Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

Brilliant Hoffman...

tt0379725

"Capote" is a movie which is based on the true story of Truman Capote who was an American author, screenwriter, playwright and even actor and he learned about a murder that took place in Kansas and decides to write a book about this case. But everything change when he meet one of the killers (Perry Smith) who is on death row.First of all in this movie we observe the brilliant interpretation of Philip Seymour Hoffman who played as Truman Capote. Secondly the great job that Bennett Miller made in the direction of this movie, and thirdly the perfect plot which is being combined really good with how the emotions of actors changing and especially of Hoffman's. I really liked this movie because of all the above reasons and of course because is a movie that is based on true facts.The last thing that I want to add is that "Capote" is not a simple movie, it's a different movie which can give you many things to think of and even more things to reconsider.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-439

ur33907744

title: Brilliant Hoffman... review: "Capote" is a movie which is based on the true story of Truman Capote who was an American author, screenwriter, playwright and even actor and he learned about a murder that took place in Kansas and decides to write a book about this case. But everything change when he meet one of the killers (Perry Smith) who is on death row.First of all in this movie we observe the brilliant interpretation of Philip Seymour Hoffman who played as Truman Capote. Secondly the great job that Bennett Miller made in the direction of this movie, and thirdly the perfect plot which is being combined really good with how the emotions of actors changing and especially of Hoffman's. I really liked this movie because of all the above reasons and of course because is a movie that is based on true facts.The last thing that I want to add is that "Capote" is not a simple movie, it's a different movie which can give you many things to think of and even more things to reconsider.

Cold Manipulation

tt0379725

Every action has a reaction, and watching "Capote", we can't help but wonder how it ever got made. "Capote" is entrancing, dark, depressing, and quite satisfying. It benefits from Hoffman's perfect performance. He embodies the physical and psychological make up of a man who was the toast of the nation before and after the publication of its classic novel, "In Cold Blood". As a human being, he appeared to be an intelligent, fascinating, and manipulative creature. He could have gotten away with almost anything. Then he found the two criminals behind one of the most heinous crimes of the century and might have gotten to the realization he could also be trapped by their own dark existences.It is difficult to ascertain what happened to Capote after he developed a relationship with Smith. He grows attracted to the actions and revelations behind this killer, and we never really know what is exactly going on. There are displays of guilt and detachment at different parts in the film. What we do see is that something really affected the man, and it changed his life for good.The film moves slowly but never loses its audience. Along with Hoffman, a remarkable supporting cast keeps us interests going, and enough is presented to make us want to know more. That will probably be the film's only flaw. It fails to deliver everything it promises. It is a big satisfying tease, but after all, we are left with an endless number of questions. Keener is wonderful as Capote's supporting friend, and in his lover's role, Bruce Greenwood intrigues us as well, with the dubious character that never gives enough information to explain his attraction to a total opposite."Capote" is a really good film and should be admire for it achieves. For those who want to explore more in depth what lies behind the protagonists of the movie, there are several books that will give you a more detailed background on their nature. The truth, will however, remain, a big mystery.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-15

ur2115026

title: Cold Manipulation review: Every action has a reaction, and watching "Capote", we can't help but wonder how it ever got made. "Capote" is entrancing, dark, depressing, and quite satisfying. It benefits from Hoffman's perfect performance. He embodies the physical and psychological make up of a man who was the toast of the nation before and after the publication of its classic novel, "In Cold Blood". As a human being, he appeared to be an intelligent, fascinating, and manipulative creature. He could have gotten away with almost anything. Then he found the two criminals behind one of the most heinous crimes of the century and might have gotten to the realization he could also be trapped by their own dark existences.It is difficult to ascertain what happened to Capote after he developed a relationship with Smith. He grows attracted to the actions and revelations behind this killer, and we never really know what is exactly going on. There are displays of guilt and detachment at different parts in the film. What we do see is that something really affected the man, and it changed his life for good.The film moves slowly but never loses its audience. Along with Hoffman, a remarkable supporting cast keeps us interests going, and enough is presented to make us want to know more. That will probably be the film's only flaw. It fails to deliver everything it promises. It is a big satisfying tease, but after all, we are left with an endless number of questions. Keener is wonderful as Capote's supporting friend, and in his lover's role, Bruce Greenwood intrigues us as well, with the dubious character that never gives enough information to explain his attraction to a total opposite."Capote" is a really good film and should be admire for it achieves. For those who want to explore more in depth what lies behind the protagonists of the movie, there are several books that will give you a more detailed background on their nature. The truth, will however, remain, a big mystery.

Phil fils up the screen with Capote!

tt0379725

Phillip Seymour Hoffman was astonishing as legendary writer Truman Capote in the bio film "Capote". It is an Oscar-caliber performance that has been acclaimed by numerous critics as the unsurpassed acting of the year. Truman Capote was quirky, garrulous, self-centered, liquorish, gay, and extroverted. Hoffman was not "off man" in portraying those aforementioned cluster of characteristics in the Capote character. I am delighted that more filmgoers will now "Seymour" I mean "see more" of Hoffman's work. He has been one of the most undervalued actors for some time now. His acting forte is to play sad sack losers. However, Hoffman is a winner and might very will be one come Oscar night. Truman Capote was the "Truman Show" and center of attention of many New York cocktail galas and parties. His exuberant personality was more of a façade and defense mechanism for his sadistic self-esteem. The film for the most part solely fixates on the developments of his classic novel "In Cold Blood". The libro told the bloody tale of a mid-western family who were violently murdered in (you got it!) cold blood by two psychotic killers. Capote actually befriended the psychopaths to aid him with the non-fiction narrative. The supporting cast of "Capote" was also bloody good: Catherine Keener as his confidante Harper Lee, Chris Cooper as the local lawman Alvin Dewey, Bruce Greenwood as Truman's lover Jack Dunphy, and Clifton Collins Jr. as slayer Perry Smith. However, this was Hoffman's show! Director Bennett Miller and Writer Dan Futterman are the true men who meticulously developed a bloody potent film. This "Capote" should not to be "caput". Write on! ***** Excellent

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-125

ur0489763

title: Phil fils up the screen with Capote! review: Phillip Seymour Hoffman was astonishing as legendary writer Truman Capote in the bio film "Capote". It is an Oscar-caliber performance that has been acclaimed by numerous critics as the unsurpassed acting of the year. Truman Capote was quirky, garrulous, self-centered, liquorish, gay, and extroverted. Hoffman was not "off man" in portraying those aforementioned cluster of characteristics in the Capote character. I am delighted that more filmgoers will now "Seymour" I mean "see more" of Hoffman's work. He has been one of the most undervalued actors for some time now. His acting forte is to play sad sack losers. However, Hoffman is a winner and might very will be one come Oscar night. Truman Capote was the "Truman Show" and center of attention of many New York cocktail galas and parties. His exuberant personality was more of a façade and defense mechanism for his sadistic self-esteem. The film for the most part solely fixates on the developments of his classic novel "In Cold Blood". The libro told the bloody tale of a mid-western family who were violently murdered in (you got it!) cold blood by two psychotic killers. Capote actually befriended the psychopaths to aid him with the non-fiction narrative. The supporting cast of "Capote" was also bloody good: Catherine Keener as his confidante Harper Lee, Chris Cooper as the local lawman Alvin Dewey, Bruce Greenwood as Truman's lover Jack Dunphy, and Clifton Collins Jr. as slayer Perry Smith. However, this was Hoffman's show! Director Bennett Miller and Writer Dan Futterman are the true men who meticulously developed a bloody potent film. This "Capote" should not to be "caput". Write on! ***** Excellent

Cold Blood Parallels the Murderer and Capote Himself

tt0379725

The movie Capote was well acted, by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and it represents a microcosm of a small part of his life during the writing of his non-fictional book, In Cold Blood. A large portions of the movie is devoted, somewhat unbalanced look on the murderers, which we only see Capote interviewing only one of the murderers, Perry. While we were left in almost complete darkness, with possible exception near the end of the movie, the other murderer, Hickock. The movie was not clear cut as to why he never engaged in any conversation with the other one. It is obvious that screening time for the other murderer would have helped at least for the audiences to compare the differences in personalities between the two murderers.The movie stresses that Capote himself in a desire to finish his novel had to manipulate the prisoners in a somewhat less than honest confrontation with them to get the story he wanted on the night of the murder. Of course, he had to spend an enormous amount of time just to get that. As a result,he resorted to a somewhat cold blooded method of getting the facts by telling the prisoners false lies and that he is interested in the case, when in fact he isn't. It therefore makes you wonder the parallel of two not so bright thugs who murdered the family in cold blood, were matched with a person who is cold blooded, in a different way concerning the welfare or his actual interest in the two murderers. So in fact we can say the murderers and Capote were both cold blood, but in different way, one is real blood, the other is your attitude.A more direct way to deal with them, but a gentler approach would have worked by bargaining with the prisoner that I will provide you with the lawyer to fight your case, if you please just tell me what happened on that night, and I promise you the information will not be released until the case is over. I think Truman did not try a more direct approach. It would not only save Truman an enormous amount of time, but it is also more ethical and that too might have save Truman's own soul in the future and as a result his own productive output. Who knows? That brings me to the other issue of the problem about that movie, it is whether there is in fact the writing of Cold Blood was responsible for Truman's own demise as implied by the movie. The implication is not that clear cut as that if you read encyclopedia descriptions of Truman Capote. His Grand Party he held was not even emphasized, it just showed him only just a small player, where in fact it is well known that he is in fact a major player. These are some mistakes that I would like to point out, if only the movie can show this casual relationship between the writing of Cold Blood did in fact lead to his demise. I for one still can't see it and his output in writing for short stories and novels does in fact continue right until up to his own death. So the problem of the movie appears to be a somewhat inaccurate portrayal of historical facts with the movie. The movie would have been better if people would have known that he does make himself a bigger than life character, instead of just someone enjoying the party, instead of the Party Master himself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-306

ur2349585

title: Cold Blood Parallels the Murderer and Capote Himself review: The movie Capote was well acted, by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and it represents a microcosm of a small part of his life during the writing of his non-fictional book, In Cold Blood. A large portions of the movie is devoted, somewhat unbalanced look on the murderers, which we only see Capote interviewing only one of the murderers, Perry. While we were left in almost complete darkness, with possible exception near the end of the movie, the other murderer, Hickock. The movie was not clear cut as to why he never engaged in any conversation with the other one. It is obvious that screening time for the other murderer would have helped at least for the audiences to compare the differences in personalities between the two murderers.The movie stresses that Capote himself in a desire to finish his novel had to manipulate the prisoners in a somewhat less than honest confrontation with them to get the story he wanted on the night of the murder. Of course, he had to spend an enormous amount of time just to get that. As a result,he resorted to a somewhat cold blooded method of getting the facts by telling the prisoners false lies and that he is interested in the case, when in fact he isn't. It therefore makes you wonder the parallel of two not so bright thugs who murdered the family in cold blood, were matched with a person who is cold blooded, in a different way concerning the welfare or his actual interest in the two murderers. So in fact we can say the murderers and Capote were both cold blood, but in different way, one is real blood, the other is your attitude.A more direct way to deal with them, but a gentler approach would have worked by bargaining with the prisoner that I will provide you with the lawyer to fight your case, if you please just tell me what happened on that night, and I promise you the information will not be released until the case is over. I think Truman did not try a more direct approach. It would not only save Truman an enormous amount of time, but it is also more ethical and that too might have save Truman's own soul in the future and as a result his own productive output. Who knows? That brings me to the other issue of the problem about that movie, it is whether there is in fact the writing of Cold Blood was responsible for Truman's own demise as implied by the movie. The implication is not that clear cut as that if you read encyclopedia descriptions of Truman Capote. His Grand Party he held was not even emphasized, it just showed him only just a small player, where in fact it is well known that he is in fact a major player. These are some mistakes that I would like to point out, if only the movie can show this casual relationship between the writing of Cold Blood did in fact lead to his demise. I for one still can't see it and his output in writing for short stories and novels does in fact continue right until up to his own death. So the problem of the movie appears to be a somewhat inaccurate portrayal of historical facts with the movie. The movie would have been better if people would have known that he does make himself a bigger than life character, instead of just someone enjoying the party, instead of the Party Master himself.

One of the best so far this year

tt0379725

It's of course Philip Seymour Hoffman's movie. Brilliant isn't enough. There is some overplaying in some places, but still, this interpretation is to be remembered.Capote is the New York party prince in the beginning, and he remains so in the end, but with a very dark shadow around him. He has met real life and the most important line in the script, which changes him completely, is the girl who says about a boy, that he has never been into anything terrible before. That's the key to "In Cold Blood" and that's what makes Capote interested; the real life, which is infected by evil. And he makes a journey into that real evil, which he hasn't known much about before. Or has he? Much to think about here. Is life stronger than art? Definitely, according to this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-206

ur1419266

title: One of the best so far this year review: It's of course Philip Seymour Hoffman's movie. Brilliant isn't enough. There is some overplaying in some places, but still, this interpretation is to be remembered.Capote is the New York party prince in the beginning, and he remains so in the end, but with a very dark shadow around him. He has met real life and the most important line in the script, which changes him completely, is the girl who says about a boy, that he has never been into anything terrible before. That's the key to "In Cold Blood" and that's what makes Capote interested; the real life, which is infected by evil. And he makes a journey into that real evil, which he hasn't known much about before. Or has he? Much to think about here. Is life stronger than art? Definitely, according to this movie.

Only for the fans of Truman Capote

tt0379725

I decided to watch Capote because the story of the movie was interesting. I also didn't know a lot about Truman Capote, a famous American writer, and his works, so this movie could be a great opportunity to discover the real personality and life of Capote.Like I said, the story of the movie is really good; it starts with the massacre of a small family from Kansas in 1959. Soon after that two killers are brought to justice; Perry Smith and Dick Hickock. From there the movie is focusing on the strange relationship between Capote and Smith. Capote is starting to write his famous work In Cold Blood, but also feels emotional attachment to the convicted killer. So, this true story couldn't be better for the movie adaptation.But this movie was a huge disappointment for me. The first 30 minutes of the movie were quite good but after that the movie became boring and uninteresting. I didn't find out nothing about Truman Capote, but judging by this movie I have a feeling that Capote was an egocentric and annoying character with funny voice. His relationship with Perry is not convincing and it's filled with bad written dialogs. Most of the time I had a feeling watching the theatrical play rather than the movie. Also I don't like Philip Seymour Hoffman as an actor, he's way of acting is not great for me and every time I'm watching him, I have a feeling that he'll get a nervous breakdown. Same thing happened in Capote; he didn't convince me, although he won the Oscar for his role of Truman Capote.Overall; the movie is not bad, the first 30 minutes are great, but after that everything is going down the drain with boring dialogs, bad acting and not convincing story. This is the movie for the big fans of Truman Capote. Maybe because of that I didn't like this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-384

ur16991786

title: Only for the fans of Truman Capote review: I decided to watch Capote because the story of the movie was interesting. I also didn't know a lot about Truman Capote, a famous American writer, and his works, so this movie could be a great opportunity to discover the real personality and life of Capote.Like I said, the story of the movie is really good; it starts with the massacre of a small family from Kansas in 1959. Soon after that two killers are brought to justice; Perry Smith and Dick Hickock. From there the movie is focusing on the strange relationship between Capote and Smith. Capote is starting to write his famous work In Cold Blood, but also feels emotional attachment to the convicted killer. So, this true story couldn't be better for the movie adaptation.But this movie was a huge disappointment for me. The first 30 minutes of the movie were quite good but after that the movie became boring and uninteresting. I didn't find out nothing about Truman Capote, but judging by this movie I have a feeling that Capote was an egocentric and annoying character with funny voice. His relationship with Perry is not convincing and it's filled with bad written dialogs. Most of the time I had a feeling watching the theatrical play rather than the movie. Also I don't like Philip Seymour Hoffman as an actor, he's way of acting is not great for me and every time I'm watching him, I have a feeling that he'll get a nervous breakdown. Same thing happened in Capote; he didn't convince me, although he won the Oscar for his role of Truman Capote.Overall; the movie is not bad, the first 30 minutes are great, but after that everything is going down the drain with boring dialogs, bad acting and not convincing story. This is the movie for the big fans of Truman Capote. Maybe because of that I didn't like this movie.

Capote Down Cold

tt0379725

Truman Capote revolutionized modern American literature with his non-fiction novel "In Cold Blood." "In Cold Blood" told the story of the heinous murder of the Cutter family in Halcomb, Kansas. The book and its author seem to be a paradox as depicted in Director Bennett Miller's "Capote" which follows the writing of "In Cold Blood". "In Cold Blood" would be Capote's last completed novel before his death years later. Capote was defined by his powerful words which at times seem incongruous with the witty, flamboyant, alcoholic, openly gay author. As stunningly portrayed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Capote is a peculiar talented man with great vision, and completely selfish. Dan Futterman's screenplay based on the book by Gerald Clarke is captivating and compelling as a character study of a tragic crime and tragic author.In 1959 Capote (Hoffman) tells "The New Yorker" editor that he wants to go to Kansas to research the brutal murder of the Cutter family. He travels to Kansas with his partner Nelle Lee Harper (amazing Catherine Keener), author of the soon to be published "To Kill a Mockingbird." Nelle is Truman's "pass" into the conventional world of the Midwest to conduct his research of the murders. Truman and Nelle befriend police chief Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper) during their stay in Kansas. Eventually the murderers are apprehended—Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Richard Hickok (Mark Pellegrino). Truman is strangely attracted to Perry, who is apparently intelligent and artistic. Truman sees him as a spiritual brother, burdened by a similarly painful past. Smith and Hickok are convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death by hanging. In the meantime, Truman rejoins his lover Jack (strong Bruce Greenwood) in Spain to begin the arduous process of writing "In Cold Blood". However, Truman desperately needs a completed Third Act—a confession from Perry. Also the longer Perry and Hickok remain alive, the further the book release delays. Hoffman is compelling in drawing our compassion for Capote as this sad man who is alien anywhere outside of New York City, deceiving himself of his own self interests. In a great scene near the end when Truman cries that he tried everything to save Perry, Nelle (Keener) reminds him, "But the truth is; you didn't want to.""Capote" is defined by its compelling performances. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is awesome as Capote. He will probably win an Oscar for his performance. Hoffman nails the Capote voice, and is completely authentic in his portrayal. His is not mimicry. He balances tragic and pathetic. Hoffman inhabits Capote as the lone outsider, who is only powerful when he is writing or creating worlds in his mind. Hoffman also charms as Truman with a biting sense of humor. Truman boasts that he has 94% retention of conversations and he knows this "because I tested myself." Catherine Keener is amazing as Nelle Harper. She commands a natural intelligence, strength, and compassion. Jack tells Truman that Nelle is "even more man than" he is. She and Hoffman have great chemistry. As Nelle she provides a touching relationship for Truman which humanizes him, and punctuates Truman's isolation. The touching exchange between the two when she leaves Spain is subtle and heart felt. Director Miller's "Capote" captures Truman Capote at the peak of his talent and prowess, before his gradual and tragic decline with drugs and alcohol. What stays with you is that Capote was a gifted writer who was most alive and powerful through his words, but his own voice reflected a sad man, who people never really truly got.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-194

ur1016453

title: Capote Down Cold review: Truman Capote revolutionized modern American literature with his non-fiction novel "In Cold Blood." "In Cold Blood" told the story of the heinous murder of the Cutter family in Halcomb, Kansas. The book and its author seem to be a paradox as depicted in Director Bennett Miller's "Capote" which follows the writing of "In Cold Blood". "In Cold Blood" would be Capote's last completed novel before his death years later. Capote was defined by his powerful words which at times seem incongruous with the witty, flamboyant, alcoholic, openly gay author. As stunningly portrayed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Capote is a peculiar talented man with great vision, and completely selfish. Dan Futterman's screenplay based on the book by Gerald Clarke is captivating and compelling as a character study of a tragic crime and tragic author.In 1959 Capote (Hoffman) tells "The New Yorker" editor that he wants to go to Kansas to research the brutal murder of the Cutter family. He travels to Kansas with his partner Nelle Lee Harper (amazing Catherine Keener), author of the soon to be published "To Kill a Mockingbird." Nelle is Truman's "pass" into the conventional world of the Midwest to conduct his research of the murders. Truman and Nelle befriend police chief Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper) during their stay in Kansas. Eventually the murderers are apprehended—Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Richard Hickok (Mark Pellegrino). Truman is strangely attracted to Perry, who is apparently intelligent and artistic. Truman sees him as a spiritual brother, burdened by a similarly painful past. Smith and Hickok are convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death by hanging. In the meantime, Truman rejoins his lover Jack (strong Bruce Greenwood) in Spain to begin the arduous process of writing "In Cold Blood". However, Truman desperately needs a completed Third Act—a confession from Perry. Also the longer Perry and Hickok remain alive, the further the book release delays. Hoffman is compelling in drawing our compassion for Capote as this sad man who is alien anywhere outside of New York City, deceiving himself of his own self interests. In a great scene near the end when Truman cries that he tried everything to save Perry, Nelle (Keener) reminds him, "But the truth is; you didn't want to.""Capote" is defined by its compelling performances. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is awesome as Capote. He will probably win an Oscar for his performance. Hoffman nails the Capote voice, and is completely authentic in his portrayal. His is not mimicry. He balances tragic and pathetic. Hoffman inhabits Capote as the lone outsider, who is only powerful when he is writing or creating worlds in his mind. Hoffman also charms as Truman with a biting sense of humor. Truman boasts that he has 94% retention of conversations and he knows this "because I tested myself." Catherine Keener is amazing as Nelle Harper. She commands a natural intelligence, strength, and compassion. Jack tells Truman that Nelle is "even more man than" he is. She and Hoffman have great chemistry. As Nelle she provides a touching relationship for Truman which humanizes him, and punctuates Truman's isolation. The touching exchange between the two when she leaves Spain is subtle and heart felt. Director Miller's "Capote" captures Truman Capote at the peak of his talent and prowess, before his gradual and tragic decline with drugs and alcohol. What stays with you is that Capote was a gifted writer who was most alive and powerful through his words, but his own voice reflected a sad man, who people never really truly got.

A master-class in acting

tt0379725

Just let us forget for a moment that Truman Capote existed and that the character up on the screen is the invention of a scriptwriter's extraordinary imagination. Then let us consider just how fully Philip Seymour Hoffman has inhabited the role. This is a great performance by any standards. Hoffman convinces us that this devious, mendacious little man could exist and like some Machiavellian/Mephistopolean ogre could ingratiate himself with, well, just about anybody. It takes a tremendous leap of faith but this extraordinary actor makes it.But hold on; Truman Capote did exist. That insidious charmer lived and breathed and wrote some of the greatest fiction ever to come out of America and he 'invented' the 'non-fiction novel' and with "In Cold Blood" he may have written the greatest example of the genre ever put on paper. So now Hoffman's task is all the greater. He must convince us that it is indeed the living, breathing Capote up there on the screen; like Victor Frankenstien he must give his creation life, and that is what he does. The limitations that most actors find imposed on them when they play a real-life character, (do they look like them, sound like them, have they got inside their heads?), Hoffman seems to have set aside, (though to all three of those questions the answer is a resounding 'yes'). Rather. he seems to exist outside of Capote, looking in on him, studying him. It is a master-class in acting.But what of the film itself? It begins in 1959 on the day of the Clutter killings and ends some years later with the execution of the killers and the completion of Capote's book on the subject, "In Cold Blood". It is, therefore, not a biopic in the conventional sense of the word but a study of creativity and of celebrity. While we never see Capote pounding away at the typewriter we do see, in great detail, the painstaking way he achieved what he did, how he charmed (and lied) his way into the lives of everyone involved, in particular those of the policeman Alvin Dewey, (superbly played by Chris Cooper), and finally into the lives of the killers themselves, in particular Perry Smith, (another brilliant performance by Clifton Collins Jr). Some say Capote was in love with Smith; there certainly may have been a strong physical attraction on the writer's part, but on this reading Capote seems to have loved no-one but himself, or rather loved nothing but his own genius, his own extraordinary belief in himself.The film suggests he was filled with remorse when Smith was finally executed and that he drank heavily afterwards, (he never completed another book), but he drank heavily before as well and his depressions were as much a symptom of his own vacillating creativity. Capote's own early life was troubled and his first novel, the brilliant "Other Voices, Other Rooms", written when he was only twenty-four, is filled with disquieting Gothic imagery. He certainly felt an affinity with Perry Smith, that their lives were not necessarily so different, but as he says in the film it was as if they had grown up in the same house but that he, Capote, had gone out the front door while Smith went out the back.And by concentrating solely on a particular period in the writer's life, scriptwriter Dan Futterman and director Bennett Miller, (hard to believe this is his first feature film), can delve deeper into what it is that makes Capote the man he is, can explore in depth the tiny sinews of thought that make up a great writer. And they are blessed with that great performance, the pinnacle of Hoffman's career to date, perhaps the finest example yet of the actor's art of making us believe that the person up there on the screen is who they say they are.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-195

ur1683855

title: A master-class in acting review: Just let us forget for a moment that Truman Capote existed and that the character up on the screen is the invention of a scriptwriter's extraordinary imagination. Then let us consider just how fully Philip Seymour Hoffman has inhabited the role. This is a great performance by any standards. Hoffman convinces us that this devious, mendacious little man could exist and like some Machiavellian/Mephistopolean ogre could ingratiate himself with, well, just about anybody. It takes a tremendous leap of faith but this extraordinary actor makes it.But hold on; Truman Capote did exist. That insidious charmer lived and breathed and wrote some of the greatest fiction ever to come out of America and he 'invented' the 'non-fiction novel' and with "In Cold Blood" he may have written the greatest example of the genre ever put on paper. So now Hoffman's task is all the greater. He must convince us that it is indeed the living, breathing Capote up there on the screen; like Victor Frankenstien he must give his creation life, and that is what he does. The limitations that most actors find imposed on them when they play a real-life character, (do they look like them, sound like them, have they got inside their heads?), Hoffman seems to have set aside, (though to all three of those questions the answer is a resounding 'yes'). Rather. he seems to exist outside of Capote, looking in on him, studying him. It is a master-class in acting.But what of the film itself? It begins in 1959 on the day of the Clutter killings and ends some years later with the execution of the killers and the completion of Capote's book on the subject, "In Cold Blood". It is, therefore, not a biopic in the conventional sense of the word but a study of creativity and of celebrity. While we never see Capote pounding away at the typewriter we do see, in great detail, the painstaking way he achieved what he did, how he charmed (and lied) his way into the lives of everyone involved, in particular those of the policeman Alvin Dewey, (superbly played by Chris Cooper), and finally into the lives of the killers themselves, in particular Perry Smith, (another brilliant performance by Clifton Collins Jr). Some say Capote was in love with Smith; there certainly may have been a strong physical attraction on the writer's part, but on this reading Capote seems to have loved no-one but himself, or rather loved nothing but his own genius, his own extraordinary belief in himself.The film suggests he was filled with remorse when Smith was finally executed and that he drank heavily afterwards, (he never completed another book), but he drank heavily before as well and his depressions were as much a symptom of his own vacillating creativity. Capote's own early life was troubled and his first novel, the brilliant "Other Voices, Other Rooms", written when he was only twenty-four, is filled with disquieting Gothic imagery. He certainly felt an affinity with Perry Smith, that their lives were not necessarily so different, but as he says in the film it was as if they had grown up in the same house but that he, Capote, had gone out the front door while Smith went out the back.And by concentrating solely on a particular period in the writer's life, scriptwriter Dan Futterman and director Bennett Miller, (hard to believe this is his first feature film), can delve deeper into what it is that makes Capote the man he is, can explore in depth the tiny sinews of thought that make up a great writer. And they are blessed with that great performance, the pinnacle of Hoffman's career to date, perhaps the finest example yet of the actor's art of making us believe that the person up there on the screen is who they say they are.

An astonishing lead performance, yes... but Capote boasts so much more...

tt0379725

Speaking as a viewer who was unfamiliar with Truman Capote's work, or the man himself, I have to say that I was still floored by Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of the caustic-tongued, immensely talented though also seriously troubled author. The always talented Hoffman brings a particular energy and commitment into his portrayal of Truman Capote that shows why he easily stood above the crowd when picking up awards, most recently the best actor Oscar.Yet don't go into Capote thinking that Hoffman's performance is the only reason to see it - while it's true that he is easily the best thing in the film, director Bennett Miller seems to most certainly know what he's doing, despite his lack of previous credentials. There is a surprising atmosphere created in Capote, an almost tangible sense of underlying threat and danger, despite the mostly passive exterior. The stark, nearly black and white photography also helps add to the mood, as well as better establishing the time period. Between costumes, sets and surroundings, the film lives and breathes the 1950s and 60s in a most impressive manner - never once does it seem replicated or staged, the movie seems to be ripped right out of the time. Miller and screenwriter Dan Futterman also show the sense to focus on a certain period of Capote's life, his time writing a nonfictional novel depicting the murder of a Kansas family, titled "In Cold Blood". While researching the killing and interviewing the killers, Capote begins to develop a peculiar relationship with Perry Smith, (Clifton Collins Jr.) one of the killers. Futterman proves himself to also be an excellent writer, as Capote boasts a particularly solid script as well as a superb lead performance and capable directing. Hoffman's incredible lead performance is also backed by very strong performances from the film's stellar supporting cast, the standout being Clifton Collins Jr. as the killer Capote develops a strange interest in. Collins is similarly astonishing, almost paralleling Hoffman in strength and believability of performance, and it is quite a shock and shame he was not nominated for an Academy award himself. Catherine Keener also gives a great performance as Nelle Harper Lee, Capote's childhood friend and fellow author, who shares in his exploits while researching and writing his novel. Chris Cooper also makes the most of his relatively small role as the town sheriff who arrested the two killers, who genuinely believes in the morality of his job. I had never been a fan of Cooper's in the past, but having seen a few of his movies lately, it becomes clear to me that his talent is indisputable, and I now quite enjoy his performances. (ironically enough, I used to say the same thing about Philip Seymour Hoffman once upon a time...) Bruce Greenwood is also a strong though quiet presence as Jack Dunphy, Capote's partner, companion and fellow novelist, who often feels ignored and overshadowed by Capote's devotion to both his work and Perry Smith. In fact, performances are quite impressive right across the page, Hoffman of course being the highlight, though very capably backed. So all in all, Capote is quite the quality piece, and is worth seeing, although the main draw being to see Philip Seymour Hoffman's Academy Award winning performance, which, rest assured, lives up to the hype. Yet don't go off thinking Hoffman's lead performance is the only reason to see this movie - rather to see an excellent example of a strong film from all angles - excellent screen writing, strong, capable directing, wonderful cinematography and powerhouse acting from the entire cast throughout. All in all, it's hard to find a weak link in Capote really - quite worth the watch!-9/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-215

ur3728510

title: An astonishing lead performance, yes... but Capote boasts so much more... review: Speaking as a viewer who was unfamiliar with Truman Capote's work, or the man himself, I have to say that I was still floored by Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of the caustic-tongued, immensely talented though also seriously troubled author. The always talented Hoffman brings a particular energy and commitment into his portrayal of Truman Capote that shows why he easily stood above the crowd when picking up awards, most recently the best actor Oscar.Yet don't go into Capote thinking that Hoffman's performance is the only reason to see it - while it's true that he is easily the best thing in the film, director Bennett Miller seems to most certainly know what he's doing, despite his lack of previous credentials. There is a surprising atmosphere created in Capote, an almost tangible sense of underlying threat and danger, despite the mostly passive exterior. The stark, nearly black and white photography also helps add to the mood, as well as better establishing the time period. Between costumes, sets and surroundings, the film lives and breathes the 1950s and 60s in a most impressive manner - never once does it seem replicated or staged, the movie seems to be ripped right out of the time. Miller and screenwriter Dan Futterman also show the sense to focus on a certain period of Capote's life, his time writing a nonfictional novel depicting the murder of a Kansas family, titled "In Cold Blood". While researching the killing and interviewing the killers, Capote begins to develop a peculiar relationship with Perry Smith, (Clifton Collins Jr.) one of the killers. Futterman proves himself to also be an excellent writer, as Capote boasts a particularly solid script as well as a superb lead performance and capable directing. Hoffman's incredible lead performance is also backed by very strong performances from the film's stellar supporting cast, the standout being Clifton Collins Jr. as the killer Capote develops a strange interest in. Collins is similarly astonishing, almost paralleling Hoffman in strength and believability of performance, and it is quite a shock and shame he was not nominated for an Academy award himself. Catherine Keener also gives a great performance as Nelle Harper Lee, Capote's childhood friend and fellow author, who shares in his exploits while researching and writing his novel. Chris Cooper also makes the most of his relatively small role as the town sheriff who arrested the two killers, who genuinely believes in the morality of his job. I had never been a fan of Cooper's in the past, but having seen a few of his movies lately, it becomes clear to me that his talent is indisputable, and I now quite enjoy his performances. (ironically enough, I used to say the same thing about Philip Seymour Hoffman once upon a time...) Bruce Greenwood is also a strong though quiet presence as Jack Dunphy, Capote's partner, companion and fellow novelist, who often feels ignored and overshadowed by Capote's devotion to both his work and Perry Smith. In fact, performances are quite impressive right across the page, Hoffman of course being the highlight, though very capably backed. So all in all, Capote is quite the quality piece, and is worth seeing, although the main draw being to see Philip Seymour Hoffman's Academy Award winning performance, which, rest assured, lives up to the hype. Yet don't go off thinking Hoffman's lead performance is the only reason to see this movie - rather to see an excellent example of a strong film from all angles - excellent screen writing, strong, capable directing, wonderful cinematography and powerhouse acting from the entire cast throughout. All in all, it's hard to find a weak link in Capote really - quite worth the watch!-9/10

Hoffman Channeled Capote

tt0379725

Truman Capote's masterpiece IN COLD BLOOD (1965) set a new standard and style in the literary world. We know that he didn't finish another novel after it, too, which begs the question, "Why?" Fast-forward to the 2005 film CAPOTE and we get the answer.Mr. Capote is reincarnated in the body of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, and it is "through" him that we get to find out what happened during this snapshot time of Truman Capote's life. A vicious murder of a family in rural Kansas takes place and Truman races there to find out if there's a magazine story in it. But what he finds is much more than just a short periodical piece. As the murderers are captured, Truman becomes enraptured with the idea of learning why these seemingly innocuous men did something so heinous.Truman digs deep, perhaps too deep, and we watch as every shred of decency is stripped away from him just so he can "finish the story." He bribes the prison warden and lies to the two killers (and ultimately to himself) about why he's really spending so much time with them on death row.In the end, it rips Truman apart, causing him to become an alcoholic and a shell of what he once was.Occasionally casting directors get "it" right. And this time, they not only got it right by casting Mr. Hoffman in the role of Truman Capote, they bottled a bit of magic and captured it on film. David Strathairn did it, too, in his performance as Edward R. Murrow in GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, but Hoffman takes it to a euphoric level for movie watchers. His mannerisms, voice and costumes were impeccable. Many times I thought I was actually watching Truman Capote and not an actor playing him. Now that's great acting.If there was any failings in the movie, I'd have to say it was with its overall script. Although intriguing and genuinely creepy, it held only a small piece of what Truman Capote was. I realize that to capture all of what he was would be almost impossible ...but there you go. That's life.Even so, Hoffman deserves all the accolades he's gotten and I have no doubt he'll jump up on stage at the Oscars this year and pick up his statue.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-156

ur7704831

title: Hoffman Channeled Capote review: Truman Capote's masterpiece IN COLD BLOOD (1965) set a new standard and style in the literary world. We know that he didn't finish another novel after it, too, which begs the question, "Why?" Fast-forward to the 2005 film CAPOTE and we get the answer.Mr. Capote is reincarnated in the body of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, and it is "through" him that we get to find out what happened during this snapshot time of Truman Capote's life. A vicious murder of a family in rural Kansas takes place and Truman races there to find out if there's a magazine story in it. But what he finds is much more than just a short periodical piece. As the murderers are captured, Truman becomes enraptured with the idea of learning why these seemingly innocuous men did something so heinous.Truman digs deep, perhaps too deep, and we watch as every shred of decency is stripped away from him just so he can "finish the story." He bribes the prison warden and lies to the two killers (and ultimately to himself) about why he's really spending so much time with them on death row.In the end, it rips Truman apart, causing him to become an alcoholic and a shell of what he once was.Occasionally casting directors get "it" right. And this time, they not only got it right by casting Mr. Hoffman in the role of Truman Capote, they bottled a bit of magic and captured it on film. David Strathairn did it, too, in his performance as Edward R. Murrow in GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, but Hoffman takes it to a euphoric level for movie watchers. His mannerisms, voice and costumes were impeccable. Many times I thought I was actually watching Truman Capote and not an actor playing him. Now that's great acting.If there was any failings in the movie, I'd have to say it was with its overall script. Although intriguing and genuinely creepy, it held only a small piece of what Truman Capote was. I realize that to capture all of what he was would be almost impossible ...but there you go. That's life.Even so, Hoffman deserves all the accolades he's gotten and I have no doubt he'll jump up on stage at the Oscars this year and pick up his statue.

Like the Real Capote...Always Compelling but Seriously Flawed

tt0379725

First off, let's get this out of the way. Philip Seymour Hoffman has received universal praise for his conjuring of Capote on screen, and it is all well deserved. For me, much like Jamie Foxx in last year's "Ray,", Hoffman becomes the title character. All the award nominations that are to follow are no joke.Now, onto the film. The director takes a stark, low-key approach that is supposed to give the film a haunting quality. It works well in the early scenes where Capote and best friend Harper Lee are doing their research, but lacks gravitas in the end with the closing scenes at the gallows.What the film does well is expertly show the distasteful charm Capote had that made him one of the main stars of the "Jet Set" crowd, and he was clearly the life of the party as long as you were sucking up to him. He was extremely self absorbed and unlikable at times, which is why it's hard to reconcile that with his interactions with the killers in doing his research for "In Cold Blood." He seems to befriend death-row bound Percy way too easily, and then lies to him to keep the friendship going. On one hand the film shows well Capote's obsession with the true crime that was to become the basis of his seminal work, but it seems to gloss over the relationship he had with the subjects and characters that latter inhabited that book.In the end I'm not sure what the point of the film is supposed to be. You felt little sympathy for Capote or his subjects, but are left with a good idea of what happens when a talented individual becomes so absorbed with themselves and the idea of their great work, that they barely work again and die wallowing in their own self-pity ("In Cold Blood" was Capote's last completed book and he died in 1984 from complications from alcoholism).The film does deserve some credit, though, as it made me want to seek out Capote's works, and in an even odder way made me wonder what the heck happened to the enigmatic Harper Lee (whose character is underused in the film and portrayed wonderfully by the always amazing Catherine Keener)? Her relationship alone with Capote (stemming from childhood) might have made a better film, and the film reminds us that her one and only work, "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which she was polishing up while helping Capote research his book) became more revered and well-known (every high school student in America reads it and for good reason) than anything Capote did. There's your real story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-46

ur1069062

title: Like the Real Capote...Always Compelling but Seriously Flawed review: First off, let's get this out of the way. Philip Seymour Hoffman has received universal praise for his conjuring of Capote on screen, and it is all well deserved. For me, much like Jamie Foxx in last year's "Ray,", Hoffman becomes the title character. All the award nominations that are to follow are no joke.Now, onto the film. The director takes a stark, low-key approach that is supposed to give the film a haunting quality. It works well in the early scenes where Capote and best friend Harper Lee are doing their research, but lacks gravitas in the end with the closing scenes at the gallows.What the film does well is expertly show the distasteful charm Capote had that made him one of the main stars of the "Jet Set" crowd, and he was clearly the life of the party as long as you were sucking up to him. He was extremely self absorbed and unlikable at times, which is why it's hard to reconcile that with his interactions with the killers in doing his research for "In Cold Blood." He seems to befriend death-row bound Percy way too easily, and then lies to him to keep the friendship going. On one hand the film shows well Capote's obsession with the true crime that was to become the basis of his seminal work, but it seems to gloss over the relationship he had with the subjects and characters that latter inhabited that book.In the end I'm not sure what the point of the film is supposed to be. You felt little sympathy for Capote or his subjects, but are left with a good idea of what happens when a talented individual becomes so absorbed with themselves and the idea of their great work, that they barely work again and die wallowing in their own self-pity ("In Cold Blood" was Capote's last completed book and he died in 1984 from complications from alcoholism).The film does deserve some credit, though, as it made me want to seek out Capote's works, and in an even odder way made me wonder what the heck happened to the enigmatic Harper Lee (whose character is underused in the film and portrayed wonderfully by the always amazing Catherine Keener)? Her relationship alone with Capote (stemming from childhood) might have made a better film, and the film reminds us that her one and only work, "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which she was polishing up while helping Capote research his book) became more revered and well-known (every high school student in America reads it and for good reason) than anything Capote did. There's your real story.

A masterp(erformance)iece

tt0379725

Philip Seymour Hoffman has proved over and over that he's a fantastic actor (you'll see him as the bad-guy in the upcoming Mission: Impossible), but here he truly comes to his expertise. Acting as the original author Truman Capote, who in the 50ties had become a very fascinating and successful writer. When some horrible killings of a family takes place, Capote decides to a write book about it all, having a very personal interview with one of the two killers.Capote is not your everyday drama-movie, it's got a very interesting edge and the performances are all over the place outstanding, Bruce Greenwood as Capote's long-time writing-companion, Catherine Keener as his since-childhood-best-friend assistant, Chris Cooper as the detective on the case and Clifton Collins Jr. as the dark soul of killer Perry Smith. And director Bennett Miller makes the movie so interesting, making the surroundings of the Kansas area having a depth and the use of music is true brilliance.And Hoffman did win an Oscar for his performance here, well earned. The way he underplays Capote, making him have the cartoon-ish peep-voice and giving him a very realistic character. Capote reveals fascinating sides of himself all the way, whether it's threw his close friend Harper or his personal conversations with Perry, or the way he becomes a top-notch entertainer at the parties or when he's simply doing the thing he loves the most; write. Capote is one of this year's most fascinating movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-237

ur1732001

title: A masterp(erformance)iece review: Philip Seymour Hoffman has proved over and over that he's a fantastic actor (you'll see him as the bad-guy in the upcoming Mission: Impossible), but here he truly comes to his expertise. Acting as the original author Truman Capote, who in the 50ties had become a very fascinating and successful writer. When some horrible killings of a family takes place, Capote decides to a write book about it all, having a very personal interview with one of the two killers.Capote is not your everyday drama-movie, it's got a very interesting edge and the performances are all over the place outstanding, Bruce Greenwood as Capote's long-time writing-companion, Catherine Keener as his since-childhood-best-friend assistant, Chris Cooper as the detective on the case and Clifton Collins Jr. as the dark soul of killer Perry Smith. And director Bennett Miller makes the movie so interesting, making the surroundings of the Kansas area having a depth and the use of music is true brilliance.And Hoffman did win an Oscar for his performance here, well earned. The way he underplays Capote, making him have the cartoon-ish peep-voice and giving him a very realistic character. Capote reveals fascinating sides of himself all the way, whether it's threw his close friend Harper or his personal conversations with Perry, or the way he becomes a top-notch entertainer at the parties or when he's simply doing the thing he loves the most; write. Capote is one of this year's most fascinating movies.

Spellbinding performances

tt0379725

This is not a biography of Truman Capote, but rather a biography of his last complete major work "In Cold Blood." I read this book as a teenager and thought it brilliant and disturbing. This film does a wonderful job of depicting the moral ambiguity of Capote's work, his egotism, and the life history and inner conflicts which allowed him to create this great work. All the same, the subject matter here is really not explored in the depths it deserves, and the film sometimes loses its focus in the depth and quality of its performances.Hoffman has already won a number of awards for his performance. I have no qualms about this - he's a great actor and this is a challenging and powerful role played to the hilt. However, I also want to point out the tremendous supporting cast. Catherine Keener and Clifton Collins are both deserving of recognition for their intense portrayals of Harper Lee and Perry Smith.If you're a fan of Capote, or a fan of In Cold Blood, you will enjoy this, though it isn't really going to show you anything that you were not aware of. If you are the sort who goes to movies you're not necessarily that interested in just because a great performance is involved (like me in this case), you will likely enjoy Capote.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-175

ur3824745

title: Spellbinding performances review: This is not a biography of Truman Capote, but rather a biography of his last complete major work "In Cold Blood." I read this book as a teenager and thought it brilliant and disturbing. This film does a wonderful job of depicting the moral ambiguity of Capote's work, his egotism, and the life history and inner conflicts which allowed him to create this great work. All the same, the subject matter here is really not explored in the depths it deserves, and the film sometimes loses its focus in the depth and quality of its performances.Hoffman has already won a number of awards for his performance. I have no qualms about this - he's a great actor and this is a challenging and powerful role played to the hilt. However, I also want to point out the tremendous supporting cast. Catherine Keener and Clifton Collins are both deserving of recognition for their intense portrayals of Harper Lee and Perry Smith.If you're a fan of Capote, or a fan of In Cold Blood, you will enjoy this, though it isn't really going to show you anything that you were not aware of. If you are the sort who goes to movies you're not necessarily that interested in just because a great performance is involved (like me in this case), you will likely enjoy Capote.

"And The Oscar For Best Actor Goes To...."

tt0379725

Truman Capote, a writer for The New Yorker, travels to Kansas after hearing a story about a brutal murder of a family. Capote digs deep into the story, believing that this story will be his greatest work ever. So he can have the perfect ending Capote develops a rather close relationship with one of the killers, Perry Smith. The book becomes one of the greatest books ever written, it is, In Cold Blood.Philip Seymour Hoffman has always been very good in everything he does. From small roles such as Boogie Nights and Cold Mountain, Hoffman always lit up the screen. With Capote, he is able is showcase his talent, as the main star. If you thought Jamie Foxx was brilliant as RAY, then you will be awe-struck by what Hoffman does with Capote. Come Oscar time, get ready to hear "And the Oscar For Best Actor In A Motion Picture Goes To....Philip Seymour Hoffman"In the past couple of years, the Best Actor and Best Actress winners, Jamie Foxx and Charlize Theron gave brilliant performances in mediocre films. Here, Bennett Miller is able to keep up with the performance and the story. Granted, the movie does drag on in parts and is a tad boring, Capote is one of the better films that is going to be rewarded for it's performances. Miller makes us feel comfortable throughout the movie because he knows that everyone will be amazed by Hoffman's performance, so when we see the actual killings, it strikes a cord. We don't expect it, it comes out of nowhere. The second half of the film is the better half, it where Hoffman's performance really drives the film.Catherine Keener did not amaze me too much. She did a decent job, but her being given an Oscar nomination just proves that there aren't very many good supporting performances out there. Keener's smile always gives her performance away, you see right through the character and all you're left with is Keener. Chris Cooper has too little screen time to work with. Granted, Capote only uses him for information, like he does with the killers.The film does fault with it's pace. Even though it is better then the other films I mentioned, it does go on and on. I almost fell asleep, until Hoffman really got things going. The film is just really depressing and slow moving that it's uncomfortable.Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance, is by fay, the best performance of the year, no doubt. It is the best performance in years. Like Foxx with RAY, Hoffman becomes Capote. Hoffman is so good as Capote it's frightening. He gives us a unique, uneasy, bold, sympathetic, cold, human, performance. Hoffman does the most subtle things with this character that it just brings it life more and more each time, whether it's playing with his ear, or the way he hold a cigarette or even how he holds a glass when he drinks. Every little detail is nailed perfectly by Hoffman. Hoffman makes this film what it is, one of the best performances of the century. Don't listen to all the critics raving about it, don't listen to all the award shows, go and see for yourself.The script shows Capote befriending one of the killers so he can write a book. Capote seems cold and heartless, but then you see what the murderers did and you question yourself, do they deserve it. Capote feels like he is the the middle of a tug of war, between the evil of the killers, and the gentleness he sees. Again, Hoffman pulls this off beautifully. There is no other actor who can portray this character as good as Hoffman has done, and no one should try because they will ultimately fail.See Capote for the riveting performance, then again, that's why everyone is seeing it anyway.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-136

ur1878251

title: "And The Oscar For Best Actor Goes To...." review: Truman Capote, a writer for The New Yorker, travels to Kansas after hearing a story about a brutal murder of a family. Capote digs deep into the story, believing that this story will be his greatest work ever. So he can have the perfect ending Capote develops a rather close relationship with one of the killers, Perry Smith. The book becomes one of the greatest books ever written, it is, In Cold Blood.Philip Seymour Hoffman has always been very good in everything he does. From small roles such as Boogie Nights and Cold Mountain, Hoffman always lit up the screen. With Capote, he is able is showcase his talent, as the main star. If you thought Jamie Foxx was brilliant as RAY, then you will be awe-struck by what Hoffman does with Capote. Come Oscar time, get ready to hear "And the Oscar For Best Actor In A Motion Picture Goes To....Philip Seymour Hoffman"In the past couple of years, the Best Actor and Best Actress winners, Jamie Foxx and Charlize Theron gave brilliant performances in mediocre films. Here, Bennett Miller is able to keep up with the performance and the story. Granted, the movie does drag on in parts and is a tad boring, Capote is one of the better films that is going to be rewarded for it's performances. Miller makes us feel comfortable throughout the movie because he knows that everyone will be amazed by Hoffman's performance, so when we see the actual killings, it strikes a cord. We don't expect it, it comes out of nowhere. The second half of the film is the better half, it where Hoffman's performance really drives the film.Catherine Keener did not amaze me too much. She did a decent job, but her being given an Oscar nomination just proves that there aren't very many good supporting performances out there. Keener's smile always gives her performance away, you see right through the character and all you're left with is Keener. Chris Cooper has too little screen time to work with. Granted, Capote only uses him for information, like he does with the killers.The film does fault with it's pace. Even though it is better then the other films I mentioned, it does go on and on. I almost fell asleep, until Hoffman really got things going. The film is just really depressing and slow moving that it's uncomfortable.Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance, is by fay, the best performance of the year, no doubt. It is the best performance in years. Like Foxx with RAY, Hoffman becomes Capote. Hoffman is so good as Capote it's frightening. He gives us a unique, uneasy, bold, sympathetic, cold, human, performance. Hoffman does the most subtle things with this character that it just brings it life more and more each time, whether it's playing with his ear, or the way he hold a cigarette or even how he holds a glass when he drinks. Every little detail is nailed perfectly by Hoffman. Hoffman makes this film what it is, one of the best performances of the century. Don't listen to all the critics raving about it, don't listen to all the award shows, go and see for yourself.The script shows Capote befriending one of the killers so he can write a book. Capote seems cold and heartless, but then you see what the murderers did and you question yourself, do they deserve it. Capote feels like he is the the middle of a tug of war, between the evil of the killers, and the gentleness he sees. Again, Hoffman pulls this off beautifully. There is no other actor who can portray this character as good as Hoffman has done, and no one should try because they will ultimately fail.See Capote for the riveting performance, then again, that's why everyone is seeing it anyway.

Artistry worth of its subject.

tt0379725

Bennett Miller's matches the dark story of Truman Capote's research on the Kansas Clutter murders he made famous with gorgeous dark establishing shots of the Kansas prairie. These frame equally visually arresting shots of domestic and prison interiors of the 1960s so well done that the scenes of the Clutter's murders still shock despite pervasive cinematic violence. Philip Seymour Hoffman's impeccable performance needs no superlatives, his impersonation's exactitude extends to how he holds a newspaper or a fork, only Charlize Theron's performance in "Monster" as Aileen Wuornos is its superior. The story of the development and writing of Capote's "In Cold Blood" derives the big screen treatment as it includes murder, execution, and most interestingly Capote's ruthlessness in working his relationship with Perry Smith, one of the murderers, into a confession. The story aptly captures the pain and sacrifice necessitated to create great literature. In short, well worth seeing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-420

ur27774704

title: Artistry worth of its subject. review: Bennett Miller's matches the dark story of Truman Capote's research on the Kansas Clutter murders he made famous with gorgeous dark establishing shots of the Kansas prairie. These frame equally visually arresting shots of domestic and prison interiors of the 1960s so well done that the scenes of the Clutter's murders still shock despite pervasive cinematic violence. Philip Seymour Hoffman's impeccable performance needs no superlatives, his impersonation's exactitude extends to how he holds a newspaper or a fork, only Charlize Theron's performance in "Monster" as Aileen Wuornos is its superior. The story of the development and writing of Capote's "In Cold Blood" derives the big screen treatment as it includes murder, execution, and most interestingly Capote's ruthlessness in working his relationship with Perry Smith, one of the murderers, into a confession. The story aptly captures the pain and sacrifice necessitated to create great literature. In short, well worth seeing.

Capote is spellbinding and awe-striking, a perfect film.

tt0379725

How often does one see a masterpiece about a masterpiece? In the film the writer Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) investigates the Kansas murders that would come to form the basis of In Cold Blood.Capote is a rare biopic that seeks not to sanctify its protagonist, or excuse his many failings, instead turning close attention to the collateral damage than can flow from the creative process: powered by Hoffman's exceptional performance, it has much the same cold, hard crunch of verisimilitude as would have struck readers of Capote's book upon first publication. The film was filmed mostly in Manitoba, and was released on September 30, 2005, to coincide with what would have been Truman Capote's 81st birthday.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-409

ur22131361

title: Capote is spellbinding and awe-striking, a perfect film. review: How often does one see a masterpiece about a masterpiece? In the film the writer Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) investigates the Kansas murders that would come to form the basis of In Cold Blood.Capote is a rare biopic that seeks not to sanctify its protagonist, or excuse his many failings, instead turning close attention to the collateral damage than can flow from the creative process: powered by Hoffman's exceptional performance, it has much the same cold, hard crunch of verisimilitude as would have struck readers of Capote's book upon first publication. The film was filmed mostly in Manitoba, and was released on September 30, 2005, to coincide with what would have been Truman Capote's 81st birthday.

The Truman Capote Exposition

tt0379725

In his directorial debut, Bennett Miller brings the story of author Truman Capote and the fascinating events that led to his greatest written work, "In Cold Blood." Capote stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as the flamboyant author, Catherine Keener as "To Kill a Mockingbird" author Harper Lee, and Clifton Collins, Jr. as the murderous killer Perry Smith.Miller does an admirable job bringing this intriguing story to life but it's Hoffman that makes his mark as the multi layered man torn between worlds. Hoffman shows Truman's vulnerability but at top has his tenacity and wit that made him such a star. But underneath all of that, Hoffman does the greatest impersonation of him and captures all the antics and mannerisms. With previous accomplished works in Magnolia, Almost Famous and Flawless, Hoffman finally lives up to his title "greatest working actor of his generation." Catherine Keener in her quiet performance is just that, a quiet performance with powerful words behind a soft voice. She acts like the strong willed mother that reprimands you when you've been a bad boy. But I'm afraid the viewer doesn't find the richness of her performance that critics found in the past Oscar season. I prefer her in the much underrated performance in The 40 Year Old Virgin.Speaking of underrated performances, Clifton Collins, Jr. gives the breakthrough performance of the year. His Perry Smith is smoldering, painful, and incredibly stunning in line delivery and poise. I couldn't imagine a more richer performance out of any other actor. After his introductory performances in Traffic and other subtle works, this shows the actor's range.The screenplay by Dan Futterman is the crowning work of this achievement as his scripted dialogue never falls flat and his character study his remarkably on point. It is Miller that executes his work amazingly and finds his Director nomination at the Oscars well received and deserved.Grade: ***½/****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-387

ur2898980

title: The Truman Capote Exposition review: In his directorial debut, Bennett Miller brings the story of author Truman Capote and the fascinating events that led to his greatest written work, "In Cold Blood." Capote stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as the flamboyant author, Catherine Keener as "To Kill a Mockingbird" author Harper Lee, and Clifton Collins, Jr. as the murderous killer Perry Smith.Miller does an admirable job bringing this intriguing story to life but it's Hoffman that makes his mark as the multi layered man torn between worlds. Hoffman shows Truman's vulnerability but at top has his tenacity and wit that made him such a star. But underneath all of that, Hoffman does the greatest impersonation of him and captures all the antics and mannerisms. With previous accomplished works in Magnolia, Almost Famous and Flawless, Hoffman finally lives up to his title "greatest working actor of his generation." Catherine Keener in her quiet performance is just that, a quiet performance with powerful words behind a soft voice. She acts like the strong willed mother that reprimands you when you've been a bad boy. But I'm afraid the viewer doesn't find the richness of her performance that critics found in the past Oscar season. I prefer her in the much underrated performance in The 40 Year Old Virgin.Speaking of underrated performances, Clifton Collins, Jr. gives the breakthrough performance of the year. His Perry Smith is smoldering, painful, and incredibly stunning in line delivery and poise. I couldn't imagine a more richer performance out of any other actor. After his introductory performances in Traffic and other subtle works, this shows the actor's range.The screenplay by Dan Futterman is the crowning work of this achievement as his scripted dialogue never falls flat and his character study his remarkably on point. It is Miller that executes his work amazingly and finds his Director nomination at the Oscars well received and deserved.Grade: ***½/****

Startling Hoffman Performance Emblazons Intense Treatment of Capote's Life-Changing Episode

tt0379725

Although he was a celebrated author, I have to admit my initial familiarity with Truman Capote came from his frequent appearances during the 1970's on "The Tonight Show" with Johnny Carson, as well as his silly appearance as duplicitous millionaire Lionel Twain in Neil Simon's 1978 "Murder by Death". Capote's effete manner and often patronizing comments (e.g., he opined that all actors were basically stupid) made such a strong impression on me that it was not until much later that I realized he wrote such gems such as "Breakfast at Tiffany's", "The Grass Harp", "The Thanksgiving Visitor", and of course, his seemingly atypical masterwork, "In Cold Blood". It is the intensive research and writing of this latter work, a self-proclaimed "non-fiction novel" published to great acclaim in 1965, which is the basis of this well-crafted though sometimes slowly paced movie.For those who have not read "In Cold Blood" or seen the stark 1967 film adaptation directed by Richard Brooks, the true-life story focuses on Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, a pair of drifters who break into the home of a Kansas farm family in November 1959 based on a rumor that they had $10,000 stashed away. Upon discovering that the family had no money on hand, Smith and Hickock systematically killed the four members of the family. First-time director Bennett Miller recreates much of the book's plot, including the gory crime, within the context of the movie. On a broader level, this film focuses on Capote's journey of over four years in chronicling the story until the inevitable ending, and in the meantime getting to know the killers intimately, especially the more enigmatic Smith. Actor Dan Futterman, familiar from his guest turns on "Will and Grace" and "Sex in the City", has written a delicately balanced screenplay that highlights the contradictory forces with which Capote was grappling in getting his story on paper.Although Miller's direction and Futterman's script are both strong for rookie efforts, the key to the film's effectiveness lies in the performances. In a startling transformation, Philip Seymour Hoffman inhabits Capote from the most subtle mannerism to his inner soul. Always a fine character actor, Hoffman brings his dead-on impersonation to a level of consciousness that exudes just the right shadings of narcissism, vulnerability and self-destruction. From the snippets of Capote regaling cocktail party guests in Manhattan with his stories to his useless wardrobe name-dropping in Kansas, there is no question in Hoffman's performance that Capote is a man in love with himself. As author Harper Lee, Capote's closest confidante and research partner on the killings, the always watchable Catherine Keener unaffectedly presents the sturdiness of her plain-spoken character, and their close, painfully honest relationship is believable.The other striking performance is provided by Clifton Collins Jr., who brings out the alternating coldness and vulnerability in Smith, especially as his character naively and desperately comes to regard Capote as his friend. The prison cell scenes between Hoffman and Collins have an intriguing, disturbing charge that subconsciously seems to point to the homo-erotic nature of their relationship. Smaller roles are filled expertly – Chris Cooper in familiar territory as Sheriff Alvin Dewey and Bruce Greenwood as Capote's patient lover, author Jack Dunphy – though their scenes feel truncated compared to the rest of the story. In fact, the film feels rushed toward the end as Capote is obviously deeply affected by the events and his own culpability in the killers' fate. I only wish there was a greater sense of a denouement to the film, but regardless, the film is certainly worth seeing for Hoffman's masterful performance.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-96

ur3608743

title: Startling Hoffman Performance Emblazons Intense Treatment of Capote's Life-Changing Episode review: Although he was a celebrated author, I have to admit my initial familiarity with Truman Capote came from his frequent appearances during the 1970's on "The Tonight Show" with Johnny Carson, as well as his silly appearance as duplicitous millionaire Lionel Twain in Neil Simon's 1978 "Murder by Death". Capote's effete manner and often patronizing comments (e.g., he opined that all actors were basically stupid) made such a strong impression on me that it was not until much later that I realized he wrote such gems such as "Breakfast at Tiffany's", "The Grass Harp", "The Thanksgiving Visitor", and of course, his seemingly atypical masterwork, "In Cold Blood". It is the intensive research and writing of this latter work, a self-proclaimed "non-fiction novel" published to great acclaim in 1965, which is the basis of this well-crafted though sometimes slowly paced movie.For those who have not read "In Cold Blood" or seen the stark 1967 film adaptation directed by Richard Brooks, the true-life story focuses on Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, a pair of drifters who break into the home of a Kansas farm family in November 1959 based on a rumor that they had $10,000 stashed away. Upon discovering that the family had no money on hand, Smith and Hickock systematically killed the four members of the family. First-time director Bennett Miller recreates much of the book's plot, including the gory crime, within the context of the movie. On a broader level, this film focuses on Capote's journey of over four years in chronicling the story until the inevitable ending, and in the meantime getting to know the killers intimately, especially the more enigmatic Smith. Actor Dan Futterman, familiar from his guest turns on "Will and Grace" and "Sex in the City", has written a delicately balanced screenplay that highlights the contradictory forces with which Capote was grappling in getting his story on paper.Although Miller's direction and Futterman's script are both strong for rookie efforts, the key to the film's effectiveness lies in the performances. In a startling transformation, Philip Seymour Hoffman inhabits Capote from the most subtle mannerism to his inner soul. Always a fine character actor, Hoffman brings his dead-on impersonation to a level of consciousness that exudes just the right shadings of narcissism, vulnerability and self-destruction. From the snippets of Capote regaling cocktail party guests in Manhattan with his stories to his useless wardrobe name-dropping in Kansas, there is no question in Hoffman's performance that Capote is a man in love with himself. As author Harper Lee, Capote's closest confidante and research partner on the killings, the always watchable Catherine Keener unaffectedly presents the sturdiness of her plain-spoken character, and their close, painfully honest relationship is believable.The other striking performance is provided by Clifton Collins Jr., who brings out the alternating coldness and vulnerability in Smith, especially as his character naively and desperately comes to regard Capote as his friend. The prison cell scenes between Hoffman and Collins have an intriguing, disturbing charge that subconsciously seems to point to the homo-erotic nature of their relationship. Smaller roles are filled expertly – Chris Cooper in familiar territory as Sheriff Alvin Dewey and Bruce Greenwood as Capote's patient lover, author Jack Dunphy – though their scenes feel truncated compared to the rest of the story. In fact, the film feels rushed toward the end as Capote is obviously deeply affected by the events and his own culpability in the killers' fate. I only wish there was a greater sense of a denouement to the film, but regardless, the film is certainly worth seeing for Hoffman's masterful performance.

More about "In Cold Blood" than the author himself

tt0379725

Director Bennett Miller and writer Dan Futterman(adapting from a book by Gerald Clarke)bring to this screen a restrained,haunting story of Truman Capote's research and writing of the 1964 "true-crime,non-ficiton"novel "In Cold Blood". I presume that the film is named and centered around the flamboyant and brilliant writer and social gadabout because there was no more concise way to describe the way this news story phenomenon could be laid out.Capote(deservedly award winning Philip Seymour Hoffman,who really is no surprise here,since he's had over a decade of palpably good film performances)is a unique portrayal here: he is never completely sympathetic(is he on the side of the shell-shocked townsfolk of Holcombe,KAnsas or is he merely exploiting their fear?Is he really sympathetic with Perry Smith or merely using him for the book? Is he really in need of peeling away at a social disconnect in American society or is he merely an opportunist?),but he is always compelling. CAtherine Keener's Harper Lee,friend,confidant and steely incorruptible, is well-done as well. Other standouts in the movie are Clifton Collins gives a sad and yet scary portrayal as Smith and Chris Cooper makes the most of a reduced character in KBI chief Alvin Dewey.The quiet,meticulous sound-editing and soundtrack add to the meditative,blank mode that this movie tries to convey. Thought-provoking and strong,this film is for everyone who wonders how "trainwrecks" can become the fascination of one and many,based in an era where there were fewer media outlets and more palpable innocence. 10 out of 10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-250

ur2608802

title: More about "In Cold Blood" than the author himself review: Director Bennett Miller and writer Dan Futterman(adapting from a book by Gerald Clarke)bring to this screen a restrained,haunting story of Truman Capote's research and writing of the 1964 "true-crime,non-ficiton"novel "In Cold Blood". I presume that the film is named and centered around the flamboyant and brilliant writer and social gadabout because there was no more concise way to describe the way this news story phenomenon could be laid out.Capote(deservedly award winning Philip Seymour Hoffman,who really is no surprise here,since he's had over a decade of palpably good film performances)is a unique portrayal here: he is never completely sympathetic(is he on the side of the shell-shocked townsfolk of Holcombe,KAnsas or is he merely exploiting their fear?Is he really sympathetic with Perry Smith or merely using him for the book? Is he really in need of peeling away at a social disconnect in American society or is he merely an opportunist?),but he is always compelling. CAtherine Keener's Harper Lee,friend,confidant and steely incorruptible, is well-done as well. Other standouts in the movie are Clifton Collins gives a sad and yet scary portrayal as Smith and Chris Cooper makes the most of a reduced character in KBI chief Alvin Dewey.The quiet,meticulous sound-editing and soundtrack add to the meditative,blank mode that this movie tries to convey. Thought-provoking and strong,this film is for everyone who wonders how "trainwrecks" can become the fascination of one and many,based in an era where there were fewer media outlets and more palpable innocence. 10 out of 10

Lesson Learned

tt0379725

CAPOTE Written by Dan Futterman Directed by Bennett MillerAdmittedly, I am not the most literate fella. Consequently, the name Truman Capote means something to me but simply for its notoriety and not for his work or anything else of worth that should continue to give his name meaning years after his death. I expected Bennett Miller's film to be something of a crash course on Capote's life. I would leave there with the half-sense of being educated on the man – an expectation so many of us put on the movies. Dan Futterman's script takes a different approach though as he chooses to focus on the six years Capote spent writing his last novel, "In Cold Blood". The editorial decision sways our judgment and forces us to view the man's entire life in this one blip in the grander scheme. Despite the narrow scope on Capote's life this presents, there is still a rich sense of character, encompassing history and heritage as well as a conflict in the present that hints at an imminent unraveling. This challenging feat comes to fruition thanks to Philip Seymour Hoffman's metamorphic portrayal of Capote. Again, not being familiar with the actual Truman Capote, it's hard to say that Hoffman embodied him but I can say that he was definitely not himself. His round frame is draped in understated style; his thick, dark-rimmed glasses fit perfectly with his slicked, blonde hair. We first meet Truman at an upper-class party. He is the epicenter of the conversation and all are transfixed on his stories of gossip and innuendo. We can see on his face how much he enjoys the audience and hear it in his high-pitched squeak of a voice how much he revels in his successful life as anyone with that mousy and effeminate a voice must have been the one gossiped about previously and not the one doing the gossiping. As Capote, Hoffman enters rooms with gusto and presence but there is a hint of hesitation as he is aware of the reaction his demeanor and clearly identifiable homosexuality incites from people, be they in New York City where he lives or Kansas, where he is researching his novel. He is completely oblivious to nearly everyone else's existence and this ultimately commands the attention he deserves but there is a small boy's fear that causes him to overcompensate by playing it up to see how far he can go as well as protect his fragile nature.Hoffman balances two distinct sides of Capote so well that by the close of the film, even he appears to not understand how his life ended up where it did. These two sides are sincerity and artifice. In order to gain the trust of Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.), one of the murderers who will serve as the inspiration for his novel, he must pretend to care about Smith as he waits to die on death row. After their initial meeting, Smith behind bars and Capote offering him medication like a banana to a monkey at the zoo, Capote continues to see him as just that, an animal, a paycheck. As their relationship persists and they spend more time together, a bond inevitably forms and the lines between despondency and compassion blur. As Smith's time on death row nears its end, Capote seems overtaken with something he cannot process, an emotional attachment to another human being.Watching Capote's descent from confidence and control is both painful and uplifting. It may not be a pretty picture but realizing that you have a lot in common with a cold-blooded murder is definitely humbling.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-66

ur1982210

title: Lesson Learned review: CAPOTE Written by Dan Futterman Directed by Bennett MillerAdmittedly, I am not the most literate fella. Consequently, the name Truman Capote means something to me but simply for its notoriety and not for his work or anything else of worth that should continue to give his name meaning years after his death. I expected Bennett Miller's film to be something of a crash course on Capote's life. I would leave there with the half-sense of being educated on the man – an expectation so many of us put on the movies. Dan Futterman's script takes a different approach though as he chooses to focus on the six years Capote spent writing his last novel, "In Cold Blood". The editorial decision sways our judgment and forces us to view the man's entire life in this one blip in the grander scheme. Despite the narrow scope on Capote's life this presents, there is still a rich sense of character, encompassing history and heritage as well as a conflict in the present that hints at an imminent unraveling. This challenging feat comes to fruition thanks to Philip Seymour Hoffman's metamorphic portrayal of Capote. Again, not being familiar with the actual Truman Capote, it's hard to say that Hoffman embodied him but I can say that he was definitely not himself. His round frame is draped in understated style; his thick, dark-rimmed glasses fit perfectly with his slicked, blonde hair. We first meet Truman at an upper-class party. He is the epicenter of the conversation and all are transfixed on his stories of gossip and innuendo. We can see on his face how much he enjoys the audience and hear it in his high-pitched squeak of a voice how much he revels in his successful life as anyone with that mousy and effeminate a voice must have been the one gossiped about previously and not the one doing the gossiping. As Capote, Hoffman enters rooms with gusto and presence but there is a hint of hesitation as he is aware of the reaction his demeanor and clearly identifiable homosexuality incites from people, be they in New York City where he lives or Kansas, where he is researching his novel. He is completely oblivious to nearly everyone else's existence and this ultimately commands the attention he deserves but there is a small boy's fear that causes him to overcompensate by playing it up to see how far he can go as well as protect his fragile nature.Hoffman balances two distinct sides of Capote so well that by the close of the film, even he appears to not understand how his life ended up where it did. These two sides are sincerity and artifice. In order to gain the trust of Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.), one of the murderers who will serve as the inspiration for his novel, he must pretend to care about Smith as he waits to die on death row. After their initial meeting, Smith behind bars and Capote offering him medication like a banana to a monkey at the zoo, Capote continues to see him as just that, an animal, a paycheck. As their relationship persists and they spend more time together, a bond inevitably forms and the lines between despondency and compassion blur. As Smith's time on death row nears its end, Capote seems overtaken with something he cannot process, an emotional attachment to another human being.Watching Capote's descent from confidence and control is both painful and uplifting. It may not be a pretty picture but realizing that you have a lot in common with a cold-blooded murder is definitely humbling.

The movie about the book about the murders.

tt0379725

CAPOTE, first of all, is not a biopic. It covers a short period in writer Truman Capote's life when he immersed himself in his classic True Crime novel "In Cold Blood," the first "non-fiction novel" of its kind. Published in 1965, this revolutionary book would make Capote the most famous writer in America. And it would suck his soul bone dry, as he never completed another novel before his death in 1984.Directed by Bennett Miller, CAPOTE follows Truman Capote (a trimmer Philip Seymour Hoffman, putting on that outrageous accent and playing fruitier than even his drag queen in FLAWLESS) as he interviews the two killers of the Clutter family in Holcomb Texas in 1959, Richard Hickok (Mark Pellegrino) and Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). He lightbulbed on the idea of a book which would reveal their psyches, as well as the reactions of the townsfolk and the detectives who eventually caught the two killers, led by Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper), but didn't bargain on the research being a heartsickening exercise that would take nearly six years of his life, test his skill as an author and his very humanity.This movie is not taken from Capote's book "In Cold Blood," but rather from a section of the book by Gerald Clarke, "Capote: A Biography," written for the screen by Dan Futterman.Viewing CAPOTE or reading "In Cold Blood" reminds us of that scientific precept that states you cannot observe a system without becoming a PART OF that system and thereby affecting the outcome of your observations.Upon inserting himself into the story, by becoming so close to the killers that he actually hired powerful lawyers to appeal their cases to the Supreme Court, Capote affected the outcome of his novel; a tale that would keep stretching into the future with no end in sight, because he envisioned the hanging of the killers as closure.Capote (author of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" 1958) was completely stymied on how to psychologically deal with this new form of fiction he was pioneering; he found himself split into two mental halves - one half empathizing somberly with the quadruple-murderers, while the mercenary side of him surreptitiously picked their brains for book material. Though he admitted a kinship with Perry Smith ("It was like we were raised in the same house, and one day he got up and walked out the back door, and I walked out the front") he would continually lie to him about the book's details.After four years of stays of execution, it was Capote who was having nervous breakdowns because the killers were not being executed. Ergo, his book was in limbo, remaining unfinished. When Smith pleads with him to acquire another lawyer, Capote writes back tersely that he cannot find one. It's a morbid conundrum, as Capote finally wants them dead and so must remove himself from the equation.Catherine Keener plays Capote's childhood friend and confidante, Nelle Harper Lee, whose own book, To Kill a Mockingbird, is published during this period. Only she can tell him truths about himself with impunity.One of the best features of this movie is that, while Capote was openly gay, he is never turned into a punchline - not by the high society depicted in the movie or by the makers of the movie. He lived with his gay lover (Bruce Greenwood) with no ostracism from the entertainment world. Though he was renowned as the life of any party, we only see snippets of his gregarious night life in CAPOTE.Movie is slow-moving but not boring, rather, introspective and disturbing. When Perry is eventually hanged, Capote's tears are not so much for the loss of the man whom he had grown close to, but for the fact that Capote himself could have stayed that man's execution indefinitely if he had chosen to invest in more lawyers; his tears are rage against his own selfish agenda in wanting to complete his book.Capote expressed no joy at the publication of "In Cold Blood," feeling like his soul was sold for its research.We feel just as soul-spent by the end of this dark, somber film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-416

ur2446936

title: The movie about the book about the murders. review: CAPOTE, first of all, is not a biopic. It covers a short period in writer Truman Capote's life when he immersed himself in his classic True Crime novel "In Cold Blood," the first "non-fiction novel" of its kind. Published in 1965, this revolutionary book would make Capote the most famous writer in America. And it would suck his soul bone dry, as he never completed another novel before his death in 1984.Directed by Bennett Miller, CAPOTE follows Truman Capote (a trimmer Philip Seymour Hoffman, putting on that outrageous accent and playing fruitier than even his drag queen in FLAWLESS) as he interviews the two killers of the Clutter family in Holcomb Texas in 1959, Richard Hickok (Mark Pellegrino) and Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). He lightbulbed on the idea of a book which would reveal their psyches, as well as the reactions of the townsfolk and the detectives who eventually caught the two killers, led by Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper), but didn't bargain on the research being a heartsickening exercise that would take nearly six years of his life, test his skill as an author and his very humanity.This movie is not taken from Capote's book "In Cold Blood," but rather from a section of the book by Gerald Clarke, "Capote: A Biography," written for the screen by Dan Futterman.Viewing CAPOTE or reading "In Cold Blood" reminds us of that scientific precept that states you cannot observe a system without becoming a PART OF that system and thereby affecting the outcome of your observations.Upon inserting himself into the story, by becoming so close to the killers that he actually hired powerful lawyers to appeal their cases to the Supreme Court, Capote affected the outcome of his novel; a tale that would keep stretching into the future with no end in sight, because he envisioned the hanging of the killers as closure.Capote (author of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" 1958) was completely stymied on how to psychologically deal with this new form of fiction he was pioneering; he found himself split into two mental halves - one half empathizing somberly with the quadruple-murderers, while the mercenary side of him surreptitiously picked their brains for book material. Though he admitted a kinship with Perry Smith ("It was like we were raised in the same house, and one day he got up and walked out the back door, and I walked out the front") he would continually lie to him about the book's details.After four years of stays of execution, it was Capote who was having nervous breakdowns because the killers were not being executed. Ergo, his book was in limbo, remaining unfinished. When Smith pleads with him to acquire another lawyer, Capote writes back tersely that he cannot find one. It's a morbid conundrum, as Capote finally wants them dead and so must remove himself from the equation.Catherine Keener plays Capote's childhood friend and confidante, Nelle Harper Lee, whose own book, To Kill a Mockingbird, is published during this period. Only she can tell him truths about himself with impunity.One of the best features of this movie is that, while Capote was openly gay, he is never turned into a punchline - not by the high society depicted in the movie or by the makers of the movie. He lived with his gay lover (Bruce Greenwood) with no ostracism from the entertainment world. Though he was renowned as the life of any party, we only see snippets of his gregarious night life in CAPOTE.Movie is slow-moving but not boring, rather, introspective and disturbing. When Perry is eventually hanged, Capote's tears are not so much for the loss of the man whom he had grown close to, but for the fact that Capote himself could have stayed that man's execution indefinitely if he had chosen to invest in more lawyers; his tears are rage against his own selfish agenda in wanting to complete his book.Capote expressed no joy at the publication of "In Cold Blood," feeling like his soul was sold for its research.We feel just as soul-spent by the end of this dark, somber film.

2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote???, That Is The Question...

tt0379725

CAPOTE, first of all, is a well written film by the talented Dan Futterman, whose performance in URBANIA we will always remember, and for Philip Seymour Hoffman, this is his "Golden Globe and Oscar Award" all in one. From the first scene, Hoffman creates the essence of the acid tongued, tremendously talented, yet damaged, Truman Capote.Having read IN COLD BLOOD when it first came out, CAPOTE really captures on the screen the horror of what took place on that Kansas farm and the cinematography, costumes and locations are wonderful to behold. Miss Keener's performance is such a subtle and intelligent contrast to the hysteria of Capote, and his perfect foil.In the scenes with Perry Smith, they are haunting and disturbing, as if it feels like two cobras are circling one another, waiting for the first one to strike. And in this context, I ask, "2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote?, that is the question", because both are on the take-Smith to use Capote for obtaining a pardon, Capote, to nail the story that will gain him the adulation he so adores. And then, Capote slides downhill, while Perry rots in prison.CAPOTE captures the essence of the 1950's, the horror of a brutal killing in the vast farmlands of Kansas, and delivers a knock out performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. If only IN COLD BLOOD had not seemed like a manipulation by a writer out for glory at the expense of a prisoner who believed in him.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-7

ur6730332

title: 2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote???, That Is The Question... review: CAPOTE, first of all, is a well written film by the talented Dan Futterman, whose performance in URBANIA we will always remember, and for Philip Seymour Hoffman, this is his "Golden Globe and Oscar Award" all in one. From the first scene, Hoffman creates the essence of the acid tongued, tremendously talented, yet damaged, Truman Capote.Having read IN COLD BLOOD when it first came out, CAPOTE really captures on the screen the horror of what took place on that Kansas farm and the cinematography, costumes and locations are wonderful to behold. Miss Keener's performance is such a subtle and intelligent contrast to the hysteria of Capote, and his perfect foil.In the scenes with Perry Smith, they are haunting and disturbing, as if it feels like two cobras are circling one another, waiting for the first one to strike. And in this context, I ask, "2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote?, that is the question", because both are on the take-Smith to use Capote for obtaining a pardon, Capote, to nail the story that will gain him the adulation he so adores. And then, Capote slides downhill, while Perry rots in prison.CAPOTE captures the essence of the 1950's, the horror of a brutal killing in the vast farmlands of Kansas, and delivers a knock out performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. If only IN COLD BLOOD had not seemed like a manipulation by a writer out for glory at the expense of a prisoner who believed in him.

Performance amazing, movie terribly boring

tt0379725

I finally got to see Capote to bank in on its recent Oscar success.And well, I was disappointed tremendously.It's not that Capote is a bad movie by any stretch. The filmmakers clearly know how to make a movie, and the acting and writing is topnotch. It's just that...the movie is boring. It drags out for what seems like hours, but are only painful minutes. It harps on some plot points, but misses others or just pokes at them.It seems like they were going for a real arty feel, and just ended up forgetting to add any invigoration to it. While being topnotch in many categories, it just doesn't have the uplifting, or movement needed to make a film be enjoyable on all counts. I wanted to fall asleep for much of the movie, it just was too boring for my liking.The story itself is tremendously interesting, but the movie just lacks the life force and power to make the entire thing work. If they chopped a bit out, and added some more interesting elements to it, then it would have been a whole lot better.Of course, Hoffman is fabulous as Capote himself. The mannerisms he inhibits are excellent, and you can really almost see the real man he's portraying. Whereas Charlize just wanted glory for Monster, and Jamie Foxx faltered in more than a handful of areas in Ray, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is perfect as Capote. He chews up every scene he's in, and completely blows all the other actors in the film into the wind. Catherine Keener may have got an Oscar nod, but she completely lost out on making any sort of impression, because Hoffman stole it from everybody.The movie may be lacking, but he is not. He deserves the award hands down. It's a boring film with a astonishing Oscar worthy performance. If you have to see it, see it for Hoffman, and nothing else.7.5/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-140

ur1622466

title: Performance amazing, movie terribly boring review: I finally got to see Capote to bank in on its recent Oscar success.And well, I was disappointed tremendously.It's not that Capote is a bad movie by any stretch. The filmmakers clearly know how to make a movie, and the acting and writing is topnotch. It's just that...the movie is boring. It drags out for what seems like hours, but are only painful minutes. It harps on some plot points, but misses others or just pokes at them.It seems like they were going for a real arty feel, and just ended up forgetting to add any invigoration to it. While being topnotch in many categories, it just doesn't have the uplifting, or movement needed to make a film be enjoyable on all counts. I wanted to fall asleep for much of the movie, it just was too boring for my liking.The story itself is tremendously interesting, but the movie just lacks the life force and power to make the entire thing work. If they chopped a bit out, and added some more interesting elements to it, then it would have been a whole lot better.Of course, Hoffman is fabulous as Capote himself. The mannerisms he inhibits are excellent, and you can really almost see the real man he's portraying. Whereas Charlize just wanted glory for Monster, and Jamie Foxx faltered in more than a handful of areas in Ray, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is perfect as Capote. He chews up every scene he's in, and completely blows all the other actors in the film into the wind. Catherine Keener may have got an Oscar nod, but she completely lost out on making any sort of impression, because Hoffman stole it from everybody.The movie may be lacking, but he is not. He deserves the award hands down. It's a boring film with a astonishing Oscar worthy performance. If you have to see it, see it for Hoffman, and nothing else.7.5/10.

Powered By Strong Performances!!

tt0379725

Capote is a well-directed film that has a strong centralized performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The story itself is great and interesting and I really liked the rather dark tone of the story. I was also pleased by the cinematography and the camera shots of the 1950's Kansas. The movie seems to go a bit long, but that is crossed out by a well-written and memorable screenplay.Bennett Miller's film focuses on six years of Truman Capote's life as he is writing a novel based on the true killings of four people in Kansas. Truman meets with one of the killers in jail and ends up making friends with him. However, this will change his life forever.The acting is a strong point for the film. Hoffman delivers an amazing performance as Capote and it shows he can act in just about anything and do it well. His voice was a bit annoying but since that is how Capote spoke, I can't complain. The supporting actors led by Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr, and Chris Cooper are also pretty good.Overall, this is a great if not somewhat of a long film. It's not long as the it feels like it though. But great direction, acting, and a taut screenplay delivers the goods. There is many talking scenes but they are very interesting. I rate this film 8/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-430

ur17646017

title: Powered By Strong Performances!! review: Capote is a well-directed film that has a strong centralized performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The story itself is great and interesting and I really liked the rather dark tone of the story. I was also pleased by the cinematography and the camera shots of the 1950's Kansas. The movie seems to go a bit long, but that is crossed out by a well-written and memorable screenplay.Bennett Miller's film focuses on six years of Truman Capote's life as he is writing a novel based on the true killings of four people in Kansas. Truman meets with one of the killers in jail and ends up making friends with him. However, this will change his life forever.The acting is a strong point for the film. Hoffman delivers an amazing performance as Capote and it shows he can act in just about anything and do it well. His voice was a bit annoying but since that is how Capote spoke, I can't complain. The supporting actors led by Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr, and Chris Cooper are also pretty good.Overall, this is a great if not somewhat of a long film. It's not long as the it feels like it though. But great direction, acting, and a taut screenplay delivers the goods. There is many talking scenes but they are very interesting. I rate this film 8/10.

An intellectually engaging experience.

tt0379725

This biopic of the eccentric American author Truman Capote focuses all its attention on the years between 1959 and 1965, when Capote toiled on his nonfiction novel "In Cold Blood," the groundbreaking portrait of two murderers in the heartland of America. In a much-lauded performance, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote, making his extremely affected mannerisms quite compelling, and eventually unnoticeable. It's a terrific performance. However, Hoffman's character is really the only person in the film whose personality is really developed; Catherine Keener, Bruce Greenwood (for once not cast as a villain), Chris Cooper, and Clifton Collins ,Jr. all flit through the picture, giving solid performances, but none receives enough screen time to really matter. Keener, in particular, is receiving many awards and nominations for a performance that, quite frankly, doesn't get enough development (no slight to Keener, who is a wonderful performer). I liked "Capote", but I think it would have benefited from expanding its focus onto the wide range of secondary characters that exist in the film. There's little emotional resonance to the events the occur; my appreciation for it was primarily intellectual.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-122

ur3109921

title: An intellectually engaging experience. review: This biopic of the eccentric American author Truman Capote focuses all its attention on the years between 1959 and 1965, when Capote toiled on his nonfiction novel "In Cold Blood," the groundbreaking portrait of two murderers in the heartland of America. In a much-lauded performance, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote, making his extremely affected mannerisms quite compelling, and eventually unnoticeable. It's a terrific performance. However, Hoffman's character is really the only person in the film whose personality is really developed; Catherine Keener, Bruce Greenwood (for once not cast as a villain), Chris Cooper, and Clifton Collins ,Jr. all flit through the picture, giving solid performances, but none receives enough screen time to really matter. Keener, in particular, is receiving many awards and nominations for a performance that, quite frankly, doesn't get enough development (no slight to Keener, who is a wonderful performer). I liked "Capote", but I think it would have benefited from expanding its focus onto the wide range of secondary characters that exist in the film. There's little emotional resonance to the events the occur; my appreciation for it was primarily intellectual.

A rare modern-day masterpiece that feels like a product of the '60s rather than the present day

tt0379725

Capote is a great film – one that captures the cinematic aesthetic of 1950s and '60s cinema and does, indeed, come across as a product of the era. (In fact, presenting the movie in black and white rather than modern-day filtered color may have been a wiser choice.). From the opening, graceful shot of swaying cornfields to the punctuating closing frame, Capote is a magnificently crafted (if somewhat flawed) character study hiding behind the false façade of a standard Hollywood biopic (and it is so much more). The film's approach to chronicling its titular figure is pleasing and unusual – it doesn't chart his entire existence from birth to death; rather, it drops us square in the middle of a key event of his life that dramatically altered his own perception for years to come.Directed by newcomer Bennett Miller, it is a promising and captivating character examination that takes place over a short six-year time period, beginning with the ruthless slaying of a family in Kansas in November 1959 and ending with the execution of the killers in April 1965.Flamboyantly gay author Truman Capote becomes interested in the story and travels to Holcomb, Kansas with Harper Lee (Catherine Keener) to write an article about the tragedy. However, after meeting with the two young men who committed the crime, Capote feels compelled to extend the story into a "nonfiction novel" – and he even begins to have possible romantic feelings for Perry Smith (Clifton Collins, Jr.), a soft-spoken and sensitive man whom Capote feels a deep spiritual link with. He claims at one point in the film, "It's as if Perry and I grew up in the same house. And one day he went out the back door and I went out the front." The movie does have a few problems, primarily its editing – which is sloppy, unnecessarily slow at times and yet at other points much too fast. The direction is not superb or showy, although I think Miller's conservative approach is in part to adapt to the style of cinema from a half-century ago. Furthermore, considering the fact that this is Miller's second movie, it is still very impressive and vastly superior to the direction of Paul Haggis' noisy, flashy "Crash." Hoffman, the P.T. Anderson regular who has come to be known amongst film buffs as one of the generation's finest character actors (he is for his generation what Steve Buscemi, Peter Lorre and Harry Dean Stanton were for theirs), buries himself inside Truman Capote. You simply forget you are watching the sleazy phone sex kingpin from "Punch-Drunk Love" – he disappears inside his role. Every mannerism, every verbal pronunciation – it's all nailed perfectly. His Best Actor grab was well deserved rivaled only perhaps by Joaquin Phoenix's embodiment of Johnny Cash in Walk the Line.Capote is a splendid character film, one that examines the manipulation and self-centeredness of its "hero" and isn't afraid to expose his lesser qualities. The film does not pander to its audience, nor does it cater to the standards of the Biopic. Its few flaws – such as its inability to present Harper Lee and other supporting characters as well-rounded people, or its lackluster editing – don't detract from the overall product, which is an incredibly tasteful and artistic examination of greed, betrayal, love and heartbreak. The movie is about Capote's experience writing In Cold Blood – rather than his entire life -- for a reason, and that reason is made vibrantly clear by the end of the film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-253

ur1173088

title: A rare modern-day masterpiece that feels like a product of the '60s rather than the present day review: Capote is a great film – one that captures the cinematic aesthetic of 1950s and '60s cinema and does, indeed, come across as a product of the era. (In fact, presenting the movie in black and white rather than modern-day filtered color may have been a wiser choice.). From the opening, graceful shot of swaying cornfields to the punctuating closing frame, Capote is a magnificently crafted (if somewhat flawed) character study hiding behind the false façade of a standard Hollywood biopic (and it is so much more). The film's approach to chronicling its titular figure is pleasing and unusual – it doesn't chart his entire existence from birth to death; rather, it drops us square in the middle of a key event of his life that dramatically altered his own perception for years to come.Directed by newcomer Bennett Miller, it is a promising and captivating character examination that takes place over a short six-year time period, beginning with the ruthless slaying of a family in Kansas in November 1959 and ending with the execution of the killers in April 1965.Flamboyantly gay author Truman Capote becomes interested in the story and travels to Holcomb, Kansas with Harper Lee (Catherine Keener) to write an article about the tragedy. However, after meeting with the two young men who committed the crime, Capote feels compelled to extend the story into a "nonfiction novel" – and he even begins to have possible romantic feelings for Perry Smith (Clifton Collins, Jr.), a soft-spoken and sensitive man whom Capote feels a deep spiritual link with. He claims at one point in the film, "It's as if Perry and I grew up in the same house. And one day he went out the back door and I went out the front." The movie does have a few problems, primarily its editing – which is sloppy, unnecessarily slow at times and yet at other points much too fast. The direction is not superb or showy, although I think Miller's conservative approach is in part to adapt to the style of cinema from a half-century ago. Furthermore, considering the fact that this is Miller's second movie, it is still very impressive and vastly superior to the direction of Paul Haggis' noisy, flashy "Crash." Hoffman, the P.T. Anderson regular who has come to be known amongst film buffs as one of the generation's finest character actors (he is for his generation what Steve Buscemi, Peter Lorre and Harry Dean Stanton were for theirs), buries himself inside Truman Capote. You simply forget you are watching the sleazy phone sex kingpin from "Punch-Drunk Love" – he disappears inside his role. Every mannerism, every verbal pronunciation – it's all nailed perfectly. His Best Actor grab was well deserved rivaled only perhaps by Joaquin Phoenix's embodiment of Johnny Cash in Walk the Line.Capote is a splendid character film, one that examines the manipulation and self-centeredness of its "hero" and isn't afraid to expose his lesser qualities. The film does not pander to its audience, nor does it cater to the standards of the Biopic. Its few flaws – such as its inability to present Harper Lee and other supporting characters as well-rounded people, or its lackluster editing – don't detract from the overall product, which is an incredibly tasteful and artistic examination of greed, betrayal, love and heartbreak. The movie is about Capote's experience writing In Cold Blood – rather than his entire life -- for a reason, and that reason is made vibrantly clear by the end of the film.

Mesmerizing Performance in a Complex, Contradictory Film

tt0379725

Like the non-fiction novel and the Richard Brooks film that was made from it, "In Cold Blood," "Capote" focuses on and sympathizes with two killers at the expense of the four murdered members of the Clutter family. Once the viewer gets beyond this sticking point, however, all three works are outstanding, unforgettable experiences. Unlike the book and the original movie, "Capote" does explore the contradictory feelings that author Truman Capote wrestles with as he researches and writes "In Cold Blood." His feelings for Perry Smith, the more "sensitive" of the two killers, are particularly problematic as Capote becomes emotionally close to Smith and helps the men with legal aide that postpones the executions, while at the same time Capote cannot finish his book until Smith and Hickcock are hanged. Praise for Philip Seymour Hoffman's uncanny performance as Truman Capote cannot be overstated and, come awards time, if he does not collect enough accolades to fill his mantel, indictments for film critics and Academy voters would be in order. Hoffman not only captures the mannerisms and voice of Capote, he inhabits the man's soul and expresses his feelings and emotions without histrionics or the type of caricature that mimics often have made of the notoriously fey writer in the past.Fortunately, Hoffman's performance is only the jewel in a gilded crown of fine writing, excellent direction, and solid supporting performances. "Capote" will send viewers back to their bookshelves to re-read the book and to their video libraries to re-view the 1967 film. Considering the time that Capote spent with the two convicted murderers, questions arise as to why the Richard Brooks film did not have Truman Capote as a character, but rather presented a bland, nameless investigative writer, who wanders through the proceedings without much purpose. The film is so good and so intriguing that questions such as that, and what happened to the writer that Capote lived with? and did Harper Lee write anything beyond "To Kill a Mockingbird?" and did Capote's presence at the execution lead to his alcoholism, his lack of further writing, and eventually his death, and other questions will send viewers to Google as soon as they get home. "Capote" is an outstanding film and possibly the first of the year to be assured of a place on the "10 Best" lists for 2005.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-47

ur0738625

title: Mesmerizing Performance in a Complex, Contradictory Film review: Like the non-fiction novel and the Richard Brooks film that was made from it, "In Cold Blood," "Capote" focuses on and sympathizes with two killers at the expense of the four murdered members of the Clutter family. Once the viewer gets beyond this sticking point, however, all three works are outstanding, unforgettable experiences. Unlike the book and the original movie, "Capote" does explore the contradictory feelings that author Truman Capote wrestles with as he researches and writes "In Cold Blood." His feelings for Perry Smith, the more "sensitive" of the two killers, are particularly problematic as Capote becomes emotionally close to Smith and helps the men with legal aide that postpones the executions, while at the same time Capote cannot finish his book until Smith and Hickcock are hanged. Praise for Philip Seymour Hoffman's uncanny performance as Truman Capote cannot be overstated and, come awards time, if he does not collect enough accolades to fill his mantel, indictments for film critics and Academy voters would be in order. Hoffman not only captures the mannerisms and voice of Capote, he inhabits the man's soul and expresses his feelings and emotions without histrionics or the type of caricature that mimics often have made of the notoriously fey writer in the past.Fortunately, Hoffman's performance is only the jewel in a gilded crown of fine writing, excellent direction, and solid supporting performances. "Capote" will send viewers back to their bookshelves to re-read the book and to their video libraries to re-view the 1967 film. Considering the time that Capote spent with the two convicted murderers, questions arise as to why the Richard Brooks film did not have Truman Capote as a character, but rather presented a bland, nameless investigative writer, who wanders through the proceedings without much purpose. The film is so good and so intriguing that questions such as that, and what happened to the writer that Capote lived with? and did Harper Lee write anything beyond "To Kill a Mockingbird?" and did Capote's presence at the execution lead to his alcoholism, his lack of further writing, and eventually his death, and other questions will send viewers to Google as soon as they get home. "Capote" is an outstanding film and possibly the first of the year to be assured of a place on the "10 Best" lists for 2005.

A brilliantly multilayered, sophisticated and understated melodrama about an incredibly complex character

tt0379725

In 2002 Nicole Kidman played one of the most memorable portraits of an author ever committed to the screen. Her introspective rendering of the troubled genius that was Virginia Woolf gave us an insight into the thought and literature of that great woman. We saw, through Kidman and the ensemble cast, the effect of one of Woolf's books, and a token of the rarefied insight she had made into human relationships.Woolf, like Truman Capote, changed the course of literature by developing a new way of writing: with Woolf, it was 'stream-of-consciousness' – and with Capote it was the 'non-fiction novel'. Like Capote, Woolf remained isolated within her world, but in her case the isolation was created by mental instability and a society that was unready or unwilling to embrace her ideas (such as women's liberation). Capote's isolation was maybe due more to his own unresolved personality issues, to being badly treated as a child, and then finding that he did not 'fit' in the socialite world he inhabited; but mostly it was due to the conscious way that he approached his writing.Capote is a slow, multilayered, sophisticated and understated melodrama about an incredibly complex character, and is brilliantly accomplished. It avoids the pitfall of trying to sensationalise the visually uninspiring action of typing or writing, but equally circumvents placing the 'creative process' into some stereotypical niche. The film is less of a biopic than an exploration of a mind, and the commonality between the mind of Capote and that of the convicted criminal he is writing about. On another level, it is about moral dilemmas of journalistic research and, on yet another, the psychology of the killer.While glancing through a newspaper looking for ideas for a short story or article, Capote happens upon a report of a good, decent family in Kansas that have been cold-bloodedly murdered. He gains access to police reports and eventually the murderers as they are apprehended. One of them, Perry Smith, is literate and intelligent. Moreover he had a difficult childhood. Whereas Capote was fairly well-to-do, Smith had fell in with a bad crowd – he was from the 'dark underbelly' of America – people that respectable folk knew little of and cared even less. Capote spots details the police miss – why was a pillow placed under the head of the victim before being shot? Capote realises there is enough information for a major novel. He works Perry for details, examines the corpses, studies police photographs, and even achieves a delay in the sentence while he finishes researching. We start to see his methods and his remarkable mind. One of his party tricks is to demonstrate that he has "94% recall of any conversation", observing and recalling the minutest detail. He studies people, he sees their motivations, he asks himself why, and often he automatically knows by logical inference. He does all this in a professional capacity as an author, accurately researching, but on the way it gives him immense power, of which he is also aware and doesn't hesitate to use.When Capote receives a standing ovation for a preview reading of his book we see him barely able to contain his emotion – he wants to be acknowledged – needs to be acknowledged – and it is a driving force that is also an overriding obsession: he will write the book of the decade, it will be a literary masterpiece (modesty is not something that troubles him), but he also needs to write it to feel wanted. It mirrors the need felt by Perry in a diary entry where has written an acceptance speech 'just in case' anyone ever recognised and thanked him for something.Capote uncovers a beautiful human side to Perry, one that is at direct odds with the murderer mentality. We can see 'there but for fortune' (or if nurtured) Perry might have become a writer or artist. Should such information have been used to commute the sentence? Was the murder really 'in cold blood'? How such contradictions exist and their implications are realised too late.But Capote is especially susceptible to his own discipline, as he has ignored his own need for friendship. Even at the greatest triumphs of fellow authors who support him, he is oblivious to their success, unable to join in their celebrations, just getting drunk and wallowing in his own self-torture because the stars of his book have not been executed. Why fuss about the trivial achievements of others? (including some not-so-trivial successes, such as To Kill a Mockingbird). Capote's self-obsession and fixation with writing the novel of the decade is total. In ignoring his need for friendship, Capote is at the mercy of the fact that he professionally wants, or wanted, someone who was close to him executed. He has missed out on the joy of giving that is at the core of friendship – genius is not enough.Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote has pulled off a triumph of acting that goes beyond a simple life story. He has brought the genius and the misery of Capote to the screen in a way that is more transparent than one could hope for in the depiction of such a multifaceted and unusual person. Catherine Keener, as the ever-supportive Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird), is a superb balancing act. Her character is the opposite of Capote, empathetic, warm, and endlessly forgiving of his faults. Keener does an admirable job – and as self-effacing a one as her character might.Like 'The Hours', Capote comes across as a labour of love and one eminently worth the trouble and several viewings. But the lessons we can take from it are less about the greatness of Capote and more about his shortcomings. As he was later to recall (in the midst of the terminal decline that set in after the novel was published) more tears are shed over answered than unanswered prayers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-181

ur0064493

title: A brilliantly multilayered, sophisticated and understated melodrama about an incredibly complex character review: In 2002 Nicole Kidman played one of the most memorable portraits of an author ever committed to the screen. Her introspective rendering of the troubled genius that was Virginia Woolf gave us an insight into the thought and literature of that great woman. We saw, through Kidman and the ensemble cast, the effect of one of Woolf's books, and a token of the rarefied insight she had made into human relationships.Woolf, like Truman Capote, changed the course of literature by developing a new way of writing: with Woolf, it was 'stream-of-consciousness' – and with Capote it was the 'non-fiction novel'. Like Capote, Woolf remained isolated within her world, but in her case the isolation was created by mental instability and a society that was unready or unwilling to embrace her ideas (such as women's liberation). Capote's isolation was maybe due more to his own unresolved personality issues, to being badly treated as a child, and then finding that he did not 'fit' in the socialite world he inhabited; but mostly it was due to the conscious way that he approached his writing.Capote is a slow, multilayered, sophisticated and understated melodrama about an incredibly complex character, and is brilliantly accomplished. It avoids the pitfall of trying to sensationalise the visually uninspiring action of typing or writing, but equally circumvents placing the 'creative process' into some stereotypical niche. The film is less of a biopic than an exploration of a mind, and the commonality between the mind of Capote and that of the convicted criminal he is writing about. On another level, it is about moral dilemmas of journalistic research and, on yet another, the psychology of the killer.While glancing through a newspaper looking for ideas for a short story or article, Capote happens upon a report of a good, decent family in Kansas that have been cold-bloodedly murdered. He gains access to police reports and eventually the murderers as they are apprehended. One of them, Perry Smith, is literate and intelligent. Moreover he had a difficult childhood. Whereas Capote was fairly well-to-do, Smith had fell in with a bad crowd – he was from the 'dark underbelly' of America – people that respectable folk knew little of and cared even less. Capote spots details the police miss – why was a pillow placed under the head of the victim before being shot? Capote realises there is enough information for a major novel. He works Perry for details, examines the corpses, studies police photographs, and even achieves a delay in the sentence while he finishes researching. We start to see his methods and his remarkable mind. One of his party tricks is to demonstrate that he has "94% recall of any conversation", observing and recalling the minutest detail. He studies people, he sees their motivations, he asks himself why, and often he automatically knows by logical inference. He does all this in a professional capacity as an author, accurately researching, but on the way it gives him immense power, of which he is also aware and doesn't hesitate to use.When Capote receives a standing ovation for a preview reading of his book we see him barely able to contain his emotion – he wants to be acknowledged – needs to be acknowledged – and it is a driving force that is also an overriding obsession: he will write the book of the decade, it will be a literary masterpiece (modesty is not something that troubles him), but he also needs to write it to feel wanted. It mirrors the need felt by Perry in a diary entry where has written an acceptance speech 'just in case' anyone ever recognised and thanked him for something.Capote uncovers a beautiful human side to Perry, one that is at direct odds with the murderer mentality. We can see 'there but for fortune' (or if nurtured) Perry might have become a writer or artist. Should such information have been used to commute the sentence? Was the murder really 'in cold blood'? How such contradictions exist and their implications are realised too late.But Capote is especially susceptible to his own discipline, as he has ignored his own need for friendship. Even at the greatest triumphs of fellow authors who support him, he is oblivious to their success, unable to join in their celebrations, just getting drunk and wallowing in his own self-torture because the stars of his book have not been executed. Why fuss about the trivial achievements of others? (including some not-so-trivial successes, such as To Kill a Mockingbird). Capote's self-obsession and fixation with writing the novel of the decade is total. In ignoring his need for friendship, Capote is at the mercy of the fact that he professionally wants, or wanted, someone who was close to him executed. He has missed out on the joy of giving that is at the core of friendship – genius is not enough.Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote has pulled off a triumph of acting that goes beyond a simple life story. He has brought the genius and the misery of Capote to the screen in a way that is more transparent than one could hope for in the depiction of such a multifaceted and unusual person. Catherine Keener, as the ever-supportive Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird), is a superb balancing act. Her character is the opposite of Capote, empathetic, warm, and endlessly forgiving of his faults. Keener does an admirable job – and as self-effacing a one as her character might.Like 'The Hours', Capote comes across as a labour of love and one eminently worth the trouble and several viewings. But the lessons we can take from it are less about the greatness of Capote and more about his shortcomings. As he was later to recall (in the midst of the terminal decline that set in after the novel was published) more tears are shed over answered than unanswered prayers.

Move over Tom Hanks, CAPOTE IS IN TOWN!

tt0379725

Phillip Seymore Hoffman played the high pitched, lispy Truman Capote with great conviction. Then again, Phillip Seymore Hoffman is nothing short of a Genius. I was sickened by that scene where he mixed whiskey with baby food and ate it with a SPOON. That was gross. The convict looks like one of my friends which was strange. However, Phillip Seymore Hoffman delivered the GOODS in this movie. Whe Phillip Seymore Hoffman first started to SPEAK, I was surprised. I was surprised because Phillip Seymore Hoffman's voice is usually so LOW. However, Phillip Seymore Hoffman made his voice very high in this movie. There was not too much gore. Phillip Seymore Hoffman played a crabber but there were no Brokeback Mountain scenes by any means. Phillip Seymore Hoffman should get the Oscar for this. Phillip Seymore Hoffman was nominated this morning on the news for BEST ACTOR. I just hope that Phillip Seymore Hoffman realizes that his next movie is MISSION IMPOSSIBLE THREE with Tom Cruise and that he needs to concentrate on the publicity for that. Way to go Phillip Seymore Hoffman! This is your finest work to date!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-124

ur1214854

title: Move over Tom Hanks, CAPOTE IS IN TOWN! review: Phillip Seymore Hoffman played the high pitched, lispy Truman Capote with great conviction. Then again, Phillip Seymore Hoffman is nothing short of a Genius. I was sickened by that scene where he mixed whiskey with baby food and ate it with a SPOON. That was gross. The convict looks like one of my friends which was strange. However, Phillip Seymore Hoffman delivered the GOODS in this movie. Whe Phillip Seymore Hoffman first started to SPEAK, I was surprised. I was surprised because Phillip Seymore Hoffman's voice is usually so LOW. However, Phillip Seymore Hoffman made his voice very high in this movie. There was not too much gore. Phillip Seymore Hoffman played a crabber but there were no Brokeback Mountain scenes by any means. Phillip Seymore Hoffman should get the Oscar for this. Phillip Seymore Hoffman was nominated this morning on the news for BEST ACTOR. I just hope that Phillip Seymore Hoffman realizes that his next movie is MISSION IMPOSSIBLE THREE with Tom Cruise and that he needs to concentrate on the publicity for that. Way to go Phillip Seymore Hoffman! This is your finest work to date!!

How Truman Capote wrote IN COLD BLOOD

tt0379725

This is not a full biography of the very flamboyant authors life,rather it tells of the 6 years it took him to write the story of 2 young men who killed an entire family in Kansas. in 1959.Capote was a reporter for the New Yorker magazine & thought there may have been a human interest story.The film concentrates on the relationship with one of the killers, & the devastating affect it had om Capote's life. The film is well written directed & well made.The most important reason to see this film is because of the actor PHILIP SEYMOUR Hoffman who not only portrays him, HE BECOMES HIM.I am not the only one predicting the following.Next March at the Kodak Theatre Mr Hoffman will receive the Oscar as outstanding male actor.There are no ifs ands or buts on this, He is that great.It may also get other nominations as well.My only gripe is one I have in many new films, that is the sound, I & most others had trouble in making out some dialogue when the actors spoke very low. They use this Dolby sound system forgetting that most people do not have perfect hearing.If you wish to see a superb performance see this, OH it has an R rating, I do not see why, There was no nudity, no sex, you do see some fairly fast pictures of the murder scene (in black & white), hardly any objectionable language, This should have been at most a PG 13 film.my rating is *** 1/2 (0ut of 4*) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-8

ur0495697

title: How Truman Capote wrote IN COLD BLOOD review: This is not a full biography of the very flamboyant authors life,rather it tells of the 6 years it took him to write the story of 2 young men who killed an entire family in Kansas. in 1959.Capote was a reporter for the New Yorker magazine & thought there may have been a human interest story.The film concentrates on the relationship with one of the killers, & the devastating affect it had om Capote's life. The film is well written directed & well made.The most important reason to see this film is because of the actor PHILIP SEYMOUR Hoffman who not only portrays him, HE BECOMES HIM.I am not the only one predicting the following.Next March at the Kodak Theatre Mr Hoffman will receive the Oscar as outstanding male actor.There are no ifs ands or buts on this, He is that great.It may also get other nominations as well.My only gripe is one I have in many new films, that is the sound, I & most others had trouble in making out some dialogue when the actors spoke very low. They use this Dolby sound system forgetting that most people do not have perfect hearing.If you wish to see a superb performance see this, OH it has an R rating, I do not see why, There was no nudity, no sex, you do see some fairly fast pictures of the murder scene (in black & white), hardly any objectionable language, This should have been at most a PG 13 film.my rating is *** 1/2 (0ut of 4*) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9

A cute and adorable movie

tt0374536

(Synopsis) Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), who has been a real witch her whole life, moves to San Fernando Valley to try to be a normal person. Isabel wants to feel the hardships that mortal people experience everyday by not using her powers. Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell) is a movie star whose career has gone down since his last picture lost millions. His agent gets him a job on a remake of the Bewitched television show as Darrin Stephens. Jack wants an unknown actress to play the part of Samantha. The casting call goes out and the search is on. Jack sees Isabel twitch her nose at a book store and follows her. Jack thinks she is the perfect choice to play Samantha. What they don't know is that Isabel is a witch. While filming the show, Isabel uses her witchcraft to get events to go her way. Isabel has a little help from her father (Michael Caine).(Comment) The film was simply adorable. Nicole Kidman was perfect as Samantha and Will Ferrell used a little too much slapstick as Darrin. I liked the movie because it was fun to see, and it brought back good memories. Bewitched has plenty of laughs and is a cute movie. (Columbia Pictures, Run time 1:38, Rated PG-13)(7/10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-15

ur2747265

title: A cute and adorable movie review: (Synopsis) Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), who has been a real witch her whole life, moves to San Fernando Valley to try to be a normal person. Isabel wants to feel the hardships that mortal people experience everyday by not using her powers. Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell) is a movie star whose career has gone down since his last picture lost millions. His agent gets him a job on a remake of the Bewitched television show as Darrin Stephens. Jack wants an unknown actress to play the part of Samantha. The casting call goes out and the search is on. Jack sees Isabel twitch her nose at a book store and follows her. Jack thinks she is the perfect choice to play Samantha. What they don't know is that Isabel is a witch. While filming the show, Isabel uses her witchcraft to get events to go her way. Isabel has a little help from her father (Michael Caine).(Comment) The film was simply adorable. Nicole Kidman was perfect as Samantha and Will Ferrell used a little too much slapstick as Darrin. I liked the movie because it was fun to see, and it brought back good memories. Bewitched has plenty of laughs and is a cute movie. (Columbia Pictures, Run time 1:38, Rated PG-13)(7/10)

"Would you like a water chestnut?" "I'd love a water chestnut."

tt0374536

It's truly sad when three, count 'em, THREE Oscar winners are this hard-up! Caine and MacLaine have been whoring themselves out for eons, but that didn't make it any less painful to watch. Kidman is just two or three more clunkers away from wearing out her welcome. Really, all that's left for her to do is a Halle Berry/Charlize Theron, don a black latex suit, and kick some CGI booty!As if to prove that two hacks are better than one, Ephron recruits her sister, and they crib "Bruce Almighty": Isabel makes Jack speak silly stuff. Carell, the a-hole anchor in "Almighty," plays Uncle Arthur while Ferrell does everything except talk out of his obnoxious, no-talent, Jim Carrey wanna-be butt!Anyone else notice that Jack's manager is a chipmunk-faced midget who strikes a pose every 5 seconds? Any resemblance to a certain Oscar winner's superstar ex-hubby is purely coincidental, I'm sure!I howled when the producers told Jack it'll be hard to find a nobody for Samantha! If Hollywood is chocked with anything, it's nobodies! Isabel lands the gig, but CAA never beats a path to her door and she is rep-less throughout? I don't think so!How is it Ephron can churn out such misogynistic crap but is never called on it because she is supposedly a woman? Worse, she take a potshot at Dick York, the original Darrin, because she can! Too bad York's estate can't sue for defamation. And too bad Isabel couldn't "rewind" this turkey back to the development stage that so someone with talent could have done justice to it!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-326

ur0557788

title: "Would you like a water chestnut?" "I'd love a water chestnut." review: It's truly sad when three, count 'em, THREE Oscar winners are this hard-up! Caine and MacLaine have been whoring themselves out for eons, but that didn't make it any less painful to watch. Kidman is just two or three more clunkers away from wearing out her welcome. Really, all that's left for her to do is a Halle Berry/Charlize Theron, don a black latex suit, and kick some CGI booty!As if to prove that two hacks are better than one, Ephron recruits her sister, and they crib "Bruce Almighty": Isabel makes Jack speak silly stuff. Carell, the a-hole anchor in "Almighty," plays Uncle Arthur while Ferrell does everything except talk out of his obnoxious, no-talent, Jim Carrey wanna-be butt!Anyone else notice that Jack's manager is a chipmunk-faced midget who strikes a pose every 5 seconds? Any resemblance to a certain Oscar winner's superstar ex-hubby is purely coincidental, I'm sure!I howled when the producers told Jack it'll be hard to find a nobody for Samantha! If Hollywood is chocked with anything, it's nobodies! Isabel lands the gig, but CAA never beats a path to her door and she is rep-less throughout? I don't think so!How is it Ephron can churn out such misogynistic crap but is never called on it because she is supposedly a woman? Worse, she take a potshot at Dick York, the original Darrin, because she can! Too bad York's estate can't sue for defamation. And too bad Isabel couldn't "rewind" this turkey back to the development stage that so someone with talent could have done justice to it!

The magic isn't there.

tt0374536

If I could twitch my nose and rewind time to before I saw this movie, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. Rather than simply recreate the original TV series' domestic set-up, some 'genius' had the great idea to make this a meta-movie in which a real witch (Nicole Kidman), yearning for normality in her life, is cast in the role of Samantha opposite a struggling movie star (Will Ferrell) in a contemporary reboot of the classic 60s supernatural comedy series Bewitched.The gags come thin and slow, the absence of decent material leaving a desperate Ferrell resorting to manic overacting and Kidman with no other option than to look adorable and pert throughout and hope that it will be enough to get her through this mess with the minimum of embarrassment. Kidman isn't the only Oscar winner wishing that they hadn't signed on the dotted line: veterans Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine also appear in weak supporting roles, making this one of the biggest wastes of talent I've seen in a long time. If there was any justice, writer/director Nora Ephron should be turned into a bullfrog for at least a month by way of recompense.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-494

ur0945066

title: The magic isn't there. review: If I could twitch my nose and rewind time to before I saw this movie, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. Rather than simply recreate the original TV series' domestic set-up, some 'genius' had the great idea to make this a meta-movie in which a real witch (Nicole Kidman), yearning for normality in her life, is cast in the role of Samantha opposite a struggling movie star (Will Ferrell) in a contemporary reboot of the classic 60s supernatural comedy series Bewitched.The gags come thin and slow, the absence of decent material leaving a desperate Ferrell resorting to manic overacting and Kidman with no other option than to look adorable and pert throughout and hope that it will be enough to get her through this mess with the minimum of embarrassment. Kidman isn't the only Oscar winner wishing that they hadn't signed on the dotted line: veterans Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine also appear in weak supporting roles, making this one of the biggest wastes of talent I've seen in a long time. If there was any justice, writer/director Nora Ephron should be turned into a bullfrog for at least a month by way of recompense.

This is the very definition of cashing in

tt0374536

Okay I really did not enjoy this movie. As someone who marginally watched the show I thought that a redoing of it for the big screen and for a new audience can be done if treated carefully. Good thing this movie has none of the original characters and recycles a plot line done to death completely to make this seem tired and stale.Okay so the story, Isabelle Bigelow (Nicole Kidman) is a witch that just wants to lead a normal life while her father (Michael Caine) doesn't approve or see why Isabelle doesn't want to get whatever she wants with a snap of the fingers. Meanwhile Jack (Will Ferrel) is an actor who's career is pretty much killed stone dead and he wants to revive it by being Darren on the remake show for Bewitched.They meet and he thinks she's good for the part of Samantha on the show while completely oblivious to the fact that she's a witch. It is then revealed that the show is going to be all about Darren and there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM AUDIENCES OR CRITICS... I'll get back to this later and she decides to put a hex on Darren so he won't behave like a complete jackass. He then falls in love with her and then there's the scene where she reveals she's a witch then we devote ourselves to 20 minutes of moping and... YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THIS SCENE.Okay do I even need to say what's wrong with the movie? Okay how about Isabelle's only defining character is "I want to be normal" and yet she consistently uses magic when 5 minutes in she's trying to give up. Then there's reworking the plot to have it be about remaking Bewitched as a show and refocus it on Darren and nobody seems to mind in this world (Yeah, that sounds totally realistic and won't have rabid fans attacking it). It's boring, a complete waste of talented actors (and they act like they're totally devoid of life), not funny, not clever and apparently when everything is wrapped up it seems like it's not a big deal when Jack finds out that Isabelle put a hex on him which made him love her. Then there's the very predictable last half hour, It is pretty much the last half hour to every romantic comedy ever made and it feels about as full of life as that too.If you're a fan of Bewitched (which I'm not) then this is something to avoid. It has very little to do with the show and even if you've never seen the show everything about this is stale. I mean I guess if you've never seen the show and don't mind pretty much the same story that has been told over and over then there's a slight chance that you might like this, or if you absolutely adore everything that one of these actors has been in. If you aren't one of the people that falls into the category of what I've just said then you won't like it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-503

ur20815663

title: This is the very definition of cashing in review: Okay I really did not enjoy this movie. As someone who marginally watched the show I thought that a redoing of it for the big screen and for a new audience can be done if treated carefully. Good thing this movie has none of the original characters and recycles a plot line done to death completely to make this seem tired and stale.Okay so the story, Isabelle Bigelow (Nicole Kidman) is a witch that just wants to lead a normal life while her father (Michael Caine) doesn't approve or see why Isabelle doesn't want to get whatever she wants with a snap of the fingers. Meanwhile Jack (Will Ferrel) is an actor who's career is pretty much killed stone dead and he wants to revive it by being Darren on the remake show for Bewitched.They meet and he thinks she's good for the part of Samantha on the show while completely oblivious to the fact that she's a witch. It is then revealed that the show is going to be all about Darren and there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM AUDIENCES OR CRITICS... I'll get back to this later and she decides to put a hex on Darren so he won't behave like a complete jackass. He then falls in love with her and then there's the scene where she reveals she's a witch then we devote ourselves to 20 minutes of moping and... YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THIS SCENE.Okay do I even need to say what's wrong with the movie? Okay how about Isabelle's only defining character is "I want to be normal" and yet she consistently uses magic when 5 minutes in she's trying to give up. Then there's reworking the plot to have it be about remaking Bewitched as a show and refocus it on Darren and nobody seems to mind in this world (Yeah, that sounds totally realistic and won't have rabid fans attacking it). It's boring, a complete waste of talented actors (and they act like they're totally devoid of life), not funny, not clever and apparently when everything is wrapped up it seems like it's not a big deal when Jack finds out that Isabelle put a hex on him which made him love her. Then there's the very predictable last half hour, It is pretty much the last half hour to every romantic comedy ever made and it feels about as full of life as that too.If you're a fan of Bewitched (which I'm not) then this is something to avoid. It has very little to do with the show and even if you've never seen the show everything about this is stale. I mean I guess if you've never seen the show and don't mind pretty much the same story that has been told over and over then there's a slight chance that you might like this, or if you absolutely adore everything that one of these actors has been in. If you aren't one of the people that falls into the category of what I've just said then you won't like it.

Not very bewitching.

tt0374536

This is an update of the classic TV show "Bewitched" with Elizabeth Montgomery and Dick York. Here, egocentric actor Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell) tries to star in the remake of the "Bewitched" TV series and tries to get real-life witch Isabel (Nicole Kidman), who yearns for a normal life without her supernatural powers, to appear in the show. In addition, Jack attempts to cast an unknown actress and overshadow Isabel's performance.There are some nice magical spells and moments done by Kidman's character in the show, handing the puns to a few unsuspecting people. But I've found that the script to the movie wasn't very appealing, making the room for intriguing moments and character development/chemistry. The the acting was mostly corny, courtesy of Ferrell, and the so-called comedy was non-existence. The plot was slow-paced, save for some lighthearted moments by Kidman's character. The movie overall didn't do justice to the classic TV show.Grade D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-502

ur0437174

title: Not very bewitching. review: This is an update of the classic TV show "Bewitched" with Elizabeth Montgomery and Dick York. Here, egocentric actor Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell) tries to star in the remake of the "Bewitched" TV series and tries to get real-life witch Isabel (Nicole Kidman), who yearns for a normal life without her supernatural powers, to appear in the show. In addition, Jack attempts to cast an unknown actress and overshadow Isabel's performance.There are some nice magical spells and moments done by Kidman's character in the show, handing the puns to a few unsuspecting people. But I've found that the script to the movie wasn't very appealing, making the room for intriguing moments and character development/chemistry. The the acting was mostly corny, courtesy of Ferrell, and the so-called comedy was non-existence. The plot was slow-paced, save for some lighthearted moments by Kidman's character. The movie overall didn't do justice to the classic TV show.Grade D

A Delightful, Fun, Romantic Comedy Update

tt0374536

This almost perfect romantic comedy uses to great effect the old television series inserts, cute special effects of Michael Caine, and some great parody work on the part of Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell. This comedy hits on many levels and despite some criticism of underdeveloped plot lines with Shirley Maclaine with Michael Caine the main focus on Darren and Samantha appears to be the way to go. The set up, despite other criticism is straight forward and the whole concept of living life with doubt, mistakes, and imperfections is laid out well. The only problem and its not without some difficulties is the ending set up scenes with Will Ferrell that lead towards the climatic ending. The scenes here are confusing and possess a sense of vulnerability on the part of the scriptwriters having a difficult time of how to carefully wrap up the movie (while done adequately) it wasn't the smoothest, cleanest approach.The acting was funny, the parodies great, the humor hit the same buttons as the television series without being the television series. Especially in comparison to Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005), Bewitched the remake demonstrates how to make a remake/update. The interaction between Nicole and Will was fun, informally replete with an honest, free flowing and hopefully genuine from the heart dialogue. This romance comedy was a hit and almost perfect 9/10 if it weren't from the scattered/confusing sent up at the end. Eight out of Ten Stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-89

ur0972645

title: A Delightful, Fun, Romantic Comedy Update review: This almost perfect romantic comedy uses to great effect the old television series inserts, cute special effects of Michael Caine, and some great parody work on the part of Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell. This comedy hits on many levels and despite some criticism of underdeveloped plot lines with Shirley Maclaine with Michael Caine the main focus on Darren and Samantha appears to be the way to go. The set up, despite other criticism is straight forward and the whole concept of living life with doubt, mistakes, and imperfections is laid out well. The only problem and its not without some difficulties is the ending set up scenes with Will Ferrell that lead towards the climatic ending. The scenes here are confusing and possess a sense of vulnerability on the part of the scriptwriters having a difficult time of how to carefully wrap up the movie (while done adequately) it wasn't the smoothest, cleanest approach.The acting was funny, the parodies great, the humor hit the same buttons as the television series without being the television series. Especially in comparison to Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005), Bewitched the remake demonstrates how to make a remake/update. The interaction between Nicole and Will was fun, informally replete with an honest, free flowing and hopefully genuine from the heart dialogue. This romance comedy was a hit and almost perfect 9/10 if it weren't from the scattered/confusing sent up at the end. Eight out of Ten Stars.

Deader Than a George Romero Movie

tt0374536

I'd read the bad reviews for this movie, but I've been seeing the boy's adventure, big budget movies, from "Kingdom of Heaven" to "War of the Worlds," and thought it would be nice to take in a romantic comedy.Mistake. Even if you are a hardcore romantic comedy fan, stay away from "Bewitched." It's deader than a George Romero movie. It just sits there, lifelessly, on screen, reeking of rotten egg.There are so many talented people here -- Will Ferrel, Nora Ephron, Shirley Maclaine -- how could this movie be so bad? Someone could write a dissertation answering just that question.It's not romantic. It's not funny. It's not even coherent.Nicole Kidman lacks warmth. She tries to convey warmth here by imitating Marilyn Monroe so blatantly you want to reach onto the screen and tell her to stop.Will Ferrel has made me laugh many times. Here? I was feeling sorry for him.Maclaine, Caine, Steve Colbert ... all wasted.See, movies need, oh, say, characters, dialog, and plot. "Bewitched"'s scenes include shots of Nicole Kidman watching Elizabeth Montgomery in the old TV series. Character, dialog, and narrative are not served by such scenes. All these scenes did was remind the audience of how good Elizabeth Montgomery was at playing the role that Kidman was failing at, and how much better the old TV show was than this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-147

ur2366009

title: Deader Than a George Romero Movie review: I'd read the bad reviews for this movie, but I've been seeing the boy's adventure, big budget movies, from "Kingdom of Heaven" to "War of the Worlds," and thought it would be nice to take in a romantic comedy.Mistake. Even if you are a hardcore romantic comedy fan, stay away from "Bewitched." It's deader than a George Romero movie. It just sits there, lifelessly, on screen, reeking of rotten egg.There are so many talented people here -- Will Ferrel, Nora Ephron, Shirley Maclaine -- how could this movie be so bad? Someone could write a dissertation answering just that question.It's not romantic. It's not funny. It's not even coherent.Nicole Kidman lacks warmth. She tries to convey warmth here by imitating Marilyn Monroe so blatantly you want to reach onto the screen and tell her to stop.Will Ferrel has made me laugh many times. Here? I was feeling sorry for him.Maclaine, Caine, Steve Colbert ... all wasted.See, movies need, oh, say, characters, dialog, and plot. "Bewitched"'s scenes include shots of Nicole Kidman watching Elizabeth Montgomery in the old TV series. Character, dialog, and narrative are not served by such scenes. All these scenes did was remind the audience of how good Elizabeth Montgomery was at playing the role that Kidman was failing at, and how much better the old TV show was than this movie.

Oh...my...STARS!

tt0374536

I almost can't believe what a disappointment this movie was! *Beware of spoilers* Will Farrell plays Jack Wyatt, a movie star who's become washed up at the box office. *Art imitating life?* So, his rather aggressive agent talks him into agreeing to do an updated version of the original "Bewitched," with Wyatt as Darrin. The number one condition? A relative nobody has to play Samantha. Enter Nicole Kidman as Isobel Bigelow. An authentic-yet-naive witch, whose idea of normality sounds like it came from an addiction to "Friends!" I won't bore you with the rest of the predictable details. Like I said in a previous review: when's the last time a romantic comedy had an UN-happy ending? Unfortunately, the trip en route is a rather boring one. Besides myself, there were only about FOURTEEN other people who bought tickets to the same showing I did. And, like me, the jokes they laughed hardest at were ALL FROM CLIPS OF THE ORIGINAL SHOW (which Isobel uses as research material)! And, adding insult to injury? There's no resolution to any of the subplots!! Was "Uncle Arthur" really Michael Caine (a.k.a. Isobel's father, Nigel), in disguise? Does he finally spend the night with Shirley Maclaine (a.k.a. Irma/Endora)? And, what about Isobel's nosy, mini-skirted neighbor? Does she fall for Wyatt's agent, or Nina the Script Girl? Then, again: even if you do waste six to eight bucks, seeing this movie (and I hope you DON'T), you WON'T want Hollywood wasting money to answer those questions, by making "Bewitched 2." In fact, let's all PRAY that they don't!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-58

ur2216443

title: Oh...my...STARS! review: I almost can't believe what a disappointment this movie was! *Beware of spoilers* Will Farrell plays Jack Wyatt, a movie star who's become washed up at the box office. *Art imitating life?* So, his rather aggressive agent talks him into agreeing to do an updated version of the original "Bewitched," with Wyatt as Darrin. The number one condition? A relative nobody has to play Samantha. Enter Nicole Kidman as Isobel Bigelow. An authentic-yet-naive witch, whose idea of normality sounds like it came from an addiction to "Friends!" I won't bore you with the rest of the predictable details. Like I said in a previous review: when's the last time a romantic comedy had an UN-happy ending? Unfortunately, the trip en route is a rather boring one. Besides myself, there were only about FOURTEEN other people who bought tickets to the same showing I did. And, like me, the jokes they laughed hardest at were ALL FROM CLIPS OF THE ORIGINAL SHOW (which Isobel uses as research material)! And, adding insult to injury? There's no resolution to any of the subplots!! Was "Uncle Arthur" really Michael Caine (a.k.a. Isobel's father, Nigel), in disguise? Does he finally spend the night with Shirley Maclaine (a.k.a. Irma/Endora)? And, what about Isobel's nosy, mini-skirted neighbor? Does she fall for Wyatt's agent, or Nina the Script Girl? Then, again: even if you do waste six to eight bucks, seeing this movie (and I hope you DON'T), you WON'T want Hollywood wasting money to answer those questions, by making "Bewitched 2." In fact, let's all PRAY that they don't!!!

Where did the magic go?

tt0374536

I wish I was a fly and could wander into one of the "creative meetings" that lead to this type of disaster; so I could find out where intelligence and creativity leave and stupidity takes over. In "Bewitched", one of the laziest and least amusing Hollywood offerings of the year, we are treated to a reworking of a classic that needed no retooling. "Bewitched" was so special because it had a cast that was charming and talented. It took an interesting ideas and explored its possibilities with respect, and somehow, staying solidly grounded on everyday's values. One could laugh at the humorous displays of humor and magic. The special effects were that special, but the emotional reactions of the witches/warlocks/humans always rang true.In this very messy, boring, and very pedestrian attempt to come up with something very fresh and different, we are witnesses to Hollywood's lack of originality and vision. The sorry excesses of a talentless comedian without a shared of charm combined with the waste of very talented and miscast reliable actors. I wonder what Michael Caine and Shirley McLaine think when they read whatever passes as a script now. Do these actors have a say when they stand and around realizing there is no chemistry or magic i the set? It isn't that it is possible to come up with a decent new approach. One looks at other efforts such as "The Brady Bunch, The Movie" to see that good writers combined with visionary casting and good performances can look back and pay tribute to the essence of what succeeded a few decades back. Having someone act like a demented diva does not amuse everyone. Watching a woman that has given superb performances with total command of "good material" waste her talent and associate herself with a turkey of gigantic proportions doesn't necessarily restore my faith on the new Hollywood generation. Thank God for DVDs which allow me to relive the true magic in the original series, allows me to stay home and save more than a few dollars while the dark ages of cinema continue, and most important allows me to keep my faith going that once upon a time there were men and women who knew, respected, and practiced the magical art of film making.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-169

ur2115026

title: Where did the magic go? review: I wish I was a fly and could wander into one of the "creative meetings" that lead to this type of disaster; so I could find out where intelligence and creativity leave and stupidity takes over. In "Bewitched", one of the laziest and least amusing Hollywood offerings of the year, we are treated to a reworking of a classic that needed no retooling. "Bewitched" was so special because it had a cast that was charming and talented. It took an interesting ideas and explored its possibilities with respect, and somehow, staying solidly grounded on everyday's values. One could laugh at the humorous displays of humor and magic. The special effects were that special, but the emotional reactions of the witches/warlocks/humans always rang true.In this very messy, boring, and very pedestrian attempt to come up with something very fresh and different, we are witnesses to Hollywood's lack of originality and vision. The sorry excesses of a talentless comedian without a shared of charm combined with the waste of very talented and miscast reliable actors. I wonder what Michael Caine and Shirley McLaine think when they read whatever passes as a script now. Do these actors have a say when they stand and around realizing there is no chemistry or magic i the set? It isn't that it is possible to come up with a decent new approach. One looks at other efforts such as "The Brady Bunch, The Movie" to see that good writers combined with visionary casting and good performances can look back and pay tribute to the essence of what succeeded a few decades back. Having someone act like a demented diva does not amuse everyone. Watching a woman that has given superb performances with total command of "good material" waste her talent and associate herself with a turkey of gigantic proportions doesn't necessarily restore my faith on the new Hollywood generation. Thank God for DVDs which allow me to relive the true magic in the original series, allows me to stay home and save more than a few dollars while the dark ages of cinema continue, and most important allows me to keep my faith going that once upon a time there were men and women who knew, respected, and practiced the magical art of film making.

a bad idea, badly executed

tt0374536

Let me start by saying I'm reviewing the UK DVD release of this film. I always thought this was a bad idea from the second I heard they were going to even attempt this.Will Ferrell in anything is hard to watch as he isn't remotely funny. Nicole Kidman is quite good in her role, innocent of human ways at first and gradually learning to be more human and less witch-like. She struggles to give up her witch craft and can't seem to quite manage.The film is a very bad idea. Take a real witch who has tired of living in their realm and wishes to live among humans. Her father (played by Micheal Caine) doesn't want her to do this and takes as many opportunities as he can to sway her decision. Playing Endora in the show is Shirley Maclaine (who is obviously a real witch and no-one seems to notice) and she is sheer brilliance as Endora, her mannerisms, her dress. She is wonderful. Yet neither her or Micheal even get their name on the DVD cover. And they are the biggest stars in the film.The concept is that they are remaking the TV show of Bewitched and they cast a real witch as Samantha. And unwittingly they also have a witch in the Endora role.Apart from briefly cool special effects this film is dire and ambles from scene to scene with no real ending.Avoid in any way you can.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-384

ur0727639

title: a bad idea, badly executed review: Let me start by saying I'm reviewing the UK DVD release of this film. I always thought this was a bad idea from the second I heard they were going to even attempt this.Will Ferrell in anything is hard to watch as he isn't remotely funny. Nicole Kidman is quite good in her role, innocent of human ways at first and gradually learning to be more human and less witch-like. She struggles to give up her witch craft and can't seem to quite manage.The film is a very bad idea. Take a real witch who has tired of living in their realm and wishes to live among humans. Her father (played by Micheal Caine) doesn't want her to do this and takes as many opportunities as he can to sway her decision. Playing Endora in the show is Shirley Maclaine (who is obviously a real witch and no-one seems to notice) and she is sheer brilliance as Endora, her mannerisms, her dress. She is wonderful. Yet neither her or Micheal even get their name on the DVD cover. And they are the biggest stars in the film.The concept is that they are remaking the TV show of Bewitched and they cast a real witch as Samantha. And unwittingly they also have a witch in the Endora role.Apart from briefly cool special effects this film is dire and ambles from scene to scene with no real ending.Avoid in any way you can.

Waste of talent

tt0374536

Here's the thing about the original 1960's TV show: it was good. Here's the thing about the Bewitched movie: it ain't. The original TV show should have translated very easy to a simple and fun comedy, it didn't need much, just some simple set up and it could have taken off with little to no story and been very entertaining but instead for some reason the writers decided it would be better if they changed everything. This isn't really a Bewitched movie, it's a witch movie with some Bewitched references at best.It was the simplicity of the original series that made it work, several of the jokes can easily fall flat now, the show's innocence won't necessarily stand up to today's crowd, I know I prefer stuff with more edge. But that's really superficial and could have been easily updated. But instead of updating the original premise they decided to make a movie about a washed up actor who decides to reboot his career by doing a remake of the old Bewitched show and hire an unknown to play Samantha and leave him free to hog the spot light...unaware that the unknown he's hired is a witch in real life.When I first heard that this was the premise of the movie I thought there was some potential, it would basically be the same premise but skewed enough that it would stand alone as its own movie. It doesn't. Elizabeth Montgomery was a witch who wants to hang up her broom and be normal. Nicole Kidman is a witch who wants to hang up her broom and be normal. The difference is Liz was always slipping up and using her magic, causing all kinds of trouble and then using her magic to fix the problems that arose. Nicole barely ever uses her magic for anything more than turning on a light bulb. About thirty minutes into the movie a Who song starts playing and she starts using her magic to blow open doors and light things on fire. I thought this was where the movie was gonna take off but needless to say it didn't, it just fizzled down into nothing and dragged on for the rest of the 102 minutes.I think they set out to make something special but instead sucked the magic and the fun out of the source material. If they had only taken that original premise and updated it I could guarantee this movie would have been pretty good. Maybe not an award winner and maybe not a classic, but it would have been enjoyable and funny and sometimes that's all movies need to be. To add even more to the disappointment of the whole thing is it was actually really well cast. I think all the actors in this would have been great if they'd had a decent script to work with. Nicole Kidman and Will Farrel actually played well off each other, they just didn't have anything funny to do. Steve Carell made a great Uncle Arthur and was one of the best parts of the movie, but his jokes were buried under the rest of the movies faults. Michael Caine and Shirley MaClaine made good parents but were underused and Carole Shelley certainly looked the Aunt Clara part, though she wasn't given enough bumbling witchcraft to do. Possible spoiler below.The best part of the movie was the ending when Richard Kind and Amy Sedaris have cameos as their new neighbors and do a great job of imitating the neighbors from the original show, further reiterating my comment that the movie would have been great if they pumped up the nostalgia and actually based it on the source material instead of stealing the title and referencing it once and a while. The original show was actually before my time and I only know it through reruns, I'm not a Bewitched expert by any stretch but even I could see all the lost potential.I'm done bitching now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-383

ur4671065

title: Waste of talent review: Here's the thing about the original 1960's TV show: it was good. Here's the thing about the Bewitched movie: it ain't. The original TV show should have translated very easy to a simple and fun comedy, it didn't need much, just some simple set up and it could have taken off with little to no story and been very entertaining but instead for some reason the writers decided it would be better if they changed everything. This isn't really a Bewitched movie, it's a witch movie with some Bewitched references at best.It was the simplicity of the original series that made it work, several of the jokes can easily fall flat now, the show's innocence won't necessarily stand up to today's crowd, I know I prefer stuff with more edge. But that's really superficial and could have been easily updated. But instead of updating the original premise they decided to make a movie about a washed up actor who decides to reboot his career by doing a remake of the old Bewitched show and hire an unknown to play Samantha and leave him free to hog the spot light...unaware that the unknown he's hired is a witch in real life.When I first heard that this was the premise of the movie I thought there was some potential, it would basically be the same premise but skewed enough that it would stand alone as its own movie. It doesn't. Elizabeth Montgomery was a witch who wants to hang up her broom and be normal. Nicole Kidman is a witch who wants to hang up her broom and be normal. The difference is Liz was always slipping up and using her magic, causing all kinds of trouble and then using her magic to fix the problems that arose. Nicole barely ever uses her magic for anything more than turning on a light bulb. About thirty minutes into the movie a Who song starts playing and she starts using her magic to blow open doors and light things on fire. I thought this was where the movie was gonna take off but needless to say it didn't, it just fizzled down into nothing and dragged on for the rest of the 102 minutes.I think they set out to make something special but instead sucked the magic and the fun out of the source material. If they had only taken that original premise and updated it I could guarantee this movie would have been pretty good. Maybe not an award winner and maybe not a classic, but it would have been enjoyable and funny and sometimes that's all movies need to be. To add even more to the disappointment of the whole thing is it was actually really well cast. I think all the actors in this would have been great if they'd had a decent script to work with. Nicole Kidman and Will Farrel actually played well off each other, they just didn't have anything funny to do. Steve Carell made a great Uncle Arthur and was one of the best parts of the movie, but his jokes were buried under the rest of the movies faults. Michael Caine and Shirley MaClaine made good parents but were underused and Carole Shelley certainly looked the Aunt Clara part, though she wasn't given enough bumbling witchcraft to do. Possible spoiler below.The best part of the movie was the ending when Richard Kind and Amy Sedaris have cameos as their new neighbors and do a great job of imitating the neighbors from the original show, further reiterating my comment that the movie would have been great if they pumped up the nostalgia and actually based it on the source material instead of stealing the title and referencing it once and a while. The original show was actually before my time and I only know it through reruns, I'm not a Bewitched expert by any stretch but even I could see all the lost potential.I'm done bitching now.

Corny and at bits quite head scratching, but charming and amusing

tt0374536

When first hearing that Nora Ephron was tackling the classic sitcom Bewitched, I liked the idea, though i admit when Will Ferrell was cast in the lead male role, i was skeptical, but still maintained my interest. I watched the film, and honestly, i enjoyed it. I heard almost everyone hated it, but i couldn't see it. Of course there are some understandable thoughts: Was the show picked up? Did all the hard work put in pay off? That annoyed me because it leaps SIX MONTHS after they wed.Did Iris and Nigel hit it off? Did Nigel get his confirmation she was a witch? Iris disappears after the party and Nigel also disappears. It would have been cool if the film ended with those two flying past Isabel and Jack's house on a broomstick, then fly past the moon with magic producing "The End".Plus, for a film about witches, the film didn't really seem to magical and at parts felt like just a typical rom-com.Overall, enjoyable film with some flaws, but able to look past those. Bewitched 7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-487

ur17119745

title: Corny and at bits quite head scratching, but charming and amusing review: When first hearing that Nora Ephron was tackling the classic sitcom Bewitched, I liked the idea, though i admit when Will Ferrell was cast in the lead male role, i was skeptical, but still maintained my interest. I watched the film, and honestly, i enjoyed it. I heard almost everyone hated it, but i couldn't see it. Of course there are some understandable thoughts: Was the show picked up? Did all the hard work put in pay off? That annoyed me because it leaps SIX MONTHS after they wed.Did Iris and Nigel hit it off? Did Nigel get his confirmation she was a witch? Iris disappears after the party and Nigel also disappears. It would have been cool if the film ended with those two flying past Isabel and Jack's house on a broomstick, then fly past the moon with magic producing "The End".Plus, for a film about witches, the film didn't really seem to magical and at parts felt like just a typical rom-com.Overall, enjoyable film with some flaws, but able to look past those. Bewitched 7/10

complete and utter misfire

tt0374536

Afficinados of 1960s television will remember 'Bewitched', with Elizabeth Montgomery, Agnes Moorehead, and Dick York (and later, Dick Sargent). That TV series was sharp, colourful, and still stands the test of time. Like other series such as 'I Dream of Jeannie', it sat perfectly in its time and is still funny and relevant today.Compare that with this mess from 2005 with a miscast Nicole Kidman and no wit whatsoever. Watching this film is a bore and a drag and it really has no redeeming features; it isn't an affectionate tribute or pastiche or parody of the TV series, which might have worked better.A huge disappointment and not really worth your time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-466

ur0137908

title: complete and utter misfire review: Afficinados of 1960s television will remember 'Bewitched', with Elizabeth Montgomery, Agnes Moorehead, and Dick York (and later, Dick Sargent). That TV series was sharp, colourful, and still stands the test of time. Like other series such as 'I Dream of Jeannie', it sat perfectly in its time and is still funny and relevant today.Compare that with this mess from 2005 with a miscast Nicole Kidman and no wit whatsoever. Watching this film is a bore and a drag and it really has no redeeming features; it isn't an affectionate tribute or pastiche or parody of the TV series, which might have worked better.A huge disappointment and not really worth your time.

Will Ferrell Tries His Best To Save This...Dead Duck

tt0374536

Out in California's San Fernando Valley, Isabel is trying to reinvent herself. A naive, good-natured witch, she is determined to disavow her supernatural powers and lead a normal life. At the same time, across town, Jack Wyatt a tall, charming actor is trying to get his career back on track. He sets his sights on an updated version of the beloved 1960s situation comedy Bewitched, re-conceived as a starring vehicle for himself in the role of the mere-mortal Darrin. Fate steps in when Jack accidentally runs into Isabel. He is immediately attracted to her and her nose, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the nose of Elizabeth Montgomery, who played Samantha in the original TV version of Bewitched. He becomes convinced she could play the witch Samantha in his new series. Isabel is also taken with Jack, seeing him as the quintessential mortal man with whom she can settle down and lead the normal life she so desires. It turns out they're both right--but in ways neither of them ever imagined.Nicole Kidman is a good actress. Will Ferrell is a funny comedian. Nora Ephron is a decent director who knows how to handle romantic comedies. So how could this remake of a classic TV show with a lot of things going right for it end up being a dead duck, well....nothing that I just mentioned shows up in this film.Kidman is hard to watch as she delivers her lines like a fragile child with absolutely no credibility. Will Ferrell tries his best to get a laugh out of the material that was written, and uses a lot of improve to get those laughs, but ultimately comes off as acting like a child. Nora Ephron seemed like she didn't know what she wanted from her actors, or from the script, a child could do a better job and I'm pretty sure that this was written by a child.The script is where the film is really falls flat, there seemed like there was none. The whole filmed seemed like it was rushed and there is absolutely no chemistry between Kidman and Ferrell, or even Ferrell and Ephron for that matter. Putting these two together was a disaster. It seemed that Ephron didn't know how to handle Ferrell's quick comedy and just threw all his jokes in, funny or not. Steve Carrell, who is funny with hits like The Office and Virgin, doesn't know how to do good impersonations. Seemed like a last ditch effort to try and hit us with more childish comedy. Every other character in the movie is boring and useless. It's sad to see Micheal Cain in this heap. It was hard for me to watch this film, seeing Cain use his magic right in broad daylight on the street and no one noticing. When an umbrella appears out of nowhere, you must think that something is up. The highlight of the film, as low as it may be is indeed Ferrell. The only decent and somewhat funny parts in the film is when he has a hex on him, or a spell. That's where Ferrell can have his fun, much like Carell did in Bruce Almighty. The film ends quickly as well, probably due to poor test screenings. So we all get that 6 months later crap and see how the two end up.In the end, this is a horrible remake, with a horrible team behind it, Ferrell needs to choose his projects wisely, not only must the material be funny, but there needs to be a good director behind it. You'd think after Kicking and Screaming he would acknowledge that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-338

ur1878251

title: Will Ferrell Tries His Best To Save This...Dead Duck review: Out in California's San Fernando Valley, Isabel is trying to reinvent herself. A naive, good-natured witch, she is determined to disavow her supernatural powers and lead a normal life. At the same time, across town, Jack Wyatt a tall, charming actor is trying to get his career back on track. He sets his sights on an updated version of the beloved 1960s situation comedy Bewitched, re-conceived as a starring vehicle for himself in the role of the mere-mortal Darrin. Fate steps in when Jack accidentally runs into Isabel. He is immediately attracted to her and her nose, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the nose of Elizabeth Montgomery, who played Samantha in the original TV version of Bewitched. He becomes convinced she could play the witch Samantha in his new series. Isabel is also taken with Jack, seeing him as the quintessential mortal man with whom she can settle down and lead the normal life she so desires. It turns out they're both right--but in ways neither of them ever imagined.Nicole Kidman is a good actress. Will Ferrell is a funny comedian. Nora Ephron is a decent director who knows how to handle romantic comedies. So how could this remake of a classic TV show with a lot of things going right for it end up being a dead duck, well....nothing that I just mentioned shows up in this film.Kidman is hard to watch as she delivers her lines like a fragile child with absolutely no credibility. Will Ferrell tries his best to get a laugh out of the material that was written, and uses a lot of improve to get those laughs, but ultimately comes off as acting like a child. Nora Ephron seemed like she didn't know what she wanted from her actors, or from the script, a child could do a better job and I'm pretty sure that this was written by a child.The script is where the film is really falls flat, there seemed like there was none. The whole filmed seemed like it was rushed and there is absolutely no chemistry between Kidman and Ferrell, or even Ferrell and Ephron for that matter. Putting these two together was a disaster. It seemed that Ephron didn't know how to handle Ferrell's quick comedy and just threw all his jokes in, funny or not. Steve Carrell, who is funny with hits like The Office and Virgin, doesn't know how to do good impersonations. Seemed like a last ditch effort to try and hit us with more childish comedy. Every other character in the movie is boring and useless. It's sad to see Micheal Cain in this heap. It was hard for me to watch this film, seeing Cain use his magic right in broad daylight on the street and no one noticing. When an umbrella appears out of nowhere, you must think that something is up. The highlight of the film, as low as it may be is indeed Ferrell. The only decent and somewhat funny parts in the film is when he has a hex on him, or a spell. That's where Ferrell can have his fun, much like Carell did in Bruce Almighty. The film ends quickly as well, probably due to poor test screenings. So we all get that 6 months later crap and see how the two end up.In the end, this is a horrible remake, with a horrible team behind it, Ferrell needs to choose his projects wisely, not only must the material be funny, but there needs to be a good director behind it. You'd think after Kicking and Screaming he would acknowledge that.

Sorta kinda OK

tt0374536

Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman) is a witch that wants to lead a normal life free of magic and spells, much to the chagrin of her father (played by Michael Cain). Ironically enough, she gets a role on a TV program playing Samantha, the witch from Bewitched.I thought this was a very weak story. And without Will Ferrell, this movie would have been a total bust. He provided the only comedy to be seen in this movie. Nicole Kidman was just annoying. And Michael Cain's character had no real purpose. I don't remember the original Samantha being half as annoying as Nicole Kidman was. The movie was sorta cute and kinda funny.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-435

ur3670492

title: Sorta kinda OK review: Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman) is a witch that wants to lead a normal life free of magic and spells, much to the chagrin of her father (played by Michael Cain). Ironically enough, she gets a role on a TV program playing Samantha, the witch from Bewitched.I thought this was a very weak story. And without Will Ferrell, this movie would have been a total bust. He provided the only comedy to be seen in this movie. Nicole Kidman was just annoying. And Michael Cain's character had no real purpose. I don't remember the original Samantha being half as annoying as Nicole Kidman was. The movie was sorta cute and kinda funny.

A good idea..but good ideas will only get you so far

tt0374536

Bewitched is the gazillionth "remake" of an old television show. At first, remakes of such television shows gained oohs and ahs and were things film goers looked forward to. By now, though, such remakes are goose eggs to critics, even if they perform moderately well at the box office.Bewitched is a remake that realizes that to earn some credibility, something different must be done. So someone has the bright idea of making a movie about remaking "Bewitched." In the hands of Spike Jonze, an idea like this might come off brilliant and satirical. Instead, the film is about a real life witch taking the part of Samantha and the lovely cast of characters that surround her who bear a strong resemblance to the characters on the TV show or decades past. Oh yeah, and Will Ferrel, portraying a once famous actor reduced to playing TV roles, such as Darren on Bewitched.Though the plot is not the most inspired thing in the world, it easily lends itself to inspired gags of irony and satire. The filmmakers don't go that route and instead make a somewhat formulaic romantic comedy that isn't very funny. It also doesn't take advantage of its incredibly talented cast. Ferrel, spot on in comedies like Anchorman, Old School, and Elf, doesn't get good use of his improvisational skills and his more humorous qualities. For an actor with his comedic talent, he doesn't have much to do. Nicole Kidman is well cast, while super funny Stephen Colbert seems to be in this film for no visible purpose. There is a funny scene with Steve Carrel in this movie, but that's about all I laughed at in this generally unfunny "homage." With all the talent that went with this movie, I'm surprised it wasn't better. I honestly believe that much like the dilemma in this film, the filmmakers were afraid to touch the golden Bewitched. Perhaps they should've shot for a more straight forward remake, or show some hint of an original storyline. However, the film sets itself apart from other remakes by at least making a somewhat noble, though weak attempt, to do something different for a remake.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-420

ur7519840

title: A good idea..but good ideas will only get you so far review: Bewitched is the gazillionth "remake" of an old television show. At first, remakes of such television shows gained oohs and ahs and were things film goers looked forward to. By now, though, such remakes are goose eggs to critics, even if they perform moderately well at the box office.Bewitched is a remake that realizes that to earn some credibility, something different must be done. So someone has the bright idea of making a movie about remaking "Bewitched." In the hands of Spike Jonze, an idea like this might come off brilliant and satirical. Instead, the film is about a real life witch taking the part of Samantha and the lovely cast of characters that surround her who bear a strong resemblance to the characters on the TV show or decades past. Oh yeah, and Will Ferrel, portraying a once famous actor reduced to playing TV roles, such as Darren on Bewitched.Though the plot is not the most inspired thing in the world, it easily lends itself to inspired gags of irony and satire. The filmmakers don't go that route and instead make a somewhat formulaic romantic comedy that isn't very funny. It also doesn't take advantage of its incredibly talented cast. Ferrel, spot on in comedies like Anchorman, Old School, and Elf, doesn't get good use of his improvisational skills and his more humorous qualities. For an actor with his comedic talent, he doesn't have much to do. Nicole Kidman is well cast, while super funny Stephen Colbert seems to be in this film for no visible purpose. There is a funny scene with Steve Carrel in this movie, but that's about all I laughed at in this generally unfunny "homage." With all the talent that went with this movie, I'm surprised it wasn't better. I honestly believe that much like the dilemma in this film, the filmmakers were afraid to touch the golden Bewitched. Perhaps they should've shot for a more straight forward remake, or show some hint of an original storyline. However, the film sets itself apart from other remakes by at least making a somewhat noble, though weak attempt, to do something different for a remake.

a movie I thought I would hate but I really like it

tt0374536

Now don't go on and saying that I have very bad taste and don't belong on this website, this is not kind of movie I like movies like no country for old, fight club, and eternal sunshine of the spotless mind and so on. First I am a big fan of all the actors in this movie and I decided to get this movie a chance and hated it. Then recently it was on TBS and watch some of it and I starting to like this and decided to give a second chance and I really don't do that and was very glad. This movie was funny and kind sweet but no that much the acting was good and funny and especially by Will Ferrel. The only thing that I didn't like about this movie was that the story like so many movies. For some reason I like this movie and a lot of people this and I was kinda shock with a 5.0 rating. This movie was pretty good and you should kinda check out this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-454

ur16927896

title: a movie I thought I would hate but I really like it review: Now don't go on and saying that I have very bad taste and don't belong on this website, this is not kind of movie I like movies like no country for old, fight club, and eternal sunshine of the spotless mind and so on. First I am a big fan of all the actors in this movie and I decided to get this movie a chance and hated it. Then recently it was on TBS and watch some of it and I starting to like this and decided to give a second chance and I really don't do that and was very glad. This movie was funny and kind sweet but no that much the acting was good and funny and especially by Will Ferrel. The only thing that I didn't like about this movie was that the story like so many movies. For some reason I like this movie and a lot of people this and I was kinda shock with a 5.0 rating. This movie was pretty good and you should kinda check out this movie.

Presto! A Double-Whammy, $85 Million Fiasco

tt0374536

With the likes of that conniving, little minx, Nicole Kidman, and that big, slimy ferret, Will Ferrell, you'd honestly think that the chemistry between these 2 major misfits would spark some sort of movie-magic on screen. Wouldn't you? But, no, when it came to Kidman and Ferrell here in Bewitched, there couldn't have been any less mutual attraction happening between these 2 actors, had they actually been appearing in 2 separate movies.Bewitched is, at best, an ill-conceived Romantic-Comedy that clearly cries out, from beginning to end, for some real, honest-to-goodness magic to take place in it in order to make the storyline actually work the way that it should.Kidman plays Isabel Bigelow, a spoiled San Fernando valley-girl, who just so happens to be a real-life witch (a good one, of course). Isabel is so tired of all the hocus-pocus stuff (oh, really!?), and so she dreams of the day when she can be a regular, little drip, just like everyone else. (ho-hum) Ferrell (who already is a real-life drip) plays drip-actor Jack Wyatt, a totally despicable, self-loving bugger who is exactly like Ferrell probably is in real life - A drip.As the story goes - Jack (the jerk) is soon to be starring in the upcoming, updated version of the trite, 1960s, TV sitcom "Bewitched". Jack meets Isabel one day, becomes sexually fixated on her cute, crinkly, little nose, and decides right then and there that she's the one to play "Bewitched's" Samantha opposite his Darren.Believe me, cheesy visual effects aside, this film's premise rings so utterly artificial throughout, that not even voodoo could save it from ending up in the "dollar bin" at a bloody Wal-Mart. No, it couldn't.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-489

ur27361979

title: Presto! A Double-Whammy, $85 Million Fiasco review: With the likes of that conniving, little minx, Nicole Kidman, and that big, slimy ferret, Will Ferrell, you'd honestly think that the chemistry between these 2 major misfits would spark some sort of movie-magic on screen. Wouldn't you? But, no, when it came to Kidman and Ferrell here in Bewitched, there couldn't have been any less mutual attraction happening between these 2 actors, had they actually been appearing in 2 separate movies.Bewitched is, at best, an ill-conceived Romantic-Comedy that clearly cries out, from beginning to end, for some real, honest-to-goodness magic to take place in it in order to make the storyline actually work the way that it should.Kidman plays Isabel Bigelow, a spoiled San Fernando valley-girl, who just so happens to be a real-life witch (a good one, of course). Isabel is so tired of all the hocus-pocus stuff (oh, really!?), and so she dreams of the day when she can be a regular, little drip, just like everyone else. (ho-hum) Ferrell (who already is a real-life drip) plays drip-actor Jack Wyatt, a totally despicable, self-loving bugger who is exactly like Ferrell probably is in real life - A drip.As the story goes - Jack (the jerk) is soon to be starring in the upcoming, updated version of the trite, 1960s, TV sitcom "Bewitched". Jack meets Isabel one day, becomes sexually fixated on her cute, crinkly, little nose, and decides right then and there that she's the one to play "Bewitched's" Samantha opposite his Darren.Believe me, cheesy visual effects aside, this film's premise rings so utterly artificial throughout, that not even voodoo could save it from ending up in the "dollar bin" at a bloody Wal-Mart. No, it couldn't.

I've had more fun sweeping a yard - 24%

tt0374536

Nostalgia is only fun when you're thinking about it, not when you're forced to watch it. Yes, my Better Half's influence over me is as strong as ever when she brought back three DVDs from a fellow (female) work colleague for a girlie night in. Given a choice between this, something unappealing with Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan's "Just My Luck", I figured this was the safest option out of the three. But if it is, the others must be really awful because this was a huge disappointment. Feeling like a self-referencing tribute to a half-baked Sixties sitcom, this is one film that probably looked much better on paper than it does on screen.Fallen Hollywood star Jack Wyatt (Will Farrell) is cast in a remake of the "Bewitched" TV series as Darrin but his ego insists that an unknown is cast as Samantha, his witch wife struggling to leave her powers behind while keeping them a secret from everyone else. Bumping into the beautiful Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), he decides to cast her immediately, hoping that her naivety and inexperience will improve his standing with the audience. But his decision is a bad one for two reasons: his co-star is soon demanding a bigger role after rave reviews and to everybody's surprise, Isabel is a real witch trying to escape her spell-casting kind and the interference of her meddling father Nigel (Michael Caine). Not that anybody else can tell...It's hard to say exactly why "Bewitched" fails in almost every respect. It's overly complicated and yet devoid of inspiration in equal measures, being far too clever for its own good. The original was a harmless, simple idea that worked due to good ideas and chemistry between the leads. Kidman and Ferrell have less romantic chemistry than a couple of cold potatoes and that alone is almost enough to kill the movie stone-dead. Caine tries his best to salvage what he can as the slimy, womanising warlock and is matched line-for-line by Shirley MacLaine as Iris Smythson, the actress playing Endora. Steve Carell is spookily accurate as Uncle Arthur but like the film as a whole, he tries too hard to replicate the magic which this was never going to do. In some ways, it was similar to the "Starsky & Hutch" movie in that all it made you feel like was going out and buying the DVD box-sets. And to be honest, "Bewitched" was before my time anyway so I never felt the original deserved this treatment but Hell, if they're gonna do "Dallas" as well, where will it stop? "Airwolf 2012?" "The All New Fall Guy?"I wouldn't say I had high hopes for this (considering the opposition) but even those were dashed. It has brief moments that capture your attention such as the cleverly worked CG entrance of Nigel via a studio backdrop but by and large, it is devoid of any real humour, imagination and romance. And a rom-com with no comedy or romance is doomed to fail. Kidman must have only thought about paying the bills while Ferrell does his usual "unleashed maniac" thing yet again. The cast and crew make up for the film's flaws with sheer enthusiasm but in the end, it isn't enough. "Bewitched" completely failed to capture me in its spell and I strongly suspect that unless you're a complete fan-boy of the original, you'd be wise to stay away.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-447

ur3035115

title: I've had more fun sweeping a yard - 24% review: Nostalgia is only fun when you're thinking about it, not when you're forced to watch it. Yes, my Better Half's influence over me is as strong as ever when she brought back three DVDs from a fellow (female) work colleague for a girlie night in. Given a choice between this, something unappealing with Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan's "Just My Luck", I figured this was the safest option out of the three. But if it is, the others must be really awful because this was a huge disappointment. Feeling like a self-referencing tribute to a half-baked Sixties sitcom, this is one film that probably looked much better on paper than it does on screen.Fallen Hollywood star Jack Wyatt (Will Farrell) is cast in a remake of the "Bewitched" TV series as Darrin but his ego insists that an unknown is cast as Samantha, his witch wife struggling to leave her powers behind while keeping them a secret from everyone else. Bumping into the beautiful Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), he decides to cast her immediately, hoping that her naivety and inexperience will improve his standing with the audience. But his decision is a bad one for two reasons: his co-star is soon demanding a bigger role after rave reviews and to everybody's surprise, Isabel is a real witch trying to escape her spell-casting kind and the interference of her meddling father Nigel (Michael Caine). Not that anybody else can tell...It's hard to say exactly why "Bewitched" fails in almost every respect. It's overly complicated and yet devoid of inspiration in equal measures, being far too clever for its own good. The original was a harmless, simple idea that worked due to good ideas and chemistry between the leads. Kidman and Ferrell have less romantic chemistry than a couple of cold potatoes and that alone is almost enough to kill the movie stone-dead. Caine tries his best to salvage what he can as the slimy, womanising warlock and is matched line-for-line by Shirley MacLaine as Iris Smythson, the actress playing Endora. Steve Carell is spookily accurate as Uncle Arthur but like the film as a whole, he tries too hard to replicate the magic which this was never going to do. In some ways, it was similar to the "Starsky & Hutch" movie in that all it made you feel like was going out and buying the DVD box-sets. And to be honest, "Bewitched" was before my time anyway so I never felt the original deserved this treatment but Hell, if they're gonna do "Dallas" as well, where will it stop? "Airwolf 2012?" "The All New Fall Guy?"I wouldn't say I had high hopes for this (considering the opposition) but even those were dashed. It has brief moments that capture your attention such as the cleverly worked CG entrance of Nigel via a studio backdrop but by and large, it is devoid of any real humour, imagination and romance. And a rom-com with no comedy or romance is doomed to fail. Kidman must have only thought about paying the bills while Ferrell does his usual "unleashed maniac" thing yet again. The cast and crew make up for the film's flaws with sheer enthusiasm but in the end, it isn't enough. "Bewitched" completely failed to capture me in its spell and I strongly suspect that unless you're a complete fan-boy of the original, you'd be wise to stay away.

I Found It Enjoyable!

tt0374536

Lots of bad press here for this movie, and I think I understand some of it and am not sure of all of it. Director Nora Ephron wanted to do something different here and not make some mindless new age clone of an old beloved sitcom. Kudos to her. What she did do is make a very, VERY lighthearted film that at its heart is nothing more than a romantic comedy with Bewitched serving as the set and basic premise of the story. Nicole Kidman is as cute as a button(to use a well-worn cliché)and an acceptable replacement for Samantha. Will Ferrell gives yet another engaging, but incredibly frenetic comedic performance. The rest of the cast is fun if nothing else. I thought Michael Caine was very good in his role as Kidman's father, popping up all over the place. To be sure one of the film's highlights is seeing his face materialize all over various products in a grocery store. Shirley Maclaine is adequate but really wasted in her role. Delightful Carole Shelley plays Aunt Clara with dotty aplomb. The biggest surprise was Steve Carrell giving a dead-on impersonation of Uncle Arthur. He had the inflection, tone, mannerisms down pat. Only trouble is that his character depth was something one might see from a stand-up comedian. It is just too over-the-top, but enjoyable to a degree to see. Yes, I agree that there is virtually no meat here, but Bewitched was, at least for me, a fun, humorous film. It gives off a good feeling while watching it. It is lightly romantic. Beautiful old tunes play throughout crooned by the likes of Sinatra, etc... It is a film with heart. By the way, it also has some pretty funny moments. Caine and his dialog score big, and Ferrell and his never-ending ability to do whatever without fear of embarrassment never seems to fail. This man has no fears it would seem. He has some surprisingly funny moments particularly when various channels play showing a range of his performances as an over-acting actor. Ephron closes the film way too abruptly, but overall she did a satisfactory job in creating the lighthearted mood of the old show. You know, maybe it would have been more interesting staying close to the source material. Maybe I would have liked to have seen the next door neighbors more, Dr. Bombay, the "real" Uncle Arthur, and Darren's boss Larry Tate. Not to mention Aunt Hagatha and Aunt Esmerelda. Maybe Serena too. Hey, it is just a 2 hour movie. And what if it had been done in "real" time like The Honeymooners(I cringe as I write this) or other sequels that pander to a below-average intelligence with maybe Samatha swearing and wearing hardly any clothes and rap music opening the film. That's OK...I would rather have this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-295

ur0166205

title: I Found It Enjoyable! review: Lots of bad press here for this movie, and I think I understand some of it and am not sure of all of it. Director Nora Ephron wanted to do something different here and not make some mindless new age clone of an old beloved sitcom. Kudos to her. What she did do is make a very, VERY lighthearted film that at its heart is nothing more than a romantic comedy with Bewitched serving as the set and basic premise of the story. Nicole Kidman is as cute as a button(to use a well-worn cliché)and an acceptable replacement for Samantha. Will Ferrell gives yet another engaging, but incredibly frenetic comedic performance. The rest of the cast is fun if nothing else. I thought Michael Caine was very good in his role as Kidman's father, popping up all over the place. To be sure one of the film's highlights is seeing his face materialize all over various products in a grocery store. Shirley Maclaine is adequate but really wasted in her role. Delightful Carole Shelley plays Aunt Clara with dotty aplomb. The biggest surprise was Steve Carrell giving a dead-on impersonation of Uncle Arthur. He had the inflection, tone, mannerisms down pat. Only trouble is that his character depth was something one might see from a stand-up comedian. It is just too over-the-top, but enjoyable to a degree to see. Yes, I agree that there is virtually no meat here, but Bewitched was, at least for me, a fun, humorous film. It gives off a good feeling while watching it. It is lightly romantic. Beautiful old tunes play throughout crooned by the likes of Sinatra, etc... It is a film with heart. By the way, it also has some pretty funny moments. Caine and his dialog score big, and Ferrell and his never-ending ability to do whatever without fear of embarrassment never seems to fail. This man has no fears it would seem. He has some surprisingly funny moments particularly when various channels play showing a range of his performances as an over-acting actor. Ephron closes the film way too abruptly, but overall she did a satisfactory job in creating the lighthearted mood of the old show. You know, maybe it would have been more interesting staying close to the source material. Maybe I would have liked to have seen the next door neighbors more, Dr. Bombay, the "real" Uncle Arthur, and Darren's boss Larry Tate. Not to mention Aunt Hagatha and Aunt Esmerelda. Maybe Serena too. Hey, it is just a 2 hour movie. And what if it had been done in "real" time like The Honeymooners(I cringe as I write this) or other sequels that pander to a below-average intelligence with maybe Samatha swearing and wearing hardly any clothes and rap music opening the film. That's OK...I would rather have this.

Misdirected Misfire Needs Elizabeth Montgomery Badly

tt0374536

Nothing irks me more than a blown opportunity for rejuvenating a fondly remembered sitcom that evokes instant nostalgia among baby-boomers but somehow misses the point of why the original show was so beloved. It appears director and co-writer Nora Ephron, along with her co-writer and sister Delia, got caught up in their own cleverness. They start with an only-in-Hollywood conceit, focusing the story on the effort to remake the "Bewitched" sitcom rather than trying to update the odd goings-on at the Stephens household for the new millennium. I applaud the originality of the concept, but the execution falls so flat that I was sighing at what should have been. There is some mild amusement with the show business sequences, such as the poolside negotiation, the auditions, the cartoon opening refocused completely on Darrin, and Samantha's on-set witchcraft. However, the love story, in particular, in the last half-hour, nosedives into predictability compounded by the lack of chemistry between the leads.An otherwise stellar cast has been set adrift. As Isabel Bigelow, a real witch tapped to play Samantha, Nicole Kidman is inarguably beautiful but oddly disjointed doing a breathy Meg Ryan impersonation. Kidman is an actress who depends on her fierce intelligence to maximize her effectiveness in roles, but she seems so preoccupied with being child-like and vulnerable that she often comes across as a graduate of a special education program. What she most lacks is the sense of bemused irony and saucy knowingness that Elizabeth Montgomery naturally brought to the role, but frankly that would have been an impossible task anyway. Will Ferrell steals the picture as fading star Jack Wyatt, but it's a petty crime at best. The character is such a complete jerk that one wonders whether Isabel just enjoys being a victim. While quite funny at times (especially as Isabel's witchcraft mangles his dinner scene on the sitcom set), there is an air of desperation in his antics as if he was the after-dinner entertainment on the Titanic.Standing in for Agnes Moorehead, Shirley MacLaine has a role that consists of a series of grand entrances and unfortunately due to the role-within-role she plays, there is not much for her to do besides some empty canoodling with Michael Caine, who plays Nigel, Isabel's erudite warlock father. In separate sequences that seem to function as pure nostalgia, Carole Shelley lacks Marion Lorne's genuine befuddlement as pixilated Aunt Clara, and Steve Carell does a merely adequate Paul Lynde as jokester Uncle Arthur. And the movie unforgivably wastes Amy Sedaris as nosy Gladys Kravitz. In new roles, helium-voiced Kristin Chenoweth fares better as Isabel's man-hungry neighbor Maria, as does Jason Schwartzman who captures the requisite oiliness of Jack's sycophant manager Ritchie.The 1960's sitcom was really not that great, just silly fun with a sharp cast, but this movie makes it seem as profound as Shakespeare. Scenes from the show's first episode are interjected to remind us of its legacy, and Montgomery's Samantha is deified absurdly in an animated glossy. Watching this movie at a sneak preview among a sea of giggling children, I was overcome with the depressing feeling that this movie was hobbled together by committee driven by the studio's profitability demographic profile. Unlike an Alexander Payne or even a David O. Russell, Ephron simply does not provide any distinctive point of view here that could have made it more memorable. It could have been either a sharp post-feminist tract using witchcraft as a proxy for female empowerment or a social comedy about discrimination or mixed marriages. Instead, the film is a synthetic and forgettable waste of talent. I pray there is no sequel in the works.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-332

ur3608743

title: Misdirected Misfire Needs Elizabeth Montgomery Badly review: Nothing irks me more than a blown opportunity for rejuvenating a fondly remembered sitcom that evokes instant nostalgia among baby-boomers but somehow misses the point of why the original show was so beloved. It appears director and co-writer Nora Ephron, along with her co-writer and sister Delia, got caught up in their own cleverness. They start with an only-in-Hollywood conceit, focusing the story on the effort to remake the "Bewitched" sitcom rather than trying to update the odd goings-on at the Stephens household for the new millennium. I applaud the originality of the concept, but the execution falls so flat that I was sighing at what should have been. There is some mild amusement with the show business sequences, such as the poolside negotiation, the auditions, the cartoon opening refocused completely on Darrin, and Samantha's on-set witchcraft. However, the love story, in particular, in the last half-hour, nosedives into predictability compounded by the lack of chemistry between the leads.An otherwise stellar cast has been set adrift. As Isabel Bigelow, a real witch tapped to play Samantha, Nicole Kidman is inarguably beautiful but oddly disjointed doing a breathy Meg Ryan impersonation. Kidman is an actress who depends on her fierce intelligence to maximize her effectiveness in roles, but she seems so preoccupied with being child-like and vulnerable that she often comes across as a graduate of a special education program. What she most lacks is the sense of bemused irony and saucy knowingness that Elizabeth Montgomery naturally brought to the role, but frankly that would have been an impossible task anyway. Will Ferrell steals the picture as fading star Jack Wyatt, but it's a petty crime at best. The character is such a complete jerk that one wonders whether Isabel just enjoys being a victim. While quite funny at times (especially as Isabel's witchcraft mangles his dinner scene on the sitcom set), there is an air of desperation in his antics as if he was the after-dinner entertainment on the Titanic.Standing in for Agnes Moorehead, Shirley MacLaine has a role that consists of a series of grand entrances and unfortunately due to the role-within-role she plays, there is not much for her to do besides some empty canoodling with Michael Caine, who plays Nigel, Isabel's erudite warlock father. In separate sequences that seem to function as pure nostalgia, Carole Shelley lacks Marion Lorne's genuine befuddlement as pixilated Aunt Clara, and Steve Carell does a merely adequate Paul Lynde as jokester Uncle Arthur. And the movie unforgivably wastes Amy Sedaris as nosy Gladys Kravitz. In new roles, helium-voiced Kristin Chenoweth fares better as Isabel's man-hungry neighbor Maria, as does Jason Schwartzman who captures the requisite oiliness of Jack's sycophant manager Ritchie.The 1960's sitcom was really not that great, just silly fun with a sharp cast, but this movie makes it seem as profound as Shakespeare. Scenes from the show's first episode are interjected to remind us of its legacy, and Montgomery's Samantha is deified absurdly in an animated glossy. Watching this movie at a sneak preview among a sea of giggling children, I was overcome with the depressing feeling that this movie was hobbled together by committee driven by the studio's profitability demographic profile. Unlike an Alexander Payne or even a David O. Russell, Ephron simply does not provide any distinctive point of view here that could have made it more memorable. It could have been either a sharp post-feminist tract using witchcraft as a proxy for female empowerment or a social comedy about discrimination or mixed marriages. Instead, the film is a synthetic and forgettable waste of talent. I pray there is no sequel in the works.

Stop Will Ferrell! Stop him I say! Stop him NOW!

tt0374536

Ugh! What a horrible mess this film is. Through most of it, I sat (between bouts of intense boredom and fingernail examination) wondering what luminary of the casting world decided that Will Ferrell would make an acceptable Darren. He's just woefully miscast and inappropriate.It seems that Ferrell, who can be very funny in the right role, just grabs at any movie script that passes under his nose these days, usually with hideous results. He made six movies this year and with another four slated for next year, is it any wonder that most of them will be crap? I say stop him now! Before he embarrasses himself further with his awful mugging and capering and taking any part he can find. Or at least teach him that "more is not necessarily better".As for the movie, even removing Ferrell from the equation, it stunk pretty bad. Kidman was pretty good as Samantha and Shirley McClaine did a wonderful Endora. But the rest of it was just beyond lameness. Another excellent example of how Hollywood cannot think of new scripts anymore. Dear God! I hear they are going to do "I Dream of Jeannie" next, as well. God help us all.I can't even begin to describe how dull and pointless this film was. It was one of those "gentle" comedies you hear mentioned. In this case, gentle meant "unfunny and yawn-inducing".Avoid it. It'll make you do more than wrinkle your nose up, if you don't.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-266

ur1980092

title: Stop Will Ferrell! Stop him I say! Stop him NOW! review: Ugh! What a horrible mess this film is. Through most of it, I sat (between bouts of intense boredom and fingernail examination) wondering what luminary of the casting world decided that Will Ferrell would make an acceptable Darren. He's just woefully miscast and inappropriate.It seems that Ferrell, who can be very funny in the right role, just grabs at any movie script that passes under his nose these days, usually with hideous results. He made six movies this year and with another four slated for next year, is it any wonder that most of them will be crap? I say stop him now! Before he embarrasses himself further with his awful mugging and capering and taking any part he can find. Or at least teach him that "more is not necessarily better".As for the movie, even removing Ferrell from the equation, it stunk pretty bad. Kidman was pretty good as Samantha and Shirley McClaine did a wonderful Endora. But the rest of it was just beyond lameness. Another excellent example of how Hollywood cannot think of new scripts anymore. Dear God! I hear they are going to do "I Dream of Jeannie" next, as well. God help us all.I can't even begin to describe how dull and pointless this film was. It was one of those "gentle" comedies you hear mentioned. In this case, gentle meant "unfunny and yawn-inducing".Avoid it. It'll make you do more than wrinkle your nose up, if you don't.

Its cute! What's the big deal here?!

tt0374536

There have been so many terrible movies forced down our throats this year, most of them pushing sex and violence to keep the audience's attention... its kind of nice to change the pace.Finally a show that's not a pixar animation for kids, not some cheesy horror movie with Paris Hilton, and not a super-hero violence included remake of a comic book.Here is a show that doesn't use sex, violence, or foul language to entertain. It was a cute show. It wasn't hilarious, but it was giggle worthy. Ferrell and Kidman had great chemistry together, Kidman was adorable as a kind of ditzy starry eyed Isabel, and Ferrel was hilarious as the dopey wannabe big again actor.Unlike most movies where the only decent parts are shown on the TV teaser trailers, so that its a huge disappointment to see the rest of the movie... this had many endearing and funny scenes.to compare it to the original series to this movie does a dis-service to the film. Its like comparing the Harry Potter movies to Lord of the Rings. Same premise... fantasy- wizards, magic, quests, danger- but while alike in many ways, they are still totally different. Sure this was a movie about remaking Bewitched, but they gave it their own twists to the story... and it worked out well.The actors did a great job, and I think everyone will enjoy the little twists and turns of the show. I think its unfair to cast such heavy scrutiny on the movie. Its a no-brainer. So what? You want a deep thought provoking film, go rent some obscure foreign film. This movie is simply cute. Take it for what it is.ps... best if seen with a date ^_^

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-95

ur3546597

title: Its cute! What's the big deal here?! review: There have been so many terrible movies forced down our throats this year, most of them pushing sex and violence to keep the audience's attention... its kind of nice to change the pace.Finally a show that's not a pixar animation for kids, not some cheesy horror movie with Paris Hilton, and not a super-hero violence included remake of a comic book.Here is a show that doesn't use sex, violence, or foul language to entertain. It was a cute show. It wasn't hilarious, but it was giggle worthy. Ferrell and Kidman had great chemistry together, Kidman was adorable as a kind of ditzy starry eyed Isabel, and Ferrel was hilarious as the dopey wannabe big again actor.Unlike most movies where the only decent parts are shown on the TV teaser trailers, so that its a huge disappointment to see the rest of the movie... this had many endearing and funny scenes.to compare it to the original series to this movie does a dis-service to the film. Its like comparing the Harry Potter movies to Lord of the Rings. Same premise... fantasy- wizards, magic, quests, danger- but while alike in many ways, they are still totally different. Sure this was a movie about remaking Bewitched, but they gave it their own twists to the story... and it worked out well.The actors did a great job, and I think everyone will enjoy the little twists and turns of the show. I think its unfair to cast such heavy scrutiny on the movie. Its a no-brainer. So what? You want a deep thought provoking film, go rent some obscure foreign film. This movie is simply cute. Take it for what it is.ps... best if seen with a date ^_^

Will Ferrell - Get Involved Next Time

tt0374536

I'm a Ferrell fan and I couldn't stand this smelly film. What a shame for Ferrell. Even though it would be difficult to blemish a resume like Ferrell's, I think this film does it. This film came to Ferrell during the boom of his career, but that's no excuse for the absence of Ferrell's input. I think had he become more involved in the script the film might have worked better.As it is, this film after the first 10 minutes ceases to work. It declines rapidly into an obvious catch-the-money-and-run popcorn movie. Nicole Kidman just walks through the role of Samantha. Yes, she looks great, she's pretty & sexy, and she does look like Elizabeth Montgomery (TV's Samantha). But looks and her sexy little movements can't carry her role in the film and she comes off weak. Nora Ephron and Delia Ephron should be ashamed for writing this travesty to the original TV "Bewitched." The trend for movie take-offs of original television sitcoms is to ride the name, mention the original and then make fun of, at what at that moment in time was good TV. The result here is a great movie opportunity wasted all for the sake of the Hollywood dollar. Won't it be nice to finally see an honorable recreation of some TV nostalgia on the big screen. The question is when will it happen - cause it happening here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-408

ur11445024

title: Will Ferrell - Get Involved Next Time review: I'm a Ferrell fan and I couldn't stand this smelly film. What a shame for Ferrell. Even though it would be difficult to blemish a resume like Ferrell's, I think this film does it. This film came to Ferrell during the boom of his career, but that's no excuse for the absence of Ferrell's input. I think had he become more involved in the script the film might have worked better.As it is, this film after the first 10 minutes ceases to work. It declines rapidly into an obvious catch-the-money-and-run popcorn movie. Nicole Kidman just walks through the role of Samantha. Yes, she looks great, she's pretty & sexy, and she does look like Elizabeth Montgomery (TV's Samantha). But looks and her sexy little movements can't carry her role in the film and she comes off weak. Nora Ephron and Delia Ephron should be ashamed for writing this travesty to the original TV "Bewitched." The trend for movie take-offs of original television sitcoms is to ride the name, mention the original and then make fun of, at what at that moment in time was good TV. The result here is a great movie opportunity wasted all for the sake of the Hollywood dollar. Won't it be nice to finally see an honorable recreation of some TV nostalgia on the big screen. The question is when will it happen - cause it happening here.

Very good WILL FARRELL MOVIE

tt0374536

This movie was good. I went to see it on a Saturday Night after eating a couple of pieces of KFC. The show WEDDING CRASHERS was sold out, so this was the standby. It was a good movie, don't get me wrong. I could have done without the lovey dovey parts. Nicole Kidman was great. She was the daughter of a witch played by the incomparable MICHAEL CAINE, who was also in COCKTAIL WITH TOM CRUISE, coincidence? You decide. The best scene was when Samantha made Will Farrell say lines all funny like during that dinner scene where there was a DOG. The dog was trying to get taunted by sausage links which was classic. The scenes with Steve Farrell were also amazingly funny. He was playing the Uncle Ernie guy who drove that car around like a maniac! Three toes up to the sky. Tedd Gilbert and Jake Bass may not end up seeing this movie. By the way, Jake is sad today.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-218

ur1214854

title: Very good WILL FARRELL MOVIE review: This movie was good. I went to see it on a Saturday Night after eating a couple of pieces of KFC. The show WEDDING CRASHERS was sold out, so this was the standby. It was a good movie, don't get me wrong. I could have done without the lovey dovey parts. Nicole Kidman was great. She was the daughter of a witch played by the incomparable MICHAEL CAINE, who was also in COCKTAIL WITH TOM CRUISE, coincidence? You decide. The best scene was when Samantha made Will Farrell say lines all funny like during that dinner scene where there was a DOG. The dog was trying to get taunted by sausage links which was classic. The scenes with Steve Farrell were also amazingly funny. He was playing the Uncle Ernie guy who drove that car around like a maniac! Three toes up to the sky. Tedd Gilbert and Jake Bass may not end up seeing this movie. By the way, Jake is sad today.

Had Good Potential but Made Too Many Mistakes,

tt0374536

Bewitched is a very mediocre movie with a promising storyline and a great cast that sadly both failed to be as good as they could have been.Firstly,I don't think this movie should have been about making a remake of Bewitched,it should have just simply been a movie reboot of the well known series Ferrell and Kidman would have done a much better job,I think personally,playing Samantha and Darrin rather than greedy actors that are playing them,also we wouldn't have to have constant jokes about the film industry,they clearly thought they were being clever and self aware but after a while it just got annoying.A lot of people complained about the lack of chemistry between Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman,but I honestly thought they worked quite well together and though I will admit they did not appear to be in love,they looked liked they enjoyed working together.Steve Carell's cameo was my favourite part of the whole movie,he was only beginning to make it big when this came out,but this brief appearance showed that he is a genuinely funny man,this scene and the obvious friendship between him and Ferrell was the only part that had me in stitches.It has some good moments,but honestly Bewitched is not a great or memorable comedy and I would only recommend it to you if it's ever on television and there is nothing else to watch. A real life witch trying to live a non-magical life is cast as Samantha in a TV remake of Bewitched.Best Performance: Steve Carell Worst Performance: Kristen Chenoweth If you have any recommendations on films/TV series I should watch or review,or any questions to ask me,just tweet me @DillonTheHarris

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-505

ur23055365

title: Had Good Potential but Made Too Many Mistakes, review: Bewitched is a very mediocre movie with a promising storyline and a great cast that sadly both failed to be as good as they could have been.Firstly,I don't think this movie should have been about making a remake of Bewitched,it should have just simply been a movie reboot of the well known series Ferrell and Kidman would have done a much better job,I think personally,playing Samantha and Darrin rather than greedy actors that are playing them,also we wouldn't have to have constant jokes about the film industry,they clearly thought they were being clever and self aware but after a while it just got annoying.A lot of people complained about the lack of chemistry between Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman,but I honestly thought they worked quite well together and though I will admit they did not appear to be in love,they looked liked they enjoyed working together.Steve Carell's cameo was my favourite part of the whole movie,he was only beginning to make it big when this came out,but this brief appearance showed that he is a genuinely funny man,this scene and the obvious friendship between him and Ferrell was the only part that had me in stitches.It has some good moments,but honestly Bewitched is not a great or memorable comedy and I would only recommend it to you if it's ever on television and there is nothing else to watch. A real life witch trying to live a non-magical life is cast as Samantha in a TV remake of Bewitched.Best Performance: Steve Carell Worst Performance: Kristen Chenoweth If you have any recommendations on films/TV series I should watch or review,or any questions to ask me,just tweet me @DillonTheHarris

Not Horrid, But Not Great...Much More Palatable On Subsequent Viewings.

tt0374536

First off, Nicole Kidman is among what is RIGHT with this film. She is a delight, and captures the Samantha persona quite well, even through the folded aspect of this role.In fact, everyone is cast well, and works well in their role, right down to David Allen Grier. Everyone that is except Will Farrell. Now I like Farrell, but he has a place, and alongside Nicole Kidman in...ANYthing is NOT IT! His SNL beginnings will prove to be his bread and butter. Talledega Nights is along those lines, and was wildly successful. But standing next to true dramatic talent, his weaknesses and shortcomings are highlighted with neon. Had they cast someone else as Samantha, or chosen a different Darrin, this movie would have experienced a better reception. Will just doesn't fit into this cast. Shirley McLane, Michael Kane, Nicole Kidman and...Will Farrell?! See what I mean? Other than Will, this is a "folded" story, which is just a Hollywood way of saying it's a story within a story. If you're going to remake a work, make a remake with the characters DOING a remake. It's supposed to transition the audience into the whole remake idea, more smoothly. I found it off-putting, but that was because I had specific expectations for this work, and they were not realized.Once past the initial shock of the folded Will Farrell phenomena, this work is more tolerable, and will actually grow on you after a while, especially if you're typically a Kidman or Farrell fan. It's (very) light comedy that works out to be a RomCom of sorts towards the middle.Upon initial viewing, I gave this a 4.4/10. Now that I've had opportunity to get to know and understand the why's and wherefore's, it rates a 6.6/10 from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374536/reviews-437

ur2626332

title: Not Horrid, But Not Great...Much More Palatable On Subsequent Viewings. review: First off, Nicole Kidman is among what is RIGHT with this film. She is a delight, and captures the Samantha persona quite well, even through the folded aspect of this role.In fact, everyone is cast well, and works well in their role, right down to David Allen Grier. Everyone that is except Will Farrell. Now I like Farrell, but he has a place, and alongside Nicole Kidman in...ANYthing is NOT IT! His SNL beginnings will prove to be his bread and butter. Talledega Nights is along those lines, and was wildly successful. But standing next to true dramatic talent, his weaknesses and shortcomings are highlighted with neon. Had they cast someone else as Samantha, or chosen a different Darrin, this movie would have experienced a better reception. Will just doesn't fit into this cast. Shirley McLane, Michael Kane, Nicole Kidman and...Will Farrell?! See what I mean? Other than Will, this is a "folded" story, which is just a Hollywood way of saying it's a story within a story. If you're going to remake a work, make a remake with the characters DOING a remake. It's supposed to transition the audience into the whole remake idea, more smoothly. I found it off-putting, but that was because I had specific expectations for this work, and they were not realized.Once past the initial shock of the folded Will Farrell phenomena, this work is more tolerable, and will actually grow on you after a while, especially if you're typically a Kidman or Farrell fan. It's (very) light comedy that works out to be a RomCom of sorts towards the middle.Upon initial viewing, I gave this a 4.4/10. Now that I've had opportunity to get to know and understand the why's and wherefore's, it rates a 6.6/10 from...the Fiend :.

How not to make a rock opera

tt0073812

Seriously, this one should be a study in how not to adapt a rock opera to film. The casting is seriously questionable. Reed and Margret on screen together are an explosion of overacting waiting to happen. And it happens. With a few exceptional moments, this one is just painful for fans of "The Who" to watch. The exceptions are the "Pinball Wizard" scene with Elton John, "Eyesight to the Blind" with Eric Clapton, and especially "Acid Queen" with Tina Turner in a delirious fit of over the top facial contortions. It's also almost worth watching the film just to see Ann-Margret doused with what looks like literally a ton of baked beans. The scenes with Keith Moon doing "Uncle Ernie" are pretty frightening, but Paul Nicholas' Cousin Kevin is just a sad and unfunny joke. A lot of the interpretations fall flat, though none worse than Margret and Reed's tortured rendition of "21" changed to "51".By the last part of the film if you're a fan of "The Who" you're just waiting for Daltrey to sing so you don't have to put up with any more half baked 70s pop stars' versions of the classic tunes. But the way Russell handled the scenes towards the end makes it something more worthy of being spoofed on MST-3000 than the apocalyptic journey it's supposed to be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-155

ur0178741

title: How not to make a rock opera review: Seriously, this one should be a study in how not to adapt a rock opera to film. The casting is seriously questionable. Reed and Margret on screen together are an explosion of overacting waiting to happen. And it happens. With a few exceptional moments, this one is just painful for fans of "The Who" to watch. The exceptions are the "Pinball Wizard" scene with Elton John, "Eyesight to the Blind" with Eric Clapton, and especially "Acid Queen" with Tina Turner in a delirious fit of over the top facial contortions. It's also almost worth watching the film just to see Ann-Margret doused with what looks like literally a ton of baked beans. The scenes with Keith Moon doing "Uncle Ernie" are pretty frightening, but Paul Nicholas' Cousin Kevin is just a sad and unfunny joke. A lot of the interpretations fall flat, though none worse than Margret and Reed's tortured rendition of "21" changed to "51".By the last part of the film if you're a fan of "The Who" you're just waiting for Daltrey to sing so you don't have to put up with any more half baked 70s pop stars' versions of the classic tunes. But the way Russell handled the scenes towards the end makes it something more worthy of being spoofed on MST-3000 than the apocalyptic journey it's supposed to be.

A Film Way Ahead of its Time

tt0073812

My older brother bought an LP The Who's "Tommy" in the 60's. I was very young but I liked it. It was a project ahead of its time. In the 70's I had a fantastic music teacher who played music soundtracks of several rock artists for my class, included was The Who's Tommy which I remembered immediately. Three years later, this movie came out directed by Ken Russell. I didn't get it at all. I loved the new soundtrack, still do. I loved the performances in the movie by Elton John and Tina Turner. But as a young teen, the movie I didn't get. Well, 20 years went by and on cable I saw Tommy again. This time, I got it. I understood what Ken Russell's vision was and for 1975 it was WAY ahead of its time. It is, in fact, a brilliant masterpiece of 20th Century pop culture: a brave, warped and cartoon mixture of sex, violence, war, religion and celebrity worship with the backdrop of one heck of a rock opera and story by The Who but focusing on the burning questions...what IS the central focus in our lives? Do we choose to look up to the right thing in our lives? And what do they look up to? Do they understand the power they have? Do we? Tommy is an experience in film, not for everyone. Its "out there" but a vision in its tale.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-32

ur0874373

title: A Film Way Ahead of its Time review: My older brother bought an LP The Who's "Tommy" in the 60's. I was very young but I liked it. It was a project ahead of its time. In the 70's I had a fantastic music teacher who played music soundtracks of several rock artists for my class, included was The Who's Tommy which I remembered immediately. Three years later, this movie came out directed by Ken Russell. I didn't get it at all. I loved the new soundtrack, still do. I loved the performances in the movie by Elton John and Tina Turner. But as a young teen, the movie I didn't get. Well, 20 years went by and on cable I saw Tommy again. This time, I got it. I understood what Ken Russell's vision was and for 1975 it was WAY ahead of its time. It is, in fact, a brilliant masterpiece of 20th Century pop culture: a brave, warped and cartoon mixture of sex, violence, war, religion and celebrity worship with the backdrop of one heck of a rock opera and story by The Who but focusing on the burning questions...what IS the central focus in our lives? Do we choose to look up to the right thing in our lives? And what do they look up to? Do they understand the power they have? Do we? Tommy is an experience in film, not for everyone. Its "out there" but a vision in its tale.

Incredibly entertaining in a strange way, though is not going to please everybody

tt0073812

Ken Russell has always been an interesting director but also a very controversial one, for example Women in Love, The Devils, Mahler and The Music Lovers are great(though his biopics on Elgar, Delius and Debussy are even better where you see Russell in restrained mode) but Lisztomania and Salome's Last Dance not so much. As someone who does like The Who and thoroughly enjoyed the school production of Tommy with my sister as the mother, Tommy was a lot of fun. It is though the sort of film that will divide viewers, Russell does go overboard with the excess that are not always relevant to what's happening, Roger Daltry goes too overboard(also rather swamped by his colleagues), Eric Clapton is bland and while his voice is not that bad Jack Nicholson is one of those talented actors who is not used very well, verging on wasted actually. Tommy does look great though, the surrealist look is positively hypnotic and the photography is very well suited for the atmosphere. The songs are outstandingly catchy, with Pinball Wizard being the most memorable one, and orchestration-wise it is rousingly power-house, to have the Who themselves involved was a great idea that paid off well(though you do wish that Keith Moon wasn't the only one with a substantial character). Some parts are on the overblown and excessive side but there are a number of great moments especially Pinball Wizard, Acid Queen and Champagne(though it is somewhat true too that it is an example of excess). Likewise the story of the film and the musical is just absurd and knows it, seeing as Tommy is a satirical rock-opera that didn't mar things. Most of the performances are good, true Oliver Reed's singing ability is very limited(as is Keith Moon's actually) but he plays a real sleaze with perfect gusto. Moon himself is appropriately repellent. Tina Turner gives a bat-out-of-hell performance as the Acid Queen and Elton John is fun personified and provides some of the best singing of the film. Best of all is Ann Margaret, she has a great voice acts with energy, charisma and vulnerability. Overall, a very divisive film and not a perfect one but is very entertaining in a strange way. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-195

ur20552756

title: Incredibly entertaining in a strange way, though is not going to please everybody review: Ken Russell has always been an interesting director but also a very controversial one, for example Women in Love, The Devils, Mahler and The Music Lovers are great(though his biopics on Elgar, Delius and Debussy are even better where you see Russell in restrained mode) but Lisztomania and Salome's Last Dance not so much. As someone who does like The Who and thoroughly enjoyed the school production of Tommy with my sister as the mother, Tommy was a lot of fun. It is though the sort of film that will divide viewers, Russell does go overboard with the excess that are not always relevant to what's happening, Roger Daltry goes too overboard(also rather swamped by his colleagues), Eric Clapton is bland and while his voice is not that bad Jack Nicholson is one of those talented actors who is not used very well, verging on wasted actually. Tommy does look great though, the surrealist look is positively hypnotic and the photography is very well suited for the atmosphere. The songs are outstandingly catchy, with Pinball Wizard being the most memorable one, and orchestration-wise it is rousingly power-house, to have the Who themselves involved was a great idea that paid off well(though you do wish that Keith Moon wasn't the only one with a substantial character). Some parts are on the overblown and excessive side but there are a number of great moments especially Pinball Wizard, Acid Queen and Champagne(though it is somewhat true too that it is an example of excess). Likewise the story of the film and the musical is just absurd and knows it, seeing as Tommy is a satirical rock-opera that didn't mar things. Most of the performances are good, true Oliver Reed's singing ability is very limited(as is Keith Moon's actually) but he plays a real sleaze with perfect gusto. Moon himself is appropriately repellent. Tina Turner gives a bat-out-of-hell performance as the Acid Queen and Elton John is fun personified and provides some of the best singing of the film. Best of all is Ann Margaret, she has a great voice acts with energy, charisma and vulnerability. Overall, a very divisive film and not a perfect one but is very entertaining in a strange way. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

An Extended Music Video

tt0073812

The Who are great, they are one of my favourite bands, made great albums and were an important part of the British music scene in the 60s and 70s. They were a major band during the Mods and Rocker clashes in the 60s, being a Mod band. Tommy is seen by many music critics as their best album, an important concept album which influence future albums like The Dark Side of the Moon and American Idiot. It became a Rock Opera and that Rock Opera was turned into a film directed by Ken Russell.The film tells the story of Tommy (Barry Winch/Roger Dalton) who as a young boy sees his mum and step-dad having sex which results with becoming blind, deaf and dumb. His mum (Ann-Margret) becomes extra devoted to her son. Tommy ends up showing that he has a talent for playing pinball, despite his disability. His step-dad (Oliver Reed) uses him to make the family rich. After Tommy miraculously regains his scenes he ends up becoming cult figure with people wanting to know his secret and help them.The album of Tommy is great and I recommend people to listen to it. It is very dark and a wonderful example of The Who's music. But as a film it doesn't translate well. They is a good beginning showing the love between Tommy's parents which is well handled and doesn't need dialogue. They is a basic plot, but a lot scenes in the film are just play like a bunch of music videos. Examples are the scenes involving the Acid Queen, Pinball Wizard and Sally Simpson. Even in musicals, such as Sweeney Todd, they are still scenes of normal dialogue, or play the song as a conversation. But this film basically played and song the songs for most of the time, making the audience feel devoid from the action on the screen. There were only small motions where the audience could engage. Some of the actors/singers were poorly casted, Oliver Reed is the best example with his poor vocals. Tina Turner was another poor choice. The directional of Ken Russell also felt like he had been taking psychedelic drugs. There are some positives. Obviously the music is brilliant: it is The Who. I also did enjoy Ken Russell's direction when it was more down to Earth and grim, so mainly in the beginning.But sadly this is really a random collection of bits rather then a real film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-180

ur17571044

title: An Extended Music Video review: The Who are great, they are one of my favourite bands, made great albums and were an important part of the British music scene in the 60s and 70s. They were a major band during the Mods and Rocker clashes in the 60s, being a Mod band. Tommy is seen by many music critics as their best album, an important concept album which influence future albums like The Dark Side of the Moon and American Idiot. It became a Rock Opera and that Rock Opera was turned into a film directed by Ken Russell.The film tells the story of Tommy (Barry Winch/Roger Dalton) who as a young boy sees his mum and step-dad having sex which results with becoming blind, deaf and dumb. His mum (Ann-Margret) becomes extra devoted to her son. Tommy ends up showing that he has a talent for playing pinball, despite his disability. His step-dad (Oliver Reed) uses him to make the family rich. After Tommy miraculously regains his scenes he ends up becoming cult figure with people wanting to know his secret and help them.The album of Tommy is great and I recommend people to listen to it. It is very dark and a wonderful example of The Who's music. But as a film it doesn't translate well. They is a good beginning showing the love between Tommy's parents which is well handled and doesn't need dialogue. They is a basic plot, but a lot scenes in the film are just play like a bunch of music videos. Examples are the scenes involving the Acid Queen, Pinball Wizard and Sally Simpson. Even in musicals, such as Sweeney Todd, they are still scenes of normal dialogue, or play the song as a conversation. But this film basically played and song the songs for most of the time, making the audience feel devoid from the action on the screen. There were only small motions where the audience could engage. Some of the actors/singers were poorly casted, Oliver Reed is the best example with his poor vocals. Tina Turner was another poor choice. The directional of Ken Russell also felt like he had been taking psychedelic drugs. There are some positives. Obviously the music is brilliant: it is The Who. I also did enjoy Ken Russell's direction when it was more down to Earth and grim, so mainly in the beginning.But sadly this is really a random collection of bits rather then a real film.

A hilarious over the top mess.

tt0073812

I am actually glad that this was as dumb and poorly acted as it was because without those elements, this would be a pretty bad movie...I know that sounds weird. This movie was over the top in every way, and because of that, the horrible acting was funny, and usually worked for what it's purpose was."Tommy" tries different techniques throughout, but none fully work. The trippy musical numbers are just awful, the worst one featuring Tina Turner as the Acid Queen in what might be the worst acting ever. The musical numbers trying to be normal are just so exaggerated and poorly dubbed, it's amazing. The plot (or what there is of a plot) is about Tommy, a boy who witnessed his father's murder by his mother as a child. Since then he hasn't said a word and everyone thinks he's deaf and blind. His mother and her lover try to fix him. He becomes involved in pinball, and becomes a pinball champion. Other than that, this is really just a bunch of interesting songs strung together to form a musical. Many of the songs are pretty good, but just as many are bizarre and performed so strangely they don't work. It's often on the line between hilariously great, and sheer stupidity, and it crosses the stupidity line all too often. Roger Daltrey's performance as a blind and deaf man is so terrible, it almost seems the audience would be better to be blind and deaf to appreciate the movie.I think in the end, "Tommy" tries to be a surrealistic musical masterpiece, when in actuality, it's only your average corny musical. And believe me, it is corny! My rating: ** out of ****. 110 mins. PG for some sexual content.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-169

ur4195782

title: A hilarious over the top mess. review: I am actually glad that this was as dumb and poorly acted as it was because without those elements, this would be a pretty bad movie...I know that sounds weird. This movie was over the top in every way, and because of that, the horrible acting was funny, and usually worked for what it's purpose was."Tommy" tries different techniques throughout, but none fully work. The trippy musical numbers are just awful, the worst one featuring Tina Turner as the Acid Queen in what might be the worst acting ever. The musical numbers trying to be normal are just so exaggerated and poorly dubbed, it's amazing. The plot (or what there is of a plot) is about Tommy, a boy who witnessed his father's murder by his mother as a child. Since then he hasn't said a word and everyone thinks he's deaf and blind. His mother and her lover try to fix him. He becomes involved in pinball, and becomes a pinball champion. Other than that, this is really just a bunch of interesting songs strung together to form a musical. Many of the songs are pretty good, but just as many are bizarre and performed so strangely they don't work. It's often on the line between hilariously great, and sheer stupidity, and it crosses the stupidity line all too often. Roger Daltrey's performance as a blind and deaf man is so terrible, it almost seems the audience would be better to be blind and deaf to appreciate the movie.I think in the end, "Tommy" tries to be a surrealistic musical masterpiece, when in actuality, it's only your average corny musical. And believe me, it is corny! My rating: ** out of ****. 110 mins. PG for some sexual content.

An Introduction to Opera for Pop Fans

tt0073812

Anybody generally familiar with opera will immediately recognize that the Who's Tommy suffers from neither a weak nor outrageous nor terribly surreal nor even bizarre storyline in comparison to what passes for plot in many classic operas. And anybody generally familiar with 1970s cinema will note that Ken Russell's envisioning of this film was actually one of a very small handful of intelligent and serious musicals produced during that decade, not a psychedelic experiment or a contribution to the avant-garde. Many of the less complementary comments offered here on IMDb concerning this movie appear to be driven by commenters' personal opinions or prejudices about The Who or about Ken Russel, and seem to have very little to do with this film. In 1969, The Who released their wildly innovative breakthrough album "Tommy". Written almost entirely by 23-year old Pete Townshend, Tommy was, like many albums of its time, an early example of album-oriented rock. But unlike similarly assembled LPs by the likes of Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, The Beatles, etc., Tommy told a story through music and lyrics. Tommy knew his father - Captain Walker - mainly through the photograph which has stood on the nightstand next to his bed all of his young life. His mother, Nora (Ann Margaret), a war widow, has shacked up with "Uncle Frank", a well-off and well-intentioned but rather low-brow gentleman (Oliver Reed). One night, Captain Walker comes home to find his beloved wife in bed with Uncle Frank, and Uncle Frank, in a panic, kills him. Tommy witnesses this and Nora and Frank expand the trauma by shouting silence and near-catatonic autism into the young boy with the classic lines "You didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one, never tell a soul... what you know is the truth." So Tommy grows up in a state of trauma-induced deafness, muteness and blindness. Guilt and sincere love drive his mother and her new husband Frank to seek every possible cure, and Townshend (and Russel) waste no opportunity to skewer religion, medical science, traditional family dynamics, and testosterone-influenced views of sexual rites of passage. Eventually, Tommy and his mother will find their own cures - in quite unexpected places. And Tommy will offer his apparently miraculous awareness to the rest of the world as a universal form of salvation. Although the medium of the album and the film is rock music, Tommy strings together many of the most powerful elements of classical opera. Religion plays an important, though atypical, role in Townshend's story. Allegory is a key to understanding the entire process. And both the lyrics and the film incorporate widespread and often incisive social criticism - touching on broad intellectual themes such as the escape from freedom, the subjectivity of truth, and the inherent futility and silliness of most efforts to improve the lot of humanity. If you let yourself 'go with it' Tommy will likely take you places you've never been. I won't promise that you will like it, but rather, that if you keep your mind open and let it pour in, like most operas, Tommy will move you. WITH REGARD TO THE FILM:Facing a nearly impossible task, Ken Russel enlisted Townshend, Daltrey, and a host of very talented and popular musicians and actors to make Tommy. Most of the time, this works - Ann Margaret, Roger Daltrey, and cameos by Jack Nicholson, Elton John, Tina Turner and Keith Moon are all outstanding. Unfortunately, Oliver Reed, as well-cast as he was, has no vocal talent to speak of, and Eric Clapton has the on-screen charisma of a desk lamp. Despite the common 21st century wisdom concerning the amount of experimentalism in 1970s films, films like Tommy, Rollerball, Deathrace 2000, French Connection, Solyaris, 2001, etc, were actually very few and far between during that decade. In fact, most of the films released in the 1970s were so uninventive and uninteresting that they can only be found on public domain download sites and budget mega-pack DVD sets. Although Russell was a shoe-in for directing this film - given his longstanding interest in visualization of classical music (http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0001692/) and more challenging subjects, Tommy was - even for Russell - a wildly innovative film: - NO DIALOGUE - a singing cast tells the story, set against The Who's original music, and Russell's visual story-telling is as powerful and striking here as it was in Gothic and many of his better-known films. Oliver Reed's bellowing vocalizations are a bit overbearing, and too much synthesizer is added to embellish a score which was 6-years old by the time the film was released. But the problems with the sound track are at least partly made-up for by fabulously campy musical cameos by Tina Turner and Elton John, and - FINALLY - by Daltrey's excellent performance once Tommy himself gains a voice. Ann Margaret's singing is also quite good, but, unfortunately, several of her songs are infected by Reed's brutish howling. All considered Tommy is a must-see for open-minded film enthusiasts, and particularly those interested in the evolution of the modern musical. Recommended.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-177

ur3824745

title: An Introduction to Opera for Pop Fans review: Anybody generally familiar with opera will immediately recognize that the Who's Tommy suffers from neither a weak nor outrageous nor terribly surreal nor even bizarre storyline in comparison to what passes for plot in many classic operas. And anybody generally familiar with 1970s cinema will note that Ken Russell's envisioning of this film was actually one of a very small handful of intelligent and serious musicals produced during that decade, not a psychedelic experiment or a contribution to the avant-garde. Many of the less complementary comments offered here on IMDb concerning this movie appear to be driven by commenters' personal opinions or prejudices about The Who or about Ken Russel, and seem to have very little to do with this film. In 1969, The Who released their wildly innovative breakthrough album "Tommy". Written almost entirely by 23-year old Pete Townshend, Tommy was, like many albums of its time, an early example of album-oriented rock. But unlike similarly assembled LPs by the likes of Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, The Beatles, etc., Tommy told a story through music and lyrics. Tommy knew his father - Captain Walker - mainly through the photograph which has stood on the nightstand next to his bed all of his young life. His mother, Nora (Ann Margaret), a war widow, has shacked up with "Uncle Frank", a well-off and well-intentioned but rather low-brow gentleman (Oliver Reed). One night, Captain Walker comes home to find his beloved wife in bed with Uncle Frank, and Uncle Frank, in a panic, kills him. Tommy witnesses this and Nora and Frank expand the trauma by shouting silence and near-catatonic autism into the young boy with the classic lines "You didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one, never tell a soul... what you know is the truth." So Tommy grows up in a state of trauma-induced deafness, muteness and blindness. Guilt and sincere love drive his mother and her new husband Frank to seek every possible cure, and Townshend (and Russel) waste no opportunity to skewer religion, medical science, traditional family dynamics, and testosterone-influenced views of sexual rites of passage. Eventually, Tommy and his mother will find their own cures - in quite unexpected places. And Tommy will offer his apparently miraculous awareness to the rest of the world as a universal form of salvation. Although the medium of the album and the film is rock music, Tommy strings together many of the most powerful elements of classical opera. Religion plays an important, though atypical, role in Townshend's story. Allegory is a key to understanding the entire process. And both the lyrics and the film incorporate widespread and often incisive social criticism - touching on broad intellectual themes such as the escape from freedom, the subjectivity of truth, and the inherent futility and silliness of most efforts to improve the lot of humanity. If you let yourself 'go with it' Tommy will likely take you places you've never been. I won't promise that you will like it, but rather, that if you keep your mind open and let it pour in, like most operas, Tommy will move you. WITH REGARD TO THE FILM:Facing a nearly impossible task, Ken Russel enlisted Townshend, Daltrey, and a host of very talented and popular musicians and actors to make Tommy. Most of the time, this works - Ann Margaret, Roger Daltrey, and cameos by Jack Nicholson, Elton John, Tina Turner and Keith Moon are all outstanding. Unfortunately, Oliver Reed, as well-cast as he was, has no vocal talent to speak of, and Eric Clapton has the on-screen charisma of a desk lamp. Despite the common 21st century wisdom concerning the amount of experimentalism in 1970s films, films like Tommy, Rollerball, Deathrace 2000, French Connection, Solyaris, 2001, etc, were actually very few and far between during that decade. In fact, most of the films released in the 1970s were so uninventive and uninteresting that they can only be found on public domain download sites and budget mega-pack DVD sets. Although Russell was a shoe-in for directing this film - given his longstanding interest in visualization of classical music (http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0001692/) and more challenging subjects, Tommy was - even for Russell - a wildly innovative film: - NO DIALOGUE - a singing cast tells the story, set against The Who's original music, and Russell's visual story-telling is as powerful and striking here as it was in Gothic and many of his better-known films. Oliver Reed's bellowing vocalizations are a bit overbearing, and too much synthesizer is added to embellish a score which was 6-years old by the time the film was released. But the problems with the sound track are at least partly made-up for by fabulously campy musical cameos by Tina Turner and Elton John, and - FINALLY - by Daltrey's excellent performance once Tommy himself gains a voice. Ann Margaret's singing is also quite good, but, unfortunately, several of her songs are infected by Reed's brutish howling. All considered Tommy is a must-see for open-minded film enthusiasts, and particularly those interested in the evolution of the modern musical. Recommended.

one of the best musical films

tt0073812

Interesting what is happening with 'Tommy' in posterity. I have seen this film very late, trying to catch back with my teen and young age spent in a Communist country. I knew the music, I knew the film had quite a cult status at the time of the release, and I was kind of expecting it to settle in the area of polite consensus thirty plus years after. And yet, here is a lot of controversy, a rift between lovers and haters among the viewers, and an IMDb grade lower by at least one unity than what I was expecting. Odd! I am on the lovers side. This film is what a musical is about, it has wonderful songs, a message not too sophisticated, but poignant and fit to the late 60 naivety years, and above all consistency and such a good fit of music to story that it deserves the opera half of the 'rock opera' construct. Among all however the best are the visuals, even more amazing thinking that they were done in the 70s, a decade before a computer could fit on a table and two decades before decent computer graphics started to be used in movies. Imagine what Ken Russell could do if he re-did the film nowadays.Sure, I am a rock music fan, and seeing The Who or The Tina Turner of these days was a treat for me. I enjoyed even Elton John, whom I like less, here he fits however so good in the colors and sounds of the movies, with psychedelic spectacles and huge shoes that are not made for walking. And let me not forget the long and sexy exchange of stares between Ann Margaret and Jack Nicholson! Wow, get in the 70s mood and enjoy the ride, guys.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-167

ur0547823

title: one of the best musical films review: Interesting what is happening with 'Tommy' in posterity. I have seen this film very late, trying to catch back with my teen and young age spent in a Communist country. I knew the music, I knew the film had quite a cult status at the time of the release, and I was kind of expecting it to settle in the area of polite consensus thirty plus years after. And yet, here is a lot of controversy, a rift between lovers and haters among the viewers, and an IMDb grade lower by at least one unity than what I was expecting. Odd! I am on the lovers side. This film is what a musical is about, it has wonderful songs, a message not too sophisticated, but poignant and fit to the late 60 naivety years, and above all consistency and such a good fit of music to story that it deserves the opera half of the 'rock opera' construct. Among all however the best are the visuals, even more amazing thinking that they were done in the 70s, a decade before a computer could fit on a table and two decades before decent computer graphics started to be used in movies. Imagine what Ken Russell could do if he re-did the film nowadays.Sure, I am a rock music fan, and seeing The Who or The Tina Turner of these days was a treat for me. I enjoyed even Elton John, whom I like less, here he fits however so good in the colors and sounds of the movies, with psychedelic spectacles and huge shoes that are not made for walking. And let me not forget the long and sexy exchange of stares between Ann Margaret and Jack Nicholson! Wow, get in the 70s mood and enjoy the ride, guys.

Tommy be good

tt0073812

I came to this movie for the first time as a Who fan, never having seen a Ken Russell feature, although I was aware of his enfante-terrible reputation and even while I consider the group's later "Quadrophenia" double-album to be superior, there's no denying the filmic possibilities that "Tommy" offers. The allegorical story of course is so fantastical that perhaps its original creator Townshend felt that only a director with the imaginative flair of Russell could translate it to the big screen. Told entirely in sing-speak, faithful to operatic tradition, it probably helps if the viewer is familiar with the source material as the plot takes some imaginative (and then some!) leaps as it progresses.Even if you can't follow the narrative flow, there's invariably something going on on-screen to keep the viewer interested, from the cameo appearances of contemporary rock stars, some memorable, Elton John, Tina Turner, some not, Eric Clapton. But these sightings are a mere bagatelle compared to some of the visual imagery dreamed up by director Russell, none more so than Ann Margret's freak-out scene which sees her awash with chocolate and champagne, but there are plenty more, the screen invariably filled with people, myriad objects of varying significance and unusual locations.As for the rest of the acting, it's hard to judge given the operatic context of proceedings, but, as indicated above, Ann Margret certainly throws herself into her part as Tommy's loving but feckless mother while Who lead singer Roger Daltrey gives a capable and very athletic performance in the lead role. Oliver Reed on the other hand, no singer for a start, as her second husband and who brings with him dubious other male relatives, seems out of his depth, but keeps going, I think is the best you can say. The music is fine, including a few new Townshend songs recorded with the film in mind, although I could have done without the synthesiser constantly filling up the background. I also somehow didn't get the release from the rich uplifting songs near the end like "Listening To You" and "See Me Feel Me" as I did on the original album.An unusual film, then, fulfilling both the rock and the opera criteria of its genre, the latter particularly in the eschewing of normal dialogue. It's never dull but occasionally opaque, you'd probably need to be a fan of either the Who's music or Russell's idiosyncratic direction to really appreciate it. Good luck to you if you can do both.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-194

ur15298231

title: Tommy be good review: I came to this movie for the first time as a Who fan, never having seen a Ken Russell feature, although I was aware of his enfante-terrible reputation and even while I consider the group's later "Quadrophenia" double-album to be superior, there's no denying the filmic possibilities that "Tommy" offers. The allegorical story of course is so fantastical that perhaps its original creator Townshend felt that only a director with the imaginative flair of Russell could translate it to the big screen. Told entirely in sing-speak, faithful to operatic tradition, it probably helps if the viewer is familiar with the source material as the plot takes some imaginative (and then some!) leaps as it progresses.Even if you can't follow the narrative flow, there's invariably something going on on-screen to keep the viewer interested, from the cameo appearances of contemporary rock stars, some memorable, Elton John, Tina Turner, some not, Eric Clapton. But these sightings are a mere bagatelle compared to some of the visual imagery dreamed up by director Russell, none more so than Ann Margret's freak-out scene which sees her awash with chocolate and champagne, but there are plenty more, the screen invariably filled with people, myriad objects of varying significance and unusual locations.As for the rest of the acting, it's hard to judge given the operatic context of proceedings, but, as indicated above, Ann Margret certainly throws herself into her part as Tommy's loving but feckless mother while Who lead singer Roger Daltrey gives a capable and very athletic performance in the lead role. Oliver Reed on the other hand, no singer for a start, as her second husband and who brings with him dubious other male relatives, seems out of his depth, but keeps going, I think is the best you can say. The music is fine, including a few new Townshend songs recorded with the film in mind, although I could have done without the synthesiser constantly filling up the background. I also somehow didn't get the release from the rich uplifting songs near the end like "Listening To You" and "See Me Feel Me" as I did on the original album.An unusual film, then, fulfilling both the rock and the opera criteria of its genre, the latter particularly in the eschewing of normal dialogue. It's never dull but occasionally opaque, you'd probably need to be a fan of either the Who's music or Russell's idiosyncratic direction to really appreciate it. Good luck to you if you can do both.

Rock God as Singing Savior

tt0073812

Pete Townshend once said, "What's good about great pop and rock is: it's sublime and ridiculous at once." He should know. He wrote *Tommy*. The film, *Tommy*, inspired by The Who's 1969 concept album – about a traumatized deaf, dumb and blind boy who becomes a pinball-playing savior – is simultaneously an electrifying musical monolith and a descent into drug-induced kookiness. Someone had to be high to let Oliver Reed sing. Blame eccentric satyr director, Ken Russell, whose hallucinogenic vision puts the "higher" in Messiah, jamming the movie with images of sensual nightmare: showgirls in gasmasks, bombers-as-crucifixes, a skeleton with a snake-as-penis, giant pinballs littering the landscape, and Ann-Margret lolling in chocolatey, syrupy goodness.Oliver Reed is the "nightmare" part. Playing Tommy's stepfather, he excels at his forte (acting) but his painfully off-key ululations, combined with Ann-Margret's melodramatic cheese-vibrato (as Tommy's mum) make the film's early segments nigh unbearable. The creation of Viagra can be traced directly to the scene of Reed getting ready to bed down with Ann-Margret. Responsible for more erectile dysfunction than prostate problems or testicular cancer combined, that scene still sends a shudder of horror through my supple thighs. When the real rock musicians enter the fray, the film suddenly finds its feet. During Sonny Boy Williamson's *Eyesight to the Blind* - the first actual "rock" track - Eric Clapton is The Hawker Priest, The Who his acolytes, with Crazy Arthur Brown giving communion, under the graven image of Marilyn Munroe. Oh, sweet Blasphemy!An indefinable verve is captured on screen when real musicians mime their own instruments and vocals, which actors-playing-musicians could never hope to achieve: Entwistle's fingers clearly ravage the bass fretboard, as Townshend smacks down his Les Paul and Clapton bleeds the blues. Tina Turner burns it down with her crazy-eyed Acid Queen and Elton John (in arguably the best re-arranged song for the movie) plies his big-booted pinball wizardry, while Keith Moon eats riotous scenery as a leering lecher. But it is when Roger Daltrey opens his mouth as the adult Tommy that the film finds its wings as a bird of prey. In his first on screen role, The Who's lead singer, Daltrey – whose vocal timbre and awe-inspiring, full-bodied delivery simply bespeaks rock superstardom – single-handedly elevates the film from an average musical to a legendary rock opera. As soon as that shirt comes off, he is the personification of Rock God. Thirty years after the film's release, his long-haired, bare-chested, tight-panted visage is still an icon of rock rebelliousness.The stirring final track (*Listening To You*) sees him bare-footed and bare-chested, climbing a mountain, in full-throated passionate song, more than ever resembling that which the rock opera itself tries to deconstruct – a savior. The messages may be in the music, but even writer-composer Townshend would not be able to reconcile the paradoxes inherent in those messages. Throughout this magnum opus, though Townshend exhorts not to place faith in media-engined, merchandised entities, his own rockstar livelihood relies on the music-buying public doing just that. Even as his messages denounce those who would blindly worship icons, in creating this scintillating monument to rock, he himself becomes an icon to be worshipped. Maybe when the album and band were in their infancy and walking an unknown path between ephemerality and longevity, *Tommy* needed to make sense. With Townshend's concepts morphing constantly during the writing, recording and eventual filming of *Tommy*, he would never adequately explain it, but nowadays he does not need to. *Tommy* has achieved transcendence, as much a part of human culture as death and spam. There are allusions to Oedipus, The New Testament and even nods to *Beneath the Planet of the Apes* (Holy Bombs as graven images).*Tommy* the movie propelled *Tommy* the album back to No.2 on the Billboard charts, six years after its initial release. Townshend once said about performing *Tommy* The Rock Opera live, "All I remember from that tour was Roger's chest."Townshend dedicated the *Tommy* album to his Indian spiritual mentor, Meher Baba. Thankfully keeping the lyrics free of mystical raving, profundities can be found passim: "You've been told many times before / Messiahs pointed to the door / But no one had the guts to leave the temple." "Each one of you has freedom / In your heart, without my grace." But oft-times the hokeyness bleeds through: in *We're Not Gonna Take It*, Tommy instructs his legions to simulate his Unaware state by plugging their ears, mouth and eyes, to attain enlightenment by effectively "freeing" their senses from the distractions of the world, then singing that "Pinball completes the scene" – Huh? Of course! The eternal correlation between pinball and nirvana… The traumatic deadening of Tommy's senses can also be applied to any society. How often we close our eyes and minds to the truth, because those in charge tell us with no uncertainty: "You didn't hear it, you didn't see it / You won't say nothing' to no one / Never tell a soul what you know is the truth!"Only the epic finale touches upon any kind of inexplicable epiphany, yet is more than enough immortality for Townshend never to have to compose another tune: "Listening to you, I get the music / Gazing at you, I get the heat / Following you, I climb the mountain / I get excitement at your feet…Literally shouting it from a mountaintop, Tommy the son ends a story where his father began it years ago, and director Ken Russell ensures that the Messiah metaphors, the chintzy and great rock music, the stunning imagery, the insightful themes will all take a backseat to this last scene's smoldering idolatry. All you will remember is Roger's chest.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-147

ur2446936

title: Rock God as Singing Savior review: Pete Townshend once said, "What's good about great pop and rock is: it's sublime and ridiculous at once." He should know. He wrote *Tommy*. The film, *Tommy*, inspired by The Who's 1969 concept album – about a traumatized deaf, dumb and blind boy who becomes a pinball-playing savior – is simultaneously an electrifying musical monolith and a descent into drug-induced kookiness. Someone had to be high to let Oliver Reed sing. Blame eccentric satyr director, Ken Russell, whose hallucinogenic vision puts the "higher" in Messiah, jamming the movie with images of sensual nightmare: showgirls in gasmasks, bombers-as-crucifixes, a skeleton with a snake-as-penis, giant pinballs littering the landscape, and Ann-Margret lolling in chocolatey, syrupy goodness.Oliver Reed is the "nightmare" part. Playing Tommy's stepfather, he excels at his forte (acting) but his painfully off-key ululations, combined with Ann-Margret's melodramatic cheese-vibrato (as Tommy's mum) make the film's early segments nigh unbearable. The creation of Viagra can be traced directly to the scene of Reed getting ready to bed down with Ann-Margret. Responsible for more erectile dysfunction than prostate problems or testicular cancer combined, that scene still sends a shudder of horror through my supple thighs. When the real rock musicians enter the fray, the film suddenly finds its feet. During Sonny Boy Williamson's *Eyesight to the Blind* - the first actual "rock" track - Eric Clapton is The Hawker Priest, The Who his acolytes, with Crazy Arthur Brown giving communion, under the graven image of Marilyn Munroe. Oh, sweet Blasphemy!An indefinable verve is captured on screen when real musicians mime their own instruments and vocals, which actors-playing-musicians could never hope to achieve: Entwistle's fingers clearly ravage the bass fretboard, as Townshend smacks down his Les Paul and Clapton bleeds the blues. Tina Turner burns it down with her crazy-eyed Acid Queen and Elton John (in arguably the best re-arranged song for the movie) plies his big-booted pinball wizardry, while Keith Moon eats riotous scenery as a leering lecher. But it is when Roger Daltrey opens his mouth as the adult Tommy that the film finds its wings as a bird of prey. In his first on screen role, The Who's lead singer, Daltrey – whose vocal timbre and awe-inspiring, full-bodied delivery simply bespeaks rock superstardom – single-handedly elevates the film from an average musical to a legendary rock opera. As soon as that shirt comes off, he is the personification of Rock God. Thirty years after the film's release, his long-haired, bare-chested, tight-panted visage is still an icon of rock rebelliousness.The stirring final track (*Listening To You*) sees him bare-footed and bare-chested, climbing a mountain, in full-throated passionate song, more than ever resembling that which the rock opera itself tries to deconstruct – a savior. The messages may be in the music, but even writer-composer Townshend would not be able to reconcile the paradoxes inherent in those messages. Throughout this magnum opus, though Townshend exhorts not to place faith in media-engined, merchandised entities, his own rockstar livelihood relies on the music-buying public doing just that. Even as his messages denounce those who would blindly worship icons, in creating this scintillating monument to rock, he himself becomes an icon to be worshipped. Maybe when the album and band were in their infancy and walking an unknown path between ephemerality and longevity, *Tommy* needed to make sense. With Townshend's concepts morphing constantly during the writing, recording and eventual filming of *Tommy*, he would never adequately explain it, but nowadays he does not need to. *Tommy* has achieved transcendence, as much a part of human culture as death and spam. There are allusions to Oedipus, The New Testament and even nods to *Beneath the Planet of the Apes* (Holy Bombs as graven images).*Tommy* the movie propelled *Tommy* the album back to No.2 on the Billboard charts, six years after its initial release. Townshend once said about performing *Tommy* The Rock Opera live, "All I remember from that tour was Roger's chest."Townshend dedicated the *Tommy* album to his Indian spiritual mentor, Meher Baba. Thankfully keeping the lyrics free of mystical raving, profundities can be found passim: "You've been told many times before / Messiahs pointed to the door / But no one had the guts to leave the temple." "Each one of you has freedom / In your heart, without my grace." But oft-times the hokeyness bleeds through: in *We're Not Gonna Take It*, Tommy instructs his legions to simulate his Unaware state by plugging their ears, mouth and eyes, to attain enlightenment by effectively "freeing" their senses from the distractions of the world, then singing that "Pinball completes the scene" – Huh? Of course! The eternal correlation between pinball and nirvana… The traumatic deadening of Tommy's senses can also be applied to any society. How often we close our eyes and minds to the truth, because those in charge tell us with no uncertainty: "You didn't hear it, you didn't see it / You won't say nothing' to no one / Never tell a soul what you know is the truth!"Only the epic finale touches upon any kind of inexplicable epiphany, yet is more than enough immortality for Townshend never to have to compose another tune: "Listening to you, I get the music / Gazing at you, I get the heat / Following you, I climb the mountain / I get excitement at your feet…Literally shouting it from a mountaintop, Tommy the son ends a story where his father began it years ago, and director Ken Russell ensures that the Messiah metaphors, the chintzy and great rock music, the stunning imagery, the insightful themes will all take a backseat to this last scene's smoldering idolatry. All you will remember is Roger's chest.

Dated and overblown but very enjoyable nonetheless

tt0073812

"Tommy" is very much a product of its era and is inevitably dated. Still, it remains a very entertaining rock opera to watch, full of the gonzo outrageousness one can come to expect from Ken Russell. While its neither his best or his most accessible film ("Altered States" would be both of those), fans of Russell's idiosyncratic output will lap it up. The taglines said "Your senses will never be the same again", and while that may be a slight overstatement, the film is a sensory overload. Its retelling of The Who's rock opera is quite colorful and campy - the viewer isn't sure whether or not to take the film seriously.The acting here ranges from good to bad. Oliver Reed and Ann-Margaret are both performers occasionally mocked for their public persona, but they could turn in fine performances when they tried. They're at the top of their game here. Roger Daltrey, on the other hand, proves why he was a rock frontman instead of an actor. As good a vocalist as he was, hes a laughably lousy performer, managing to overdo the part of a deaf, dumb, and blind character.The renditions of "Tommy" on the soundtrack are very good. It was a wise decision on Russell's behalf to not include any dialog not sung, because it would've brought the film to a screeching halt. Without it, it manages to be one of the very few musicals I actually enjoy. (7/10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-173

ur0630665

title: Dated and overblown but very enjoyable nonetheless review: "Tommy" is very much a product of its era and is inevitably dated. Still, it remains a very entertaining rock opera to watch, full of the gonzo outrageousness one can come to expect from Ken Russell. While its neither his best or his most accessible film ("Altered States" would be both of those), fans of Russell's idiosyncratic output will lap it up. The taglines said "Your senses will never be the same again", and while that may be a slight overstatement, the film is a sensory overload. Its retelling of The Who's rock opera is quite colorful and campy - the viewer isn't sure whether or not to take the film seriously.The acting here ranges from good to bad. Oliver Reed and Ann-Margaret are both performers occasionally mocked for their public persona, but they could turn in fine performances when they tried. They're at the top of their game here. Roger Daltrey, on the other hand, proves why he was a rock frontman instead of an actor. As good a vocalist as he was, hes a laughably lousy performer, managing to overdo the part of a deaf, dumb, and blind character.The renditions of "Tommy" on the soundtrack are very good. It was a wise decision on Russell's behalf to not include any dialog not sung, because it would've brought the film to a screeching halt. Without it, it manages to be one of the very few musicals I actually enjoy. (7/10)

It depends

tt0073812

Yes it depends on if you like rock music and rock operas or not. If you don't you'll say that this movie is not worth seeing because the story is uninteresting and meaningless, the music is a lot of ugly and noisy sounds, the images are nothing special and some of them are even shocking and the end is very stupid . But if you do you will say this is a great opera rock where even great stars such as Tina Turner and Elton appear, the images are gorgeous and colorful, the music is beautiful and moving and the story has got a nice sentimental message even with a religious touch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-47

ur1046460

title: It depends review: Yes it depends on if you like rock music and rock operas or not. If you don't you'll say that this movie is not worth seeing because the story is uninteresting and meaningless, the music is a lot of ugly and noisy sounds, the images are nothing special and some of them are even shocking and the end is very stupid . But if you do you will say this is a great opera rock where even great stars such as Tina Turner and Elton appear, the images are gorgeous and colorful, the music is beautiful and moving and the story has got a nice sentimental message even with a religious touch.

An Original and Imaginative Assault of the Senses...

tt0073812

The 1975 film version of the Who's Rock Opera TOMMY is a motion picture experience unlike any other. Director Ken Russell takes us on a roller coaster ride of a story, putting starkly original visuals to the Who's original opera. In this version, Tommy is struck blind, deaf, and mute after witnessing his mother's lover murder his father after he finds the lover and mother in bed together and then follows the boy's journey to adult hood where he discovers an ability to play pinball machines by touch and eventually becomes a cult leader whose followers get out of control. The Who's memorable music is still center stage but there are wonderful performances, headed by Ann-Margret, who received her one and only Best Actress Oscar nomination for her full-bodied performance as Nora Walker, Tommy's mother. The late Oliver Reed is equally memorable as Frank, Nora's lover and Who lead singer Roger Daltrey, who proves to have an engaging screen presence in the title role. There are also memorable bits contributed by Tina Turner as the Acid Queen, Elton John as the Pinball Wizard, Eric Clapton as a Preacher, Jack Nicholson as the doctor, and Keith Moon as Uncle Ernie. There are wildly imaginative scenes that won't soon be forgotten such as Tommy's visit to a church whose God is Marilyn Monroe and Ann-Margret's unforgettable bath in a wash of soap suds, chocolate, and baked beans. An original assault on the senses that you won't soon forget. Not for all tastes, but for the brave and bold moviegoer, keep an open mind and give it a look...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-129

ur8042382

title: An Original and Imaginative Assault of the Senses... review: The 1975 film version of the Who's Rock Opera TOMMY is a motion picture experience unlike any other. Director Ken Russell takes us on a roller coaster ride of a story, putting starkly original visuals to the Who's original opera. In this version, Tommy is struck blind, deaf, and mute after witnessing his mother's lover murder his father after he finds the lover and mother in bed together and then follows the boy's journey to adult hood where he discovers an ability to play pinball machines by touch and eventually becomes a cult leader whose followers get out of control. The Who's memorable music is still center stage but there are wonderful performances, headed by Ann-Margret, who received her one and only Best Actress Oscar nomination for her full-bodied performance as Nora Walker, Tommy's mother. The late Oliver Reed is equally memorable as Frank, Nora's lover and Who lead singer Roger Daltrey, who proves to have an engaging screen presence in the title role. There are also memorable bits contributed by Tina Turner as the Acid Queen, Elton John as the Pinball Wizard, Eric Clapton as a Preacher, Jack Nicholson as the doctor, and Keith Moon as Uncle Ernie. There are wildly imaginative scenes that won't soon be forgotten such as Tommy's visit to a church whose God is Marilyn Monroe and Ann-Margret's unforgettable bath in a wash of soap suds, chocolate, and baked beans. An original assault on the senses that you won't soon forget. Not for all tastes, but for the brave and bold moviegoer, keep an open mind and give it a look...

I don't usually enjoy musicals...but this is one of the very few that I do enjoy

tt0073812

Rated PG for Violence,Thematic Elements and Drug Content(would be PG-13 today) I am a big fan of The Who.I think they are the greatest rock band of all time! There are so many of their songs I enjoy.Tommy is my favorite album from the who and in my opinion, its one of the greatest albums of all time.I was curious to see how the movie version was so I checked it out.Now, if you don't like rock music, you will probably not like this film.Unlike other films based on concept albums, this one has the actors/actresses singing their own versions of the songs.It actually works! Some of the songs were better on the album but some others were actually better in the film.The film is full of weird imagery and metaphors.The plot of the film is of Captain Walker who goes to fight in world war 2, leaving his wife and soon to be born child.It is believed that he is dead when he does not return.The child is born and his name is Tommy.They visit a holiday camp where the mother meets another man.The year is now 1951 and Tommy is a young boy, however Captain Walker did not die and is seen confronting the mother and the lover.The lover then kills him but Tommy sees it all.The parents yell at him telling him he didn't see it, hear it and wont say anything about it.Because of this, Tommy becomes deaf, dumb and blind.A few years later, Tommy and his parents are seen taking him to many places to get him cured such as a cult which worships Marylin Monroe and thinks that she can give "eyesight to the blind" & a place where a woman gives Tommy LSD sending him on a wild acid trip.Meanwhile, his cousin Kevin tortures him and his uncle Ernie molests him when Tommy is put in their care.One day, Tommy wanders into a junkyard, finds a pinball machine and plays it very well.He then becomes rich and famous.His mother is sad however because Tommy cannot enjoy it.One day in a fit of rage, she throws Tommy through a mirror, curing him.He then becomes a religious icon but his followers dislike his strict rules, so they burn down the camp, killing the parents.Tommy then gets a new enlightenment.If you have heard the original concept album, you pretty much know the story.However the movie has some songs that the album does not and omits some songs as well.Tommy may not have the greatest plot, but it has some great songs, and if you like the who, its worth checking out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-175

ur11358734

title: I don't usually enjoy musicals...but this is one of the very few that I do enjoy review: Rated PG for Violence,Thematic Elements and Drug Content(would be PG-13 today) I am a big fan of The Who.I think they are the greatest rock band of all time! There are so many of their songs I enjoy.Tommy is my favorite album from the who and in my opinion, its one of the greatest albums of all time.I was curious to see how the movie version was so I checked it out.Now, if you don't like rock music, you will probably not like this film.Unlike other films based on concept albums, this one has the actors/actresses singing their own versions of the songs.It actually works! Some of the songs were better on the album but some others were actually better in the film.The film is full of weird imagery and metaphors.The plot of the film is of Captain Walker who goes to fight in world war 2, leaving his wife and soon to be born child.It is believed that he is dead when he does not return.The child is born and his name is Tommy.They visit a holiday camp where the mother meets another man.The year is now 1951 and Tommy is a young boy, however Captain Walker did not die and is seen confronting the mother and the lover.The lover then kills him but Tommy sees it all.The parents yell at him telling him he didn't see it, hear it and wont say anything about it.Because of this, Tommy becomes deaf, dumb and blind.A few years later, Tommy and his parents are seen taking him to many places to get him cured such as a cult which worships Marylin Monroe and thinks that she can give "eyesight to the blind" & a place where a woman gives Tommy LSD sending him on a wild acid trip.Meanwhile, his cousin Kevin tortures him and his uncle Ernie molests him when Tommy is put in their care.One day, Tommy wanders into a junkyard, finds a pinball machine and plays it very well.He then becomes rich and famous.His mother is sad however because Tommy cannot enjoy it.One day in a fit of rage, she throws Tommy through a mirror, curing him.He then becomes a religious icon but his followers dislike his strict rules, so they burn down the camp, killing the parents.Tommy then gets a new enlightenment.If you have heard the original concept album, you pretty much know the story.However the movie has some songs that the album does not and omits some songs as well.Tommy may not have the greatest plot, but it has some great songs, and if you like the who, its worth checking out.

Tommy

tt0073812

From director Ken Russell (Women in Love), I knew that this film was some kind of musical film, I didn't know it based on the album of the same name by The Who, the big name stars in it, or anything about the story, but I was up for it, as it has gained a reputation over time as a cult rock opera. Basically during the Second World War the plane of Captain Walker (Robert Powell) is shot down, he is presumed missing and killed in action, his wife Nora (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Ann-Margret) gives birth to their son Tommy. A few years pass and Nora meets and quickly gets married to shifty camp counsellor Frank Hobbs (Oliver Reed) while adolescent Tommy is attending "Bernies Holiday Camp", but Captain Walker comes home, only to be murdered and witnessed by his son, his mother and step-father tell him he never saw or heard it, and never to speak of it, Tommy takes this to extreme and becomes blind, deaf and dumb. Grown up Tommy (Golden Globe nominated Roger Daltrey, lead singer of The Who) goes through many therapies and experiences to try and cure him, including attending a cult church that worship Marilyn Monroe, and crazy prostitute and LSD dealer Gypsie the Acid Queen (Tina Turner), but the parents eventually give up and want to leave Tommy with relatives. Cousin Kevin (Paul Nicholas) is sadistic beating and torturing the young man, and Uncle Ernie (The Who's Keith Moon) is a filthy alcoholic who molests children and rapes the young man, so the parents leave him alone for a bit, and goes to a junkyard where he finds a pinball machine, the device that will change his life, he plays on it all night until being found by the police and his parents. Playing the machine by instinct without hearing and seeing any distractions Tommy plays game after game, the family become rich because of his talent as the "pinball wizard", and he is put in a televised pinball championship where he amazes and beats the Local Lad (Sir Elton John) with his high scoring, but inside Nora is still unhappy that her son is still disabled. Frank tells her he has found a doctor who deals with many kinds of disabled people, The Specialist (Jack Nicholson) confirms that Tommy's problems are psychosomatic and not physical, based on the emotional trauma of his father and step-father, Nora at home eventually shatters him into an awakening, and all his senses return. He realises many people are enlightened by his pinball playing, and being cured he has feels like a messiah, and creating a symbol with a "T" and a pinball he starts holding lectures and rallies, teaching them his unique perspective on life, ultimately he becomes the leader of his own religious cult. This however turns out to be both the family's rise and downfall, as Tommy preaches things the crowds do not feel enlightened by, including wearing headgear to make them blind, deaf and dumb like he used to be, the people eventually upset riot, destroying pinball machines and starting fires, Frank and Nora are killed in the attack, Tommy is only mildly injured and retreats to the place his parents spent a romantic time together, he greets the sun as it rises, and a new dawn. Also starring Eric Clapton as The Preacher, Barry Winch as Young Tommy, Victoria Russell as Sally Simpson, Ben Aris as Reverend Simpson, "Fire" singer Arthur Brown as The Priest, The Who's Pete Townshend and The Who's John Entwistle. Daltrey as the leading star based on his band's own album is terrific, Ann-Margret is good as the emotional mother, and Reed does good as the father-in-law going along with whatever, I agree the celebrity stars slightly overshadow the actors, John in his huge shoes, Nicholson as a cool doctor and Turner going wild, but this film is much more memorable for the often over the top imagery, absurd storytelling, and rhythmical rock singing throughout, for it's reputation it's certainly a worthwhile musical. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Music for Pete Townshend, it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy. Good!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073812/reviews-198

ur4248714

title: Tommy review: From director Ken Russell (Women in Love), I knew that this film was some kind of musical film, I didn't know it based on the album of the same name by The Who, the big name stars in it, or anything about the story, but I was up for it, as it has gained a reputation over time as a cult rock opera. Basically during the Second World War the plane of Captain Walker (Robert Powell) is shot down, he is presumed missing and killed in action, his wife Nora (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Ann-Margret) gives birth to their son Tommy. A few years pass and Nora meets and quickly gets married to shifty camp counsellor Frank Hobbs (Oliver Reed) while adolescent Tommy is attending "Bernies Holiday Camp", but Captain Walker comes home, only to be murdered and witnessed by his son, his mother and step-father tell him he never saw or heard it, and never to speak of it, Tommy takes this to extreme and becomes blind, deaf and dumb. Grown up Tommy (Golden Globe nominated Roger Daltrey, lead singer of The Who) goes through many therapies and experiences to try and cure him, including attending a cult church that worship Marilyn Monroe, and crazy prostitute and LSD dealer Gypsie the Acid Queen (Tina Turner), but the parents eventually give up and want to leave Tommy with relatives. Cousin Kevin (Paul Nicholas) is sadistic beating and torturing the young man, and Uncle Ernie (The Who's Keith Moon) is a filthy alcoholic who molests children and rapes the young man, so the parents leave him alone for a bit, and goes to a junkyard where he finds a pinball machine, the device that will change his life, he plays on it all night until being found by the police and his parents. Playing the machine by instinct without hearing and seeing any distractions Tommy plays game after game, the family become rich because of his talent as the "pinball wizard", and he is put in a televised pinball championship where he amazes and beats the Local Lad (Sir Elton John) with his high scoring, but inside Nora is still unhappy that her son is still disabled. Frank tells her he has found a doctor who deals with many kinds of disabled people, The Specialist (Jack Nicholson) confirms that Tommy's problems are psychosomatic and not physical, based on the emotional trauma of his father and step-father, Nora at home eventually shatters him into an awakening, and all his senses return. He realises many people are enlightened by his pinball playing, and being cured he has feels like a messiah, and creating a symbol with a "T" and a pinball he starts holding lectures and rallies, teaching them his unique perspective on life, ultimately he becomes the leader of his own religious cult. This however turns out to be both the family's rise and downfall, as Tommy preaches things the crowds do not feel enlightened by, including wearing headgear to make them blind, deaf and dumb like he used to be, the people eventually upset riot, destroying pinball machines and starting fires, Frank and Nora are killed in the attack, Tommy is only mildly injured and retreats to the place his parents spent a romantic time together, he greets the sun as it rises, and a new dawn. Also starring Eric Clapton as The Preacher, Barry Winch as Young Tommy, Victoria Russell as Sally Simpson, Ben Aris as Reverend Simpson, "Fire" singer Arthur Brown as The Priest, The Who's Pete Townshend and The Who's John Entwistle. Daltrey as the leading star based on his band's own album is terrific, Ann-Margret is good as the emotional mother, and Reed does good as the father-in-law going along with whatever, I agree the celebrity stars slightly overshadow the actors, John in his huge shoes, Nicholson as a cool doctor and Turner going wild, but this film is much more memorable for the often over the top imagery, absurd storytelling, and rhythmical rock singing throughout, for it's reputation it's certainly a worthwhile musical. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Music for Pete Townshend, it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy. Good!