Reviews

Watching this for the first time over 20 years after it released (although remembering it being advertised at the time) it's clear this came out at the wrong time. Fully 3D animation was surpassing 2D and this moves away from many classic Disney tropes like the musical numbers and a classic villain, and that just wasn't selling at the time (and I would say does leave this a little hollow at times).

But watching this for the first time as an adult? Honestly it's some solid steampunk/sci-fi. Having a morally grey villain and some fun characters, not to mention some beautiful animation makes for a diverting 90 minutes or so. There is admittedly a little to be desired in terms of the main character maybe not being the most compelling and the fact they introduce a cool woman character only to have her taken out by injury for half the movie. But for what it is, it's honestly not bad, it just is also not the sort of thing that was ever going to have mass appeal. If it was released now, by a smaller studio, I feel like it would be the kind of thing that gets critically lauded.

I just like the ambition of it, even if not everything completely comes off, and it's rare a huge studio like Disney takes a risk likethis (and the history behind why it finally decided to do so is fascinating).

This really hits the spot. Wholesome without being cringey, irreverent without being crass and witty without being snide. It's a show that is more than the sum of its parts, with the strength coming from the quality of the writing and the chemistry of the leads more so than any particularly outlandish premise.

It's relatable in an understated way, and even though a lot of the comedy is quite blunt and awkward there's also something very gentle about it. Sometimes a show just seems to have great vibes effortlessly and this really fits into that category.

Being in the UK I haven't seen a lot of Australian TV full stop (outside of soap operas) but this is a great advert if it's any way indicative of the wider landscape down under. Really good stuff.

I first watched this on the small screen not long after it came out and remember being very moved by it. Recently I had the chance to watch it again, this time on the big screen, and it did not disappoint on re-watching.

It's almost hard with where to start with this film, there are just so many elements I love. Thematically, it's a wonderful exploration of the fragility and malleability of memory and nostalgia, and how beautifully messy, and often heartbreaking, the twists and turns of time and fate can be. It's about how the past, present and future interweave in powerful and often unexpected ways.

But at its core, for me, it's about empathy. About (quite literally) putting yourself in someone else's shoes and learning to appreciate and love other people through experiencing the world through their eyes. It's also very much a coming of age story, framed around the process of realising the world doesn't revolve around yourself, and how by coming to terms with this you open yourself up to love in a way you hadn't experienced before or had even seen coming.

I struggle to think of another movie that conveys the sensation of yearning for *something*, that you can't quite put your finger on, so well, and how so many of these strong feelings and desires are tied up in fuzzy, often contradictory memories and impressions from our formative years.

But not only is it complex and deep thematically, it is also a piece of absolute art in a practical sense. The visuals? Stunning. The soundtrack? Stunning. It's even got the odd laugh in there. Every single aspect of this film just seems to have had so much attention to detail paid to it and it really does produce something truly wonderful which will stick with you for a long, long time.

I enjoyed the first half, even two thirds of this movie. It seems to set up an interesting reflection on the fallacy of 'splendid isolation' and 'ignorance is bliss' ways of approaching the unpleasant things about the world as represented by the grimy, noisy nightlife of Bangkok.

However, it never quite delivers on this and with the final act fails to stick the landing in terms of hammering home the (what seemed to be) point that burying your head in the sand (no pun intended) is not sustainable and indulging in selfishness/hedonism will always ultimately hurt other people. There are also some weird non-sequiturs with some very dated graphics that really age the movie, although I appreciate they were trying to draw parallels between the pitfalls of becoming lost in virtual worlds and the paradise of the eponymous beach.

Most of the performances are fine, although Di Caprio's screaming can get a little annoying at times. Another issue is the fact that, despite being set in Thailand, the only Thai characters we see are presented as violent thugs or stereotypically happy tourist workers - I don't know if that was sort of the point; that only wealthy, (mostly) white westerners were the ones luxuriating in the 'paradise' of the beach, but it feels more like an oversight. Overall it's fine, but no need to go out of your way to watch this one.

I liked how thematically 'tight' this film was - you get the idea that this is going to be a 'better to have loved than lost' vehicle early on with the imagery on the frozen lake and it goes on to reiterate that message throughout. Carrey and Winslet are both very good in these roles and for the most part I liked the trippy sequences inside Joel's mind; they had a very Terry Gilliam quality to them.

A couple of things didn't work as well - the C plot with Elijah Wood really didn't add anything and he seemed a little miscast. While the B plot with Mark Ruffallo, Kirsten Dunst and Tom Wilkinson had a bit more to it, it also felt like filler for larger parts. David Cross on the other hand has like two lines but still managed to get a laugh out of me.

Overall, definitely worth the watch as a valuable meditation on how we think about and reflect on romantic relationships.

Far From the Madding Crowd is one of my favourite novels, so I was looking forward to what looked like a well-cast, nicely shot film. The truth is, however, that if I hadn't read the book first, this adaptation would not have encouraged me to read Hardy's novel. It's not a bad movie by any means, but it does have a few problems which were maybe unavoidable in adapting this late Victorian classic into the contemporary cinematic environment.

I had two main problems in this respect; the first is that of timing. The running time is just under two hours, and yet a good third of the book is swallowed up in just the first fifteen minutes. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however I felt as though all that extra time could have been better spent in exploring Bathseba's interactions with her second and third suitors (Troy in particular, but we'll get on to that). Rather Oak takes up much more of the screen time than necessary, and, being a naturally stolid and stoic character, does not provide for that compelling a screen presence.

The second problem ties much into the first, in that the sped-up first fifteen minutes gives us a foundation whereby Batsheba openly declares herself to be an independent, DIY woman who 'don't need no man', which is not really carried through for large chunks of the rest of the film. In the novel, Bathsheba's independence of spirit is demonstrated through her brusque actions, often blunt speech and stubborn pride, rather than simple declarations of her ambition and character. As such, when in the film, she falls for Troy, (especially in such a short amount of time given the length of the picture) it is quite jarring and doesn't really fit with what they seemed to be going for at the start. For most of the rest of the adaptation, themes, ideas, and even the scenery are presented with the subtlety and restraint characteristic of Hardy, but I feel the independent woman stuff unfortunately didn't work as well - which is a shame.

As such, it makes it difficult for me to recommend this film unless you've read the book first, as seeing this adaptation could possibly impair the experience of what is a wonderful novel. Again, I may sound quite harsh on what is a competently made, well-acted, well- scripted, well-scored movie. If you simply want to see these things, by all means it is a perfectly enjoyable diversion for a few hours. However, if you're yet to discover Hardy's Wessex (oddly changed to its real- life parallel Dorset in the film) I'd recommend you dive into one of the English language's finest authors before viewing this particular adaptation.

Full disclaimer; I am a vegetarian, so I was always going to be sympathetic to the message of this film. And while some would argue, perhaps correctly in most cases, that the medium IS the message, it doesn't always hold that a noble sentiment translates into a well made film. Thankfully this is not the case here.

A whirlwind mash of genres (part heist movie; part buddy comedy; part activist polemic) Okja is a beautifully executed interweaving of the complex and deep relationship between humanity and the other animals that inhabit our planet. Despite (obviously) heavy use of CGI for Okja herself, the Super Pig's presence is (mostly) seamless with the rest of the environment, and its convincing and moving interactions with the rest of the cast, not least a starring performance from young Seo Hyun as Mija, were enough to move me to tears more than once.

At no point does the film verge into 'preachiness', however, nor wander into grisly animal-rights documentary territory. It achieves this through interspersing some nicely shot action scenes with the odd absurdist comic line, before, towards the end of the film, revealing in jarring and emotional fashion the logical consequence of mass, production-line slaughter. And that really is the main takeaway from the film; not that MEAT=BAD, but rather that the industrialised killing our profit-driven society has allowed to develop is an unbearable and heartbreaking infringement of the rights of the living beings with which we must share our earth.

Perhaps the only reservation is Jake Gyllenhaal's bizarre performance as Johnny Wilcox. I personally didn't have that much of a problem with it, although can see why the OTT nature of it might pull one out of the film on occasion. Nonetheless, Okja is a film bold in its scale and confident in its message. At once gentle and brutal; funny and poignant, I really can't give this film any more praise without it sounding like I'm a Netflix plant. Highly recommended, whatever you choose to put on your plate...

At this point no one will be going into this movie thinking they're seeing anything spectacular. Most, like I did, will go in wanting to just enjoy a few hours of crazy,stupid nonsense for a bit of a laugh. But does it live up to the 'so bad it's good' status? On balance, I think so.

Now I watched this with a few drinks in me so my recollection of the already incomprehensible plot is not the best so I won't recount it here. All I really remember at this point are lots of overly long and over-the-top action sequences, painstakingly bad exposition and 'funny' dialogue and the campest overperformance of the century by one Eddie Redmayne. He really is the star of this dumpster fire and I laughed hard every time he and his jelly like lip movements came on screen.

Overall, I did enjoy it for all the wrong reasons, as I'd been hoping, and still maintain that while the Wachowski's don't always make 'good' stuff, it's almost always entertaining in some way. This is true junk food and is the sort of thing to watch when you really want to just check out for an evening. As such, it's hard to give it a fair rating; just know what to expect going in and you'll enjoy it for the sheer ridiculousness it pumps into your eyeballs.

There are reviews on here that say that if you've played the series, you'll love it. Well I'm here to say that I love the series and have wasted a frankly appalling amount of time searching for that next piece of Eden - and the film is...meh.

If I had to describe it in one word, it would be 'bland'. It's not terrible; there are some cool action sequences and the casting is pretty solid, but it just really is not that engaging a story-line, and too many scenes are stretched out too long. Unlike in the games, most time is spent in the modern day rather than the past, and I feel like they try to over-complicate and over-intellectualise the Assassin-Templar struggle when they could be spending more time rampaging through the streets of Madrid.

I got kind of annoyed as well with the some of the clichés given the time, effort, and money that Fox and Ubisoft would have had to throw at what is basically a giant marketing campaign. Jeremy Irons as the bad guy; a female scientist who's only there because she's the daughter of some more important male scientist (and with a really bizarre faux-British accent); the hero ripping his shirt off and flexing his muscles. It really takes no risks and is actually behind the game series now in terms of representation for women and minorities (it scrapes through the Bechdel test right at the very end but I'd expect more at this point.)

As I say, it's not awful, and there are some nice bits of fan service for lovers of the games like myself, but it just seems like another example of a video game not translating very well to screen. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure it can be done, and will be in time - this is just not it.

I didn't expect to particularly like this film given the current status of the reviews coming out and the fact that I'm not in general a big DC or even comic book fan otherwise - but I have enjoyed super hero stuff perfectly well in the past. And... I didn't particularly enjoy it, but weirdly it was for things that I would have thought this film , whatever its flaws, would've been immune from. Foremost amongst these was the fact that, for a lot of the time, it was just plain dull.

The hour in the middle is most to blame for this - essentially the 'squad' are making their way through city ruins toward the big bad boss and... that's literally it. They introduce these quite cool looking characters and build them up (I guess much like the pre-release hype via the trailers) and yet for this main part of the movie they just kind of walk next to a bunch of soldiers who slowly crawl their way through buildings, occasionally whacking a few bad guys themselves. It seems like a slow motion Call of Duty level and is criminal underuse of what otherwise seem like very promising characters.

One aspect that has been praised is the casting, which on paper, does look good, but I just don't think Will Smith is suited to sharing the screen with an ensemble. Cara Delevingne's baddie is bizarrely funny but I kind of felt I was laughing at the pretty meh CGI superimposed over her than the character herself, and Margot Robie's cringe level is off the charts. I hear that, in fairness, the dialogue and action written for her is pretty loyal to the Harley Quinn source material, and that's great, but someone needs to tell the makers that film adaptations are exactly that - adaptations - and need editing and compromising; they can't just be a scene-for- scene copy and paste of the original.

That said it's not the worst superhero film I've ever seen, and, if these characters are in future utilised properly there's definitely hope for the DC-verse, but this is sadly lacking in transferring much loved characters onto the big screen. Watch Guardians of the Galaxy instead.

Rob Delaney and Sharon Horgan are pastmasters of black humour, so it's no surprise that after just ten minutes of this show you're left going over in your head the sick and or/crude things you laughed at, but probably, strictly, know you shouldn't have. What is surprising is their capacity, in their role as writer-actors, to balance that most well practiced aspect of their craft with pathos and, occasionally, a sweet and cheesy moment that just lightens the impending doom a little.

The first series starts and ends very well, and though it does begin to feel a bit lethargic 3 or 4 episodes in, there's still always enough there for a fair few good laughs. It'll be interesting to see how they approach the next series, but however they do it, I'm optimistic it'll keep up this brand of dark/light sitcom humour that's a pleasure to indulge in.

I'd heard good things about this movie before watching it, but I couldn't see, on the basis of its synopsis/trailer, what could possibly be so good about it. It just looked like a fairly conventional Hollywood action flick, and I'd never seen anything approaching interesting from Gosling himself. Turns out I was wrong on both counts.

I'd previously criticised the man on the basis he seems to have little to no emotional range, and mumbles a lot, but, in fairness, that is perfect for this surprisingly touching noir-style flick. The plot doesn't have much to it, and it doesn't really matter; I quite like that. Even though the characters don't speak that much, their body language alone, in particular that of the two leads (Mulligan is fantastic opposite Gosling), conveys far more than pages full of unnecessary, trite dialogue could have done. Add that to your other noir staples of a beautifully lit up setting, a mesmerising, ethereal soundtrack, and just the right amount of gratuitous violence, and you really have something worth watching.

There really is an art form to elevating seemingly run of the mill plot lines, characters, and events into an 'experience'. The genius cinematography gave me the same mystical feeling of wonder and just that vague, far-off something that Blade Runner gave me - the sort of thing that's hard to put into words. I did not expect something so atmospheric and downright beautiful going in, this really was something unexpectedly deep. 9/10.

I had looked forward to seeing this film for a while, but come away disappointed that I didn't get more out of what looked like a promising, thoughtful movie. It's not as bad as some of the more disparaging reviews would have you believe, but it's nowhere near as clever as it thinks it's being.

Quite a few of the positive reviews on here describe it as 'subtle', which to me is a complete misnomer - 'underwhelming' is a more apt description, i.e. nothing much happens plot-wise and the dialogue is pretty stilted. There really isn't any subtlety in the symbolism within the film, and the message is drilled in way too much, with some particularly cringe-inducing, knowing-wink-worthy dialogue ''Have fun exploring the abyss'' ''You too'' was particularly garish and predictable .

I found this fairly patronising approach to the viewer was also reflected in Braff's creation of the love interest who, though played well by the as-ever on form Natalie Portman, seems to be little more than a mildly disturbing Holden Caulfield-esque 'innocent' fantasy girl. So it largely fails on the 'serious' elements, and it really isn't funny enough to make up for it either. There are a few good moments, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, a more depressed version of JD doesn't generate that many laughs.

The considerable acting talent in this film does warrant it some praise at least, but even the likes of Ian Holm, and the aforementioned Portman, couldn't fully save this for me. Not dreadful by any means, but ultimately Braff's writing struggles to deal with fairly heavy themes succinctly enough or with much originality. 5

I was always a bit lukewarm about the original X-Men trilogy, and was really underwhelmed by the Wolverine back story prequels, so I've come out the other side of this film concluding it's the best one yet (still to see Days of Future Past).

The one feature I did always look forward to in the originals was the confrontation between Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as the respective goodie and villain, and James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender's channeling of their older counterparts is probably the highlight of this picture. In terms of the film itself, it's a fairly well crafted plot, nicely paced, and well acted - nothing too special, but a solid watch.

I think the element of this movie that elevates it above its predecessors most, however, is the thought that has gone into the development of the characters, and background of the story. With the originals, CGI was still growing in popularity, and quite large sections of those films were spent oohing and ahing at the various mutations and asking 'what can this one do?' and there is a bit of this in that (the girl with the bug wings stands out), but it doesn't take centre stage as with those previous efforts, to the benefit of the film overall. Being set amidst the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there's a nice political subtext when unraveling the motivations and backgrounds of the two leads, and that context gives a lot more weight to the story than with the first three films and the Wolverine origins stories, which seemed to exist in bubble-like isolation from the real world at times.

So a strong 7, I look forward to seeing the next installment if it's anything like this one.

I had a smile on my face for the duration of this film.

It's pretty much genius. Brilliantly written with witty and fast dialogue, set to a dark comic tone and carried out with commendable energy and dynamism by a hilarious cast. Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer's chemistry is really the anchor for this film, and what a strong one to have.

The only time I wasn't beaming right at this movie were the (frequent) moments when I was forced to open my mouth to let the bursts of laughter escape, which were just bubbling under the surface the whole time. But there is more than just good comedy to this - it is an all round great film, including an interesting, immersive plot with genuine emotional engagement, and a main character you're really rooting for despite his brusqueness and ability to act like a doof.

I knew from the opening scene that I was going to like this film, it was just a question of whether it could go on and make me love it - which it did, several times over. Genuinely one of the best films I've seen in ages and a tragedy more people haven't watched it. 9/10.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It's written well, the voice acting is great, the story is fast paced and engaging, but above all, it's just really quite beautiful to look at - and this was in 2D, so I imagine the 3D experience would have been even more of a treat.

This film works on just about every level. The main characters especially are a highlight - the protagonist gives us a very fresh take on your standard misfit boy type and his pacey and entertaining dialogue is constructed and delivered flawlessly. Even the dragon has more personality to it than most of the stale characters you tend to see in contemporary children's' movies - its design and facial expressions alone are just so well done they convey everything effortlessly.

There isn't much to the story but then there doesn't need to be. It's a solid family adventure to keep everyone entertained. Where some previous Dreamworks films have failed to keep both child and adult audiences I feel that this one captures both successfully because the dialogue is just so tight and funny and children would just be captivated with the beauty and excitement of what they're seeing.

I'm struggling to say anything negative about this movie at all, in fact. It's just very very good. Go and see it. 9/10.

This movie is on the higher end of 'meh'. It's seen as something of a comedy classic today, and I can see how in 1987, it probably felt very fresh and as such received a very positive response. I'd have probably enjoyed it more if I'd seen it then. But I just don't think it holds up - it's not terrible by any means, but I don't think it's quite as good as people seem to remember it as being.

So it's a fantasy-comedy-adventure that (obviously) doesn't take itself too seriously. As such the plot is fairly predictable and the characters largely played for laughs - which is fine - but I don't think it's actually done consistently well. There are definitely some funny moments, but I think I only laughed properly three times in this film. Partially I think it's because that, by now, we've seen this kind of comedy a lot (again, at the time, I'm sure it was a lot newer and fresher), and moved on from comedy based around the fact that apparently Spanish accents are funny (here's looking at you Fawlty Towers).

It looks really cheap, and yes, I appreciate it's nearly 30 years old, but a lot of films made in the 80s (even in the 70s) had better effects and sets than this. There isn't really any ambition with the world it's set in - it's very dull and stereotypical and it doesn't really fit with the fact that this is supposed to be a kooky, original world.

The guy who played the Spaniard aside, I just don't think it was acted very well either. The female lead especially is wooden, and there was absolutely nothing (even comedic) to her character or given in her performance.

I couldn't really get into the 'story within a story' element either - the granddad telling the story to his grandchild is shown for about 10 minutes and there's nothing to it - I just kept asking myself why? Why did they choose this setup? It doesn't help the overall flow of the film in any way and just seemed like an odd choice.

As I said, there were a few good laughs, but not enough for me to want to see this again any time soon. It has its fans but I think a lot of them need to remove the nostalgic veneer of their memory of this film and come back now and watch it. A warning: you may be disappointed. 6/10.

I am not a fan of Adam Sandler. His comedy is usually crude and panders to the lowest common denominator of cinema-goer. So why do I tolerate, nay enjoy his performance in this movie?

I think it's because this was one of his earlier efforts and as such he didn't have as much creative control as he does over the tripe he makes now. The comedy is family friendly but actually genuinely good for the most part, the romance is just about on the scale of believable, and the soundtrack is upbeat and fits the tone.

Part of the success of this movie for me is the fact that it's a 90s movie about the 80s, which we don't see very often. The result is the innocent naiveté of the 90s mixed with the elaborate, flamboyant extravagance of the preceding decade and it's a winning combination. It culminates in just a general 'feel-good' vibe that thrives in the midst of safe but quality comedy and a cheesy, predictable yet satisfying narrative.

Billy Idol's cameo is a highlight and fairly veteran actors such as Steve Buscemi turn in surprisingly adept comic performances alongside Sandler and Drew Barrymore as the romantic leads. The shame, of course, is that people will form an opinion of this move when they see Sandler's face on the front and it may well turn them away from a corny yet very good comedy worth seeing. 7/10.

I liked this film a lot - there's a lot to like about it - but I want to address the minor concerns I had with it first.

In honesty, they're the usual problems I have with the more recent Scorsese films. Much like Shutter Island, there's a twist at the end (although admittedly far less important to the narrative as a whole) that was actually fairly predictable. He seems to be obsessed with throwing something in there just to convince the audience (and maybe himself) that he's very clever and in truth the stuff he comes up with isn't as clever as he thinks it is. The other is the creeping sexism again - the female characters are cardboard cutout plot devices and again he thinks he can 'even it out' by throwing a penis in there (that shouldn't be a spoiler if you know Scorsese), but no, it doesn't work like that, and the penis is pointless.

But despite all that, it was not enough to ruin my thorough enjoyment of this movie. The story is very strong and actually gives you plenty of plot twists and turns (which just make it more frustrating as to why he thought he needed to put in that obvious end twist), and the lead performances are judged expertly by Leonardo Di Caprio and Matt Damon. I'm not a fan of either Jack Nicholson nor Mark Wahlberg, but they're convincing here in their respective roles as the sleazy crime boss and the bad cop.

The double agent setup plays out fantastically well and kept me entertained and curious throughout, and even when it is slightly predictable, it's just done so well that I didn't even mind. There's not actually much else to say without giving something away other than a recommendation to go and see it if you want a well paced, thoroughly entertaining crime thriller. 8/10.

Having finally got round to reading 'The Great Gatsby' (and enjoying it immensely) I was looking forward to seeing this most recent film adaptation. And I'm glad I did.

There are problems with it, my main one being the choice to cast Tobey Maguire as the narrator (or to cast Tobey Maguire at all... in anything) but even that I got over after about half an hour when it became clear he wasn't going to take up too much screen time.

What makes the original novella truly stand out is the beauty of the language used and the construction of truly perceptive, insightful imagery regarding human nature, and I think that is captured well for the most part. Granted, you do have to sit through the typical Baz Luhrmann epileptic colour schemes and 2 second shots but this, like the Maguire problem, also wears off after the first act, once Gatsby and the context are established and it slows down to explore the characters.

Leonardo Di Caprio and Carey Mulligan (fairly obvious age gap aside) do a great job as the romantic leads. In fact the parts are played so well I started reconsidering some of the evaluations I had made of the characters whilst reading the novel, which is pretty impressive and unusual for a movie adaptation.

So it's a strong 8. At times style over substance, and you have to suffer through some Tobey Maguire, but otherwise a very well measured interpretation of F Scott Fitzgerald's classic.

I'm not sure what this movie was trying to do.

Let's start with the length; it's far too long at over two hours. For about 100 of those 120 minutes, however, I was thinking of coming on here and absolutely trashing it. It employs every stereotype, every romantic cliché, every predictable situation and outcome, and every setup and resolution you've seen a million times before. And yet the last fifteen minutes is actually a fairly satisfying conclusion. I don't think it's quite strong enough to save the movie - you have to go through far too much of Ryan Gosling infuriatingly mumbling for that to be the case, but in honesty it was the only highlight of the picture for me.

That said I don't want to criticise the actors too much. I think Gosling and Rachel McAdams do a fairly good job of what is a trite script - McAdams is best in brat mode (a la Mean Girls) in the first half hour or so of the movie - and while Gosling's acting range seems to go from being mildly amused to gormlessly distracted, it's only because he's written as such a dull goofball. About 5 minutes in I was sure that after an hour of this film I'd get sick of the Southern accents, but in fairness, they pull them off pretty well - admittedly this may have been because I was so distracted by the other problems (or, maybe, caught up in the romance....haha) but they proved me wrong on that count at least.

As I said, this movie seems to struggle with its own identity - at times I wanted to laugh, especially in the scenes where McAdams' character is brutally attacking Gosling's (they fight, it's what they do, apparently) but I was fairly sure they weren't going for the Rom-Com angle, and it didn't appear to be intentionally funny. So it was supposed to be a drama? Well, the climax aside (which, as I said, did pull at the heartstrings a little) I really could not get involved in these people enough to feel anything. Not at the famous kiss in the rain, nor at the dramatic reunion at the end.

Again, I think this is down to the writing and direction - the actors are doing the best with what they have - but there was potential here. Without giving too much away, the action cuts back and forth between modern day and the 1940s, and again it's derivative, but that's not a problem as long as its done well. But it's not. The pacing is agonisingly slow. It doesn't help also that there is absolutely no subtlety to it - yes, that's fine if it's another Romantic drama, it's expected, just do it well, but they were clearly trying to do something a bit different, and it just doesn't work when everything is spelled out to you and treats the audience like children.

So it's a 5, and it would have been a 3 but for the efforts of the actors and that last fifteen minutes. Now I know a lot of people like this movie, and if you're really into romantic dramas you'll probably get something out of it, but for me, there are just too many problems to allow a good ending to let this movie off.