Reviews

I was surprised to read all the positive reviews above because... I thought this movie really failed to deliver. This film might have made more sense in the 60's when the idea of an independent, free-spirited woman was seen as more 'madcap' (not to mention 'new'), but to a 21st century audience, Jane Fonda's character will appear whiny, clingy, and co-dependent. (When a neighbour asks her what she does for a living, she replies 'I'm a wife'). There are one or two good lines, and of all the performances I thought Charles Boyer's was the best, but it seemed truly surprising that Jane Fonda was nominated for awards for this; at times, her delivery of Neil Simon's lines felt stiff and awkward. Again, this movie may have made a lot more sense in context; 'couple' sit-coms were new. Now, we've seen so many of them, that the bickering between Fonda and Redford seems not funny but tiresome. There are many better films from this period.

Pretty much as I'd heard, this is a good movie, in fact a very good movie, but not a *great* movie. The script is pretty good and it's a TENSE ride along - you will be riveted simply to see what happens. Acting is good all-round, with the slight exception of Jack Nicholson (yes, he's better than in his usual roles, but that's not saying much for someone who hasn't shown any great range in, well, decades). The performances that stand out are Leonardo DiCaprio - MAN, does he capture the intensity of this character - and Mark Wahlberg. Where does the movie fall flat? Well, it's nothing special... nothing all that new. Undercover cops, one who's a double agent, who'll-find-who first, etc etc. I didn't find the direction to be particularly amazing at all - Scorsese has done much better. I'd definitely say it's worth watching, but don't expect it to be the best thing you've seen all year.

Why was THIS not nominated for Best Picture and Best Screenplay? Easily the best film I've seen all year, if not for several years, and I AM a picky moviegoer. First of all, the script was truly excellent. The plot worked, the characters were real and 3-dimentsional, and the interplay between the three main characters made the whole thing really spark. Added to that, the acting was first-rate throughout: not just the leads but ALL the characters. Secondly, I loved that the movie makers were unafraid to show what really went on in Sierra Leone at that time. The child soldier parts were harsh, but you owe it to yourself to see this. The cinematography was excellent, and the juxtaposition of such beautiful scenery as a background to horrific events served well to highlight just how shocking the atrocities there really were. This was one of the few films I watched again the next day, and picked up lots of small parts I'd missed the first time round (minor nit: some of the actors mutter a bit a times, so you can easily miss things people say) - but you'll want to watch it a second time anyway. The parts I wanted to come back to the most were always to do with the interplay between the characters. An excellent, excellent film.

Great premise - this *should* be a really exciting, gripping movie, like LA Confidential, and I think that's what they were going for. But through the incredibly slow-moving plot, they managed to suck the life out of it. Some of the cinematography was good, some was very cliché. Some of the acting was good, and some made me cringe (surprisingly, Hilary Swank -- this just wasn't the right role for her). I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on whether the slowness of the movie comes from staying faithful to the book, but at one point I looked at my watch and thought: we're an hour in, and not even into the main plot! There were some sub-plots that just didn't seem relevant. Overall, I just wouldn't bother with this one.