by literally touching it.

"Below" is rather poetic, in the sense that it presents a "normal" war story in the context of what war signifies, its meaning and affect on us, yet places the characters in a situation that does not involve war as much as it does the simple unknowns of life. The demon, the ghost here, might very well be the "enemy," in this case the Germans, yet the art is in using this as a metaphor for our process of dealing with felt generalized fear. Of each other, of chaos, of death, of the devil, of God, of candy, slugs, spiders? Up to you. Still, I think, it is always what we think of as our demise, death.

But "physical" isn't currently the question. This film has elements of Hitchcock, in that it provides an invitation to look into the mirror that reflects back our emotional life, and asks each of us to make our own decisions. And because of the supernatural/paranormal elements, it touches on what I perceive as something spiritual. Bottom line, it involves us in the character and experiences of the players.

War, ghosts, a presence, an intimation, sensitivity, a sense. We do have a problem with death, many of us. This story is about dying in a can, that is, what they tell us about all these things, death, how to do this or that, like live one's life, failed relationships, wanting to do more than you think you are doing, or survival outside, or rather, no matter what your situation, whether you're sinking or floating or on solid earth, you will be asked, at some point, and like the characters in this story, to make a simple "yes" or "no" decision as to how much you appreciate life. It involves that leap of faith that we, some of us, hope to make, amidst a bit of doubt and sadness, and some appreciation of life.

Very well filmed, quite well acted, an intriguing and expansive story. It is a bit dark, but that's what leads us to the light.

Think about how much you judge.

Greg Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (home, btw, of the first nickelodeon theater)

Truly great animation, with the expressions of the eyes reminiscent of anime. A story that is about the child within each of us, yet all the while considering the risks involved during the whole of life. This is a story about innocence, in the true meaning of "knowing oneself completely" and all that this implies. It is also a story very much about the importance of imagination and creativity.

I am a child and an adult. What I've been taught, not entirely by just my fellow human beings, is that judgment is never productive. At its best, it is a desire to share with others something we do or do not appreciate. At its worst, it is a shutting down of the connection we have with each other. Perhaps a more productive way of sharing opinions about anything might be making distinctions between what is appreciated about the thing, and what is not, and the reasons for both aspects of these thoughts/feelings. This story actually addresses this tough issue, while entertaining us with a romp and a grand adventure.

My appreciation of this film is that it inspires me to laugh at myself (it's quite funny), at us, and my culture. And all the while, it is kind. The story and animation are tremendously imaginative, a quality I've found missing in many stories, animated or not. One of the themes, if not the main thread of the story, is that we humans are creative beings, and that, while this involves risks, we must express our imagination or take the greater risk of becoming stuck, stale and static, living only in the past tense.

The greatest compliment I can give this film is that I want my 2-year-old granddaughter to see it, for I am absolutely sure she will enjoy it almost as much as I have at age 61.

Greg Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

We always watch films for the story. This one not only has a humanistic story line, but truly fine acting. In addition, it involves the imagination we each had, and hopefully still do, when we were children. There is some magic here, and great inspiration. See it. It is one of those gems that, for whatever reasons, just slips away. The afternoon I watched this on television, I was sitting with my cat who passed away peacefully in that moment. His name was Rosie. Then, in this film, the boy, principal character, was running through the fields calling for Rosie. Go figure. It meant a great deal to me, and this is not why I am recommending the movie. I am critical, and the story in this film gives each of us some support for what it is to be human, and for what I consider to be one of the most important qualities we have, our imagination, or in other words, possibilities.

I've seen this film several times, and I am not a die-hard horror/gore film fan. While the story is simple, it's a kind of innocence in the characters that makes this film quite interesting and fun. It's gory, funny, and even heartfelt at times. Because it's character driven, the actors are quite important, and they each do a fine job. The special effects are well-done and used wisely. And it is, in the end, a morality tale, which adds a bit of substance. This, combined with story and acting, elevates it to a grade above the average B movie. Every once in a while, someone creates a gem among the baubles, and this film is one of those. It reminds me of another quite quirky story, Eating Raoul. If you appreciate Slither, watch the story just mentioned. You will most probably appreciate that one as well.

Some genre films need to be dressed up. This one was an exception. Taken on its own merit, it's a dressed down version of the horror genre film. With minimal special effects, it manages to be a psychological study of sorts, with a simple yet existential theme - who gets hit by the bus, and why her? It's not a great film, yet because there is little contrived about it, the story works. Subtle, and all about the interactions of the characters. Actually, there is one contrivance in the opening scenes, but it may have been placed there to simply set the tone for what's to come. I very much appreciate the balance of male and female energy, and would not recommend this story to anyone interested in more than people reacting to a physical and psychological challenge. You will enjoy the film if you have some empathy, value the need for a bit of adventure in your life, and wonder "What would I do in this situation?"

What makes this film, the story interesting is the setup. Very realistic. Rather everyday women with varying backgrounds and experience who are simply sharing their feelings in a friendly environment. Sorta like we each do, mostly on weekends. The picture painted in The first act of the story is quite realistic. Certainly like my friends, these people are interesting.

The rest of the story creates a metaphor. A mirror, if you will, for fear that we feel. But what's adventure without fear?

Eat some nuts, or perhaps popcorn, and, above all feel your memories. Fear can be productive.

Gregory

Malick provides us always with a mirror. This is not good or bad, but just a view of ourselves. What appeals to you about war, any kind of war, on our side our theirs? Do you like it, or see that it is necessary, or hate it and see the futility of the effort? It is most certainly never beautiful, at least not when you have lost someone to it or even look back upon it from some future point and historically. This man, by allowing us to participate in the story, let's us make our own decision. In this case, the thin line is thin because of the apparently very slight difference between our own internal decision and that which our culture, nation, and whatever else influences us directs us to make. It's up to each one of us, not the collective. In fact, this is the last war film anyone needs to see (that is, unless you like the idea of war or think that it is necessary). Watch his latest, The New World. It speaks even clearer to how much power to change the world we each have as individuals. And if you appreciate this director, you owe it to yourself to also see the films of Peter Weir.