Peter Graves

Seemingly an Irish attempt to create a "western" for feuding families and cattle rustling. Only this time, it's sheep being stolen and maimed, with very active hostilties between two families - supposedly in remote Connemara - actually filmed in very different Wicklow on the other side of the Republic. If your "thing" is seeing a dog with a "knife" sticking out it, with realistic sounds of a dog in distress on the soundtrack (yes, I know, not for real) and violent personal arguments - then see this film. We couldn't and walked out, before the last 30 minutes. Only two points of interest: (1) the ability of the photographer to film in near-total darkness. This reflected the grimness of most of the times when the worst activities occurred. (2) large slabs of dialogue in Irish. With subtitles. I was listening closely, but could only hear very rare English-derived words. Reflecting the pride of the Irish in their language - without Latin influences.

I agree with the negative comments about the loud inappropriate music and the awful lighting. BUT What seems to have been missed is the university location and the rather specialised relationships within it. Starting with (1) the student presenting a (PhD ?) thesis being examined by the Julia Roberts character. This is always fraught, when the student has to present original material and analysis - especially when there are allegations of plagiarism. While seeking the positive assessments by the supervisor. Plagiarism is absolutley forbidden - anywhere in any degree. Which I had found to my chagrin when I was marking two sets of final year, undergraduate essays. In different years. There was also the uncertainties of her parents being major donors to the University - an American context, clearly. But potentially only - influencing the marking. (2) both lead characters seeking tenure - influencing how each is perceived (positively) by the senior University professors and management. To the eventual detriment of one, early in the film. (3) the uncertain relationship between the Roberts' character and her husband - not good, as demonstrated in two key events. A great role for Roberts and Garfield - very different to his earlier role as Desmond Doss bringing in the wounded in WW2.

Don't expect an action movie, a la Bourne. Many of the reviewers here have expected one and appear not to be able to review the film they saw. This is a talking movie - where "you" have to listen to the dialogue and follow its implications. Especially to follow the plot - very rare these days, with NO bang-bang shoot-em ups, no car chases, almost no violence. Much is packed into its 93 minutes, as might be expected from Steve Soderbergh. He started off with "Sex, Lives and Videotape" in 1989 and has gone on the "Ocean's" films. His characters can have fun - not so much here. But superb acting - from everyone. It's a rare treat, these days.

No-one seems to have noticed that this seems a re-make of "Love Story". The dialogue was banal: e.g. when she says something vague, he asks "what do you mean?" - so help me, she then responds with "you know what I mean". Really ? He has a wispy voice not befitting a supposed "executive" at Weetabix, which he makes worse by seemingly being unable to finish his sentences. I'm sure it's a banal plot device to show how their feelings develop. The film - irritatingly - jumps back and forth in time. I have to suspect that the director made some 25 scenes at random, then the film editor had to try to stitch them together to say "something meaningful". Or else it was device to try to keep the viewer's on-going and immediate attention in those same soporific and rather predictable scenes. The ending is equally predictable - and mawkish. Only see it if you are with someone with, or has got over, cancer. One point in its favour: Andrew Garfield successfully plays a very different character to that of Desmond Doss in "Hacksaw Ridge".

This is a "talking" film, where the action is spoken and held my attention superbly throughout 2 hours (without fights, car chases, murders or swearing). While it is nominally about the election of a new Pope, it displays the personal ins and outs of the processes necessary to accomplish this. As the "manager" of all this in charge of the College of Cardinals, Fiennes is outstanding and displays minute changes in his expressions that convey immense concern for which candidate is "in" and who might be "out". With enough subsidiary twists and turns to keep "your" attention, before the black smoke exits to the public below. Superb sets standing in for the Vatican and the Sistine Chapel - at Cinecitta in Rome, Babelsburg studios and an attention-grabbing real Italian palazzo. An old-fashioned film of character(s) and dialogue.

The review on the New York Times seems to be yet another of a film the reviewer wished had been made. This is a hoot and an old-fashioned send up of the both the Bond and Mission Impossible franchises. A great deal of the fun is finding the throw-away references to both. The choreographer deserves an Oscar for two "dance" segments that are sensational. I seem to be the only one who saw the resemblance of the cat to Garfield. Welcome back too to Samuel Jackson.

What a melodramatic, cliche-ridden piece of piffle. Branagh's "moustache' acts better than he does. Every moment of terror is signalled by crashing thunder and rain outisde. Every "significant" moment is signalled by the "actors" staring meaningfully into the camera. Spoken in the style of Victorain melodrama and as if the actors were reading their lines anyway. Or being auditioned for real acting roles. Speaking in whispers does not increase the "terror" or fear. What a waste.

Woeful. Trite dialogue full of cliches. The actors played it as if they were expostulating their lines - solo. Their "thoughts about the philosophy of marriage" were awful. Macy can only play sad-sack roles and he was well cast, as a boring and bored "husband". Keaton whined. Gere seemed to be playing off his much earlier role in "Pretty Woman". Neil Simon wrote much better "stuff" in "Plaza Suite" and "California Suite". And generally wrote lines for people with zing and zest. If I could have given it a negative rating - I would have.

Some of the reviewers elsewhere were clearly not even born in 1969 and have treated this as a "fillum". It's much more than that, even as seemingly nostalgia for Branagh's childhood. Notably most of it was not filmed in Belfast - if you could imagine what the sight of extras in the uniforms of the RUC and the British Army could have encouraged. It usefully mixes up the viewpoints of children and the adults around them, as The Troubles fire up. Initially, the entry of the British Army into NI was welcomed, as protecting the Catholics from the B-Specials of the RUC. One street becomes the motif for what followed - burning out the "Carfillics" only encouraged the random shootings later on the doorsteps of both faiths. The film gently teases out the decisions of his parents to move out to England, for a better life and keep the children safe. As I suspect, so many made the same decisions later. The images in the film of helicopters overhead, barbed wire barricades and armoured cars on the streets were extremely realistic. You had to be there, at the time. I was.

This could not be called a "comedy" and any relevance to "Berlin" was not apparent. It could have been set anywhere - apart from that irrelevant reference at the beginning to "Wings of Desire". The stories were hardly "romantic" and mostly were played "cute". Mickey Rourke was appalling. We turned it off about three-quarters of the way through. Boring and depressing.