IndustriousAngel

I also saw "Slumdog Millionaire" only once, on DVD. I'm not much into Bollywood but I liked this. It's a bit like a fairytale or fable, lighthearted in many scenes even if the background is drab. As to the question why this did so well at the Academy awards: I suppose just being different from most Hollywood fare did play an important part. (Benjamin Button would not have been my choice either ... I don't want to go through the complete list but my favourite 2009 film is probably "The Wrestler")

Now you've done it, I had to watch the damned thing once again ... an it IS the best!"Spaceballs" is very nice and silly, too, and I watch it every now and then - "Comb the desert!" - but with Young Frankenstein there is an additional layer: It's done with such love for the details - the image composition, the sets, the costumes - that it's far more than just a spoof. It's a beautiful film in its own right. "Blazing Saddles" was very funny too, but if you look at it as a western, the production values simply were not there. "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" was ok but just so. "Silent Movie" has a nice concept and a fine cast but is not that funny. "High Anxiety" should have more tension, again it works only as a spoof.

I think kids can be taken to the theatre from about age 5 or 6 - depends on personality and control of bladder ^^ - and I understood DAR's question in the first post like this. With children that young, you have to be careful. They're maybe not scared by the things you imagine but at a scene you think harmless. I tried watching "How to Train Your Dragon" with my friend's 6yr old - he didn't last 20 minutes because he was afraid of the dragons. He was also afraid of the hyaenas in "Lion King", but the death of Mufasa didn't bother him at all. Duh. Our boy saw "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" at age 8 and started to cry at the finish: "Don't they take the children with them?"So, first try some things at home, try to understand what scares them. Then, choose the film accordingly and with respect to a kid's reduced attention span. They like a certain rhythm: Tension - relax - tension - relax ... A film for small children needs "boring" scenes. That's why you can rely on Disney, they are maybe predictable but they get it right. "Wizard of Oz" is another great example - maybe boring in many scenes for us but children need those moments of peace.Harry Potter is NOT for younger children. First, they need some years of school to get the references, secondly it's too scary. I would recommend those from age 9 or 10 at the earliest. Indiana Jones is not for young children either. Marx Brothers was a nice hint; they might like some of the scenes. Laurel and Hardy should also work, children usually like good slapstick. Maybe someone has already mentioned it, but nature docs are also nice for children (preferably mammals).

B from me. This wasn't as funny as it should be, at least for me. The best part was casting all those stars and then killing them off during the first half! imho the budget AND running time were much too high for a simple spoof film. Not planning to see this again.

"he must have an enormous schwanzstucker!"

Look at my avatar and you know where I belong! Young Frankenstein is not only Brook's best, it's simply one of the best absurd comedies ever, up there with "Life of Brian" or "Sleeper".

A real crazy film! Paul Verhoeven completely took off and there are many memorable scenes and characters in "Total Recall" - good effect work too in some places, plus Arnold beating up Sharon Stone (or vice versa) - all this should guarantee for a fun film. However, only a B from me because the story is only so-so and doesn't make much sense plus the science is wrong in some parts which alway rubs me the wrong way in a "realistic" SF film or story. For those interested how our body would REALLY react when exposed to a (near) vacuum, here's an answer.Oh, and this was based on (more like "inspired by") a Philip K. Dick story but you wouldn't guess it as usual.

Fun film. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't plan to rewatch this anytime soon. Despised for the sequels it spawned but you can't really blame this film for it

I have very fond memories of "The Lion King", it was the first film we took our son with (twice); the music is the best for a Disney film, the story was a bit more earnest than usual with Disney (death playing an important part) but uplifting too, and the artwork was very good. While my favourite Disney film is "Aristocats", "The Lion King" is up there with the classics. A.

Intouchables 50% in a 500 seater at 8:15pm (pretty good for mid-week), 70%female and average age well above 25 Trailers: The Descendants / The Artist - both little reaction A After 9 weeks in lead in France this opened last weekend in Germany and Austria (dubbed version, called "Ziemlich beste Freunde" ??); going by today's showing it will do some serious business here too. The story is about a coloured criminal working as nurse/servant for a paraplegic millionaire in Paris - think about a pepped-up version of "Driving Miss Daisy", and it also reminds me of last year's "La Tête en friche" - a film about two outsiders slowly getting to know each other and finally enriching each other's life. "Intouchables" is maybe too predictable but really fun (lots of laughs, some of them very shrill), charming and in parts touching, and everything in the right degree so it has a nice rhythm and flow. And it's not even a tear-jerker; I was expecting worse. Should do at least as much as last year's "The King's Speech" in german-speaking areas (combined about 30mio$); WOM should be excellent.

Don't be shocked but the best run at my local theatre in Innsbruck was NOT Avatar and NOT Titanic ... but a 1990 romcom called "Pretty Woman". It was playing for over 1 year, that's longer than Titanic, and still holds the attendance record.(For the record: I was not amongst them, I swear!)

The film fell flat for a couple of reasons, the 1st being that Pattison as lead character has a very limited range. The 2nd reason: We didn't get to know the crew good enough. I actually like circus films - there are not that many to start with but the good ones always feature a good and unique ensemble of actors to establish the "small world". Some of the support roles here were ok (as was the elephant) but there were not enough of them and they didn't get time enough on screen. I would prefer this to be 30minutes longer with more circus life shown. The 3rd reason is that the story is awfully predictable, and while we can overlook that in a good melodrama, it's a pain in a film that you're not involved in.

A+ (the + is for Claudia Cardinale). A much more ambitious film than the "fistful of dollars"-trilogy and even slower in many of its scenes. The music is fantastic, easily one of the best scores ever. Henry "blue eyes" Fonda and Charles "squint" Bronson are worthy antagonists. If possible, watch the longest cut you can get your hands on! It's worth the time.

omg such a long time since I last saw this (but on the big screen!) - as a double feature with some Disney short where they obviously did charakter and cell studies for Jungle Book. Anybody has a hunch what this could have been? (The Jungle Book itself is only about 1 1/4 h, just right for a kid's film). Kaa got reincarnated as "Sir Hiss" some years later in "Robin Hood".Until "The Lion King", "The Jungle Book" featured Disney's best songs and music. And while it is debatable if the film gets the tone of Kipling's Mowgli stories right, it is a classic which can stand proudly on its own. A.

A beautiful film full of memorable action sequences and nice sets. The actual story slips my mind though ... doesn't seem too important. The love story was a bit too melodramatic for my taste.

Following Conan the Barbarian, this is a prodigious example of what happens on the road from R to PG. Not even Arnold and Grace Jones could save this thing. Stay clear. This is not even funny enough for a drunk night.

Very entertaining and rewatchable, for parents & kids alike - that's no small feat. My favourite character is Edna. The villain was the weakest part, but a kid's film must not be too frightening so I guess that's ok. And "Incredibles" is one of the few films where I actually long for a sequel!

I liked this very much on the big screen and bought it on BR but it loses a bit with multiple viewings. Maybe the story is too depressing or cold, or (most propably) Ofelia not interesting enough as a character. Still, very much recommended if you haven't seen this yet. The fantasy part had some perfect designs and a real other-world-quality to it; the real-world part a bleak realism very fitting for a war film.

An OK reboot for 007. Eva Green was great (as always) and Craig brought a kind of earnestness to the role which was sorely missed. I'm not into agent films but James Bond was ubiquituous in my childhood and I read some of Fleming's novels in my late teens, and while Roger Moore was funny, Craig fits the material much better. Still, it's not my stuff and I don't think I'll watch 007 on the big screen ever again.

Gene Hackman's most formidable and memorable role. It was also director Friedkin's first real success (and nearly his last too; after 1973's "Exorcist" Friedkin's career crumbled away). The film was controversial because of the realistic portrayal of violence; however it's mostly remembered for an extended car chase scene. There are some legends surrounding the shooting of this chase but it really is one of the best and realistic car chases in film history.

Not my favourite Woody Allen (that would be "Sleeper"), but a real lovely film with many memorable lines. Allen and Keaton have great chemistry as always, and Paul Simon is in it! While it's not much of a story, it's a beautiful portrait of US 70s culture.

As a thriller or SF, this doesn't really work for me. There's a social commentary running throughout the action which is maybe too preachy. Also, the colour palette was bleached and gives this a depressing look - as if the story wouldn't suffice.However, some aspects of this film make it well worth watching:- Cuarón's long takes. There are some of them throughout the film (one of them 10 minutes or longer), and even though most of them were not really shot in one take, they are a welcome deviation from today's fast-cut action scenes. With those long takes you're put inside the action spatially and temporally, I liked that very much.- Michael Caine. Wow.- Clive Owen. Now, Clive Owen is NOT somebody I would cast as an action star, but in "Children of Men" his cool, detached manner works because he's rather a bystander, unvoluntarily involved. He also never carries a weapon. (Compare this to King Arthur )

Yep, adorable's the fitting word. It's sentimental and cute to the edge of kitsch but sometimes that's what you need. I can't imagine anyone walking away from this film in a depressed mood!The camerawork and effects are brilliant (again, sometimes maybe overdone). And Paris on film is always nice (same with this year's "Midnight in Paris"), especially when you've been to the place.

I don't know if it's true that Leone liked Eastwood because he had only two expressions: The one with hat and one without. However, it's true and it's enough to carry this very-one-note-film. Lee Van Cleef doesn't give us any more facial flexibility; only Eli Wallach shows something like emotions. Leones sweeping camera and Morricones music make this a feast for the senses; the story is remarkably simple but effective. The best of the "fistful"-trilogy imho, and If i had to choose between this and "Once Upon a Time in the West", it's only Claudia Cardinale that tips the scales towards the latter .btw it's only since I learned that Eastwood didn't smoke that I notice how often he has to light a cigar in his films

Life of Brian ("Yes! We're all individuals!")Princess Bride ("I only dog paddle", "Inconceivable")Duck Soup ("Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?")Big Trouble in Little China ("Yes sir, the check is in the mail.", "I was born ready!")