The visuals for this film are absolutely stunning. Just breathtaking. The acting is done well, the voice-overs included. the CG animation on the creatures are marvelous.

I read this series over and over as a child and just re-read them recently in anticipation of the movie. Although as a purist-at-heart I was slightly disappointed to see even a second of the precious work edited, overall I am amazed at how well they adapted the tale to fit into a neat little 2 hour time frame. I feel that nothing important was omitted and the parts that were adjusted in the script were done so well that it still could have passed for C.S. Lewis' own hand.

I was lucky enough to preview this film (and to see it free, to boot), but I am certain that I will be trekking to the theatre to see it a few more times on the big screen. BRAVO!


I was fortunate enough to attend an advanced screening and was magnificently surprised. The film was beautifully made. The acting/voices were all wonderful, including the young talent. I think all ages will be entertained. The story contains important lessons for children, but also relevant reminders for adults. I also think attempts to compare the film to Lord of the Rings and/or Harry Potter would be unfortunate for all parties. They are each uniquely wonderful. Make sure you see this!

By the way, make sure you stay through the end credits to hear a beautiful song Alanis Morisette wrote especially for the film.


I saw this movie with very high hopes and they were met. The acting was excellent and the special effects set a new standard for Hollywood. This, in my mind is the best movie of the year and a best picture nominee for sure. I do not think that it will win the best picture Oscar though because it is only the first movie in a series of seven. Each book though, unlike the LOTR series, is a completely different story with many different characters. Overall, this movie is a must see and the next six will likely be the same. C.S. Lewis is an amazing story teller in the people behind this production are amazing film producers.


I went to see the new Narnia movie tonight, and I have to say, I was extremely impressed. The story was touching and powerful, the acting was exceptional, and the special effects were amazing! I was never been into fantasy movies until Lord of the Rings came out, which I thought was great. This movie was also very very good. From the beginning of the movie, I felt swept away into the story. I am rarely excited about new movies, but I was about this one, and it totally exceeded my expectations.

I highly recommend this film. It is based on a kid's book, but it appeals to people from every background and age.

I think we are witnessing the beginning of an awesome epic series! 10 Stars!


With an appeal to both adults and children, the British author C. S. Lewis wrote seven books in his Chronicles of Narnia series. The stories are rich in mythology and religious symbolism, drawing upon archetypes from the Norse, Greco-Roman, Persian, medieval chivalric, and Judeo-Christian traditions.

Now comes this wonderful film of the first chronicle, "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." The beautiful cinematography and the terrific performances of the children make this film outstanding for family viewing. As integrated with the live actors, the colorful animal characters, especially the Lion (Jesus), reveal brilliant technical film-making as well.

Lewis's books are not overtly allegorical. Rather, the symbols and the messages are subtle. The four children in the story (Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy) were inspired by the actual children evacuated from London during World War II, who spent time in Lewis's home. Lewis wanted his books to be enjoyed by young people who would later in their lives draw the spiritual meanings from the stories. In this area, the film is enormously faithful to the original book and would have made the author extremely proud.


I watched it one of its advanced screenings this afternoon and as expected it turned out to be quite a movie.

Based on the classic novel by CS Lewis. Four London children are sent to a professors country home in order for protection during World War II. There they find a magic wardrobe which leads to a mystical land called Narnia, which is being ruled by an evil witch. To defeat the Witch, they must join forces with Aslan, the lion God of Narnia, and the great battle between good and evil that's pretty much the whole story.

The acting field was average (not surprising really), Swinton was okay but not top notch kind of stuff. All the kids did a wonderful job and if i can recollect correctly thats more than what i could have done at such a young age.

The special effects were above average to excellent and tell us just what you can do if you put enough effort into it.

I guess you can call it LOTR for kids and i would absolutely agree with that.

Overall an excellent family film and if you are a fan of the Harry Potter franchise then you should be able to dig this quite easily.

P.S got my fingers crossed for the next film.

9/10


C.S. Lewis' classic is reborn in 'The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe', when four children from war-torn England find themselves transported to a land of myth and fantasy. It has been foretold that they will bring peace to Narnia. But can they survive the evil treachery of the mysterious White Witch who claims to be Queen?

In this rendition, C.S. Lewis' imagination is brought to life with amazing special effects. Centaurs, Fauns, and Gryphons all come to life in this great body of work. The whole family will enjoy this film. Liam Neeson is wonderful as Aslan the Lion.

I can not say that was all that impressed with Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. She looked the part, but did not seem as treacherous as I had hoped.

Overall this is a really good film. If you are familiar with the story, then there are no real surprises, but makes up for it with incredible CGI animation.


There is one scene in Andrew Adamson's new film THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE, that for me walking into the theater that needed to be perfect. If not the whole movie and (the continued franchise of sequels) would fall flat on its face. If the film did not capture this scene I believe the heart and soul of C.S. Lewis and his magical world would have been completely destroyed.

But I digress! Walking into Narnia is an interesting experience for me. In all honesty I find C.S. Lewis to be a great writer that I can hardly read. His books are hailed left and right and I just can't read them. It's not Lewis's fault. I realize it's my own media saturated thick head that blocks me up. So a few weeks ago after a screening of a 10 minute super trailer for NARNIA I decided to dust off my old copy of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA and decided to give it a chance. I read the first two books in about a week and I wondered to myself. What was my problem? What took me so long to become enchanted by this mystical world? I've come to realize I cannot appreciate the classics. I really think that's my loss and something I intend to work on in the new year.

So anyway, sitting down in the movie theater I psyched myself up I intended to be wowed. I wanted Narnia to come alive on screen like it did in my mind and I think it fell a little short of my expectations but in the end made me smile.

NARNIA tells the story of four children. When the youngest named Lucy (Georgie Henley) finds a magic wardrobe that transports her into the magical land of Narnia. Narnia is a land of talking animals, magical fauns, and the evil White Witch (Tilda Swinton) whose enslaved the land causing it to be forever winter and never Christmas. Her sister Susan (Anna Popplewell), and brothers Peter (William Moseley), and Edmund (Skandar Keynes) don't believe her story. Until the day all the children enter the Land of Narnia. A land and get caught up in a war that may fulfill a prophecy that will bring peace to Narnia.

NARNIA is a fascinating example of a film that doesn't exactly add up but in the end is satisfying. The screenplay is riddled with the problems from the very beginning. It tries so hard to stick to the book that the early moments of the film feel flat. Even when the children get to Narnia you feel the same way. Narnia feels just like the British Country side the children have come from. Narnia should feel different and it doesn't. Why is their a light post growing in the middle of the forest? Why are the animals talking? Why is it always winter and yet never Christmas? These questions should inspire awe. NARNIA should glow and jump off the screen, but the first act is to busy getting from point a to point b than to allow us to immerse ourselves in the NARNIAN landscape. If your like me you'll find yourself thinking "why does this feel like a third rate LORD OF THE RINGS?" I think what's missing is the thing that made the novel so enchanting. It's Lewis's self aware narration. Even when at the greatest peril it was Lewis's kind words and silly aside comments that lightened the situation. Admittedly that would be difficult in a film but It would have been nice if they'd tried. Instead they stuck humor in places that seemed out of place.

But fear not, all is not lost. Because if you can get through the first hour (which really isn't that bad). You'll come out on the other side and into a much better and powerful movie. Once Aslan (voiced by Liam Neeson) the Mighty Lion comes on the screen you're in for the ride of your life.

I mentioned earlier there is one scene that needed to be perfect or the film would be destroyed. That scene involves Aslan and the stone table. They got it right, and oh boy was I impressed. If Aslan is not strong, if Aslan is not seen as a threat even as he is being tormented this scene falls apart. But Adamson and his team make Aslan a character to be reckoned with. If you don't gasp as Aslan climbs those stairs and the beasts and the White Witch part the way for him, if you don't feel the pain and anguish of Aslan's torment, and if your tear ducts don't well up when the scene is over, I would doubt your humanity ( just a little.) After that the film only gets better, there is an awesome battle sequence, and even Narnia begins to take a life of its own. It gives each character their moment to shine and it wraps itself up neatly enough. After the film was over I can't wait for PRINCE CASPIAN (or THE HORSE AND HIS BOY) to hit the big screen.

I would also like to single out little Georgie Henley (watch out Dakota Fanning) the little girl who plays Lucy. She gives the early part of the film a lot more life and fills the screen like very few child actors can. This little girl (in her debut role) has an innocence and yet a maturity that belies her age. This little girl gives a performance that should really net her an Oscar nod. It probably won't but if I didn't bring it up who would? While this film has a few rough spots and a first act that needed some work THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH, and THE WARDROBE is an enchanting journey that is worth the price of admission. Seek it out.


Let me start by saying this, I am in no way attacking the story itself. I love these books and I think C.S. Lewis was an amazing writer.

I hate to say this because I really wanted to like this movie but I was somewhat disappointed. I have to very much agree with zach-74's review of the movie. I don't expect books to translate directly into movies. They are different mediums. But I thought this was a mediocre attempt. Without re-hashing zach-74's review which I think is right on, there were a couple missing elements that I wished they had put in. Where is the playfulness of Aslan? His playing with the children and also with the animals that he brings back to life gives him a wonderful quality that we don't get in the movie. Another element was the suffering that takes place on the walk to the Stone Table when Aslan is to be killed. Maybe this was getting to close to the underlying Christian element in the book (It is NOT an allegory; those who say it is need to look up the definition of allegory. It has strong Christian overtones but Aslan is not an allegory for Christ...Christ practiced nonviolence, something Aslan does not). At the end, I didn't feel that Aslan was really the amazing, wise, compassionate character that he is in the book. I also missed the humorous asides and narration that are present in the book. I don't know how that could be accomplished in a movie but I think it could have been attempted. There are other movies that have narrators.

As for the characters, I though the children were reasonably good but I was most disappointed in Liam Neeson as Aslan and Tilda Swinton as Jadis. I tried to be impressed by their performances but I was left lukewarm. Neeson didn't have quite the inflection that I would imagine for Aslan. I wanted to feel that I was hearing Aslan and instead I just felt like I was hearing Liam Neeson. Swinton looked good in the previews but in the movie she seemed...small...that's the best word I can think of. Jadis is supposed to be this extraordinarily tall, originally dark haired, magnetic figure. Instead she is just creepy and cruel...there's nothing that makes me understand why Edmund is so entranced with her. Those who have read the Magician's nephew know that there is a fascination with her...she exudes some quality that leads you to be enchanted with her until you discover the cruelty and hardness underneath the surface.

One more thing...for those who have not read the book, that whole bit at the end with them grown up is probably a bit confusing. I feel like movies should be able to stand alone...meaning a person doesn't have to read the book to understand what's going on in the movie. Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to say this movie was perfect, I found myself often having to turn to my memories of the book to fill in the blanks in the movie that didn't quite fulfill it's potential.


The latest installment of children's lit - turned movie is the weakest. The green-screen use is laughable: for example, when standing on a hilltop, next to an animal whose fur is blowing in the wind, we see a too-close shot of the children, whose improperly-lit hair is standing PERFECTLY still... on a hilltop. The CG backgrounds are not detailed and very plain (hill, trees, no movement).

Also, these children could not act, I hate to say it. Emotions, no. Excitement, no. Holding a sword like a human being, no.

The pacing was somehow both too slow AND too fast. There were plenty of dead-air moments that failed to create suspense (people in my theater were snoring, getting up a lot, getting restless), and slow-mo of poorly CG'd battle, but the storyline development (or total lack thereof) was skipped over, pushed ahead, and seemed to take a back seat to the action (as is the formula for modern CD-heavy kids movies).

The gore in the animal cruelty of sacrificing the Lion in a strangely pagan-esquire midnight ritual (I somehow didn't picture it like that as a kid reading the book) was beyond a PG depiction, (despite the cut away for the stab, and lack of blood anywhere) and gratuitous, smacking of The Passion of the Christ... but I guess that's exactly what they were going for.

I guess as long as a movie doesn't show blood, body parts, or swear words, it doesn't go over PG, despite graphic depictions of pagan sacrifice, animal abuse, creepy cyclops and other humanoids, large-scale warfare, stabbings, beatings, and such.

I'm no prude, it is a children's book -- but reading topics is less intense than seeing them graphically depicted on a big-screen, enough for maybe a 13?

The storyline is so very simple - find wonderland, set off human alarm, Savior sacrifices himself for you and resurrects, win war against evil Christmas-hating witch. 4 steps. 3 hours to tell? It just isn't as complex as LOTR or even the better Harry Potters. That's why the pacing felt so slow.

Had the characters been rounded out (one can interpret a book when making it into a movie, but nobody told Disney this) - it might have been better. If Judas, I mean Edmund, had been explored -- why was he so impudent? Did he really have fantasies of being King? Did he learn a lesson, or just go on/off from traitor to Witch-fighter? Any of these could've been explored instead of the dead-air treatment I watched.


Narnia isn't the next Lord of the Rings, nor the next Harry Potter, at least on the cinema screen. Even what spirit those fantasy spectacles had, Narnia lacks. And it seems the whole hundreds-plus audience, many of whom were children, agreed with me in their numb, passive state. No yelps of joy, excitement nor even the slightest scare. After the movie ended, both kids and adults were in such a rush to leave, silent and obviously underwhelmed, that some of them missed the tacked-in ending during the credits.

Visually, the movie is a quality work, displaying technical prowess and craftsmanship. You will wonder how they managed to create all beasts from the real world to the mythology, from beavers, panthers and lions to fauns, centaurs and gryphons. There are also some large, captivating sights such as the view of the ice castle and the scene of the final battle. The snow is dubious though, but I guess that is acceptable.

What is not acceptable is the soullessness and joylessness of the rest of actual content of the film. Much of it weighs down upon the main roles the main roles. Georgie Henley's Lucy Pevensie gets a lot of screen time compared to her siblings, which is for the better thanks to her charisma. The rest of three, however, come off as stiff and unnatural, with perhaps more fault to the script and directing than the actors themselves. The children are portrayed as precocious on some occasions, yet unbelievably daft on others. Due to this, the three eldest siblings are thrown quite off balance during the film, and not in the credible way of children, but rather for the goal-oriented purposes of trying to build up suspense and plot where there is none.

Maybe the producers have tried to make a child-centered movie by explaining the obvious, but it feels more like underestimating its young viewers. On the other hand, the deeper questions are left completely unattended, such as the nature of the Great Magic, and the importance of Humans. This leaves the story empty, and creates a soft of befuddlement over the whole movie: what was all the fighting about? Why were the good creatures good and the bad creatures not? Underneath its eye candy, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is hollow, and without a soul, the exterior fails to impress alone.


After the massive success of LORD OF THE RINGS it would be only fitting to continue the exploration of other dimensions as created by equally talented authors, so when it was announced that C. S. Lewis' THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDBROBE would be given the film treatment I was more than anxious to see what would come of it. Early screenings gave it great reviews, and when I viewed I wasn't disappointed despite the Christ references.

Four children are sent away from their London home to a professor's estate in the countryside in order to escape the bombings from the Nazi invaders. What they find there, aside from a severe place not unlike what V. C. Andrews would depict in FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC, is a wardrobe that opens the doors to another world -- a parallel one if you may -- in which winter is ever present, but Christmas never takes place. This is Narnia, and it is under control of the White Witch Jadis who is aware of a prophecy that four humans will put an end to her wintry empire, and sets out her minions against the children who have entered her world while bribing one of them -- the rebellious Edmund -- to join her as she holds him prisoner much like the witch in Hansel and Gretel did. Her plans are to overthrow the Lion King, Aslan, and rule forever. Parallels to her world and the world as threatened by the Nazis are striking, and Tilda Swinton's transformation into the very Aryan looking Jadis is chilling, more so in her seductiveness. At times I was reminded of Cate Blanchett (they have very similar features), but I think Blanchett is to Galadriel as Swinton is to Jadis. Marvelous actresses both, but Swinton can claim her breakthrough with her role here.

With much less gravitas than the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA arrives much faster to its goal than the former does and the reason is that the books C. S. Lewis wrote are fairly slim volumes while J. R. R. Tolkien's book is a massive tome. Also, there is always the sense that the NARNIA books are more geared towards children and for much of the movie's duration there is little doubt that this is what it is: its four leads are children, many of the talking animals they meet are drawn in a way to appeal to children, and even the White Witch's castle has a storybook quality to it. Only in the appearance of Aslan does the story take a much more adult form, and its Messianic theme will not be lost on the older audience. Even so, the implications surrounding Aslan's self immolation can be interpreted in non-religious forms: if anything, it's also very similar to Gandalf's fall into the pit with the Balrog in tow in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. Both character's 'death' symbolize their own necessary transmogrification, only to arise more powerful than before and take their troops to victory.

NARNIA is a visually stunning film even in its quiet moments when the children, one by one, are entering its world through the wardrobe. I was reminded of Stephen King's DARK TOWER series: unless the characters believed in the world behind the wardrobe, it didn't exist, and this is true here. Narnia only exists if you believe hard enough in it, and time, of course, stops... or let's say, it marches at a totally different beat, also visible in Stephen King's DARK TOWER series.

Performances are quite remarkable, especially for a fantasy film. All of the actors doing the voice overs bring their characters to bubbling life, and Liam Neeson as Aslan is wise and all-knowing. The child actors are definitely comfortable in their roles and while I saw glimpses of the children of the aforementioned V. C. Andrews Gothic novel, they are real people: The younger ones fare better than the older ones, but then again they are on screen more and their stories are more crucial than the older ones although all four eventually converge into the climactic battle sequence.

All in all a great film, equally meant to be enjoyed by children and adults alike, and one which should spawn a very interesting following.


Where to begin? When I first heard of Narnia I thought that it was an old movie that in a few weeks was going to be released on TV. That was probably on July, and some months later I thought that my theory was right, I mean, even I went to a store and saw like a DVD of Narnia (probably the novels or how they made the movie). When I went to see "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" I saw a poster of the Chronicles of Narnia, that it was going to be released on December 9.

I like movies of witches, legends, imagination, adapted on novels, or like that. I expected much of this movie, I mean, the special effects of the commercials seemed great, it was like a war between the good guys vs. the bad guys, and after all I was right.

Soon I saw the movie (don't ask how), and for my surprise I loved it, the characters had great acting skills, the story was freakin' great, I couldn't move from my seat, I had to see all the movie, the characters are amazing, man, you gotta see the movie if you want to understand me... GREAT MOVIE.


I really enjoyed watching this movie, as did my daughter. While she has not read the book, many kids there had. It was great watching a movie that had both been read and enjoyed by most of the children and parents alike. I overheard one kid telling their parents, I don't remember that part in the book, I think they added it for the movie. It was neat to hear both of the parents say, oh yes it was, I remember that. While the story line itself captured the attention of most of the children, I know that along with the story, the special effects captured that of the adults. They were excellent. At the end of the movie, the parents were saying, that was a cool movie. I will say that some of the younger children seemed to get a bit antsy during the movie, as it may have been a bit too much for them. But there were few. I personally, can't wait to buy it. Disney did the book great justice and then some. It is a must see for everyone.


I've never read the books but after this movie I'm ready to take a trip to the bookstore. It did feel surprisingly rushed though and I hope this is at least a trilogy from the way they ended it which was also a bit confusing for the audience. There were some questions that hopefully will be better explained in the books. The main being the ending seen of all the kids grown up then going through the wardrobe again as children. Action packed and heart warming. Teaches us the importance of family, friendship, and not being in such a rush to grow up and stop believing in the unbelievable. Over all a high 10 out of 10.


Awful dreck. I read the books as a kid and I really wanted to like this movie. But, I am sorry to say that I have been disappointed by the film makers.

Whoever told these folks they had a good script for this movie? That person should lose their job immediately. It is CS Lewis, for God's sake, how on earth could they mess this up? The story of Narnia is rich, fulfilling and extremely gripping and entertaining. Mr. Lewis wrote a marvelous tale of fantasy and adventure that surely any trained professional screen writer could adapt into a marvelous movie.

Not so the case here. This movie was full of boring clichés, idiotic dialogue, boring scenes of nothing, then too fast scenes where actions take place so fast you can not be sure exactly what is happening and why.

These people should have studied The Lord of the Ring films. I mean for the cost of a weekend rental they could have had an epic movie making seminar and maybe they would not have ended up with this mess of a film that is right now playing in the background on my lap top.

Writing this review is more entertaining than this watching movie.

What is up with the acting in this movie? Seriously, not a good performance among the cast is to be had. Everyone seems as bored as I am right now. I just could care less about any of the main characters. Honestly.

I will say the one thing I was impressed with was the lion. Good special effect. But that is it. The actor doing the voice of Aslan sounds like he is reading a long menu and can't decide what he wants to order.

Well, watch it if you must. But you should read the books. As I said, they are fun, exciting, well imagined and written.

I hope someone who knows how to make a great epic adventure film comes along and has a go at Narnia. And dear lord I hope these film makers have no plans to continue the series. They should all be fired.


I went with trepidations, figuring Tilda Swinton would be wonderful and the rest would be so-so. I was delighted to be wrong. The movie really hinges on the four children, they are the center. I thought it was extremely well-cast and acted. I can't remember the actors names but Lucy is enchanting, Peter is noble, Susan is a difficult role as the practical, spoil-sport so I can't say she was marvelous, but really Edmund is where everything revolves.

This Edmund was really great. I was able to care about him and hope for him in a way I never did in the book. Kudos to the kids.

In the book, Mr. Tumnus was pivotal, even if briefly seen, and the movie's Mr. Tumnus was delightfully sweet and touching. There's a special scene between he and Lucy that is inventive and wonderful.

Aslan - impossible really to capture as he is a concept. I felt the facial expression was so true to the sense of sorrow that Aslan carries but I was not fond of Liam Neesan's voice. Somehow that did not work for me, nor did the voice of the wolf.

But Aslan does convey goodness and it's transitory nature and the end brought that home so well. While many seem to believe this is a Christian-themed movie, I think whatever you believe will work because the themes of good and evil, nobility and sacrifice are universal and symbolic.

A beautiful movie that I highly recommend to those who love adventure, fantasy and myth.


I wanted to be generous and give this 5 out of 10 but this film really doesn't deserve even that extra star to rate it as mediocre.

Let's start from the top: The film opens inside the bomber planes of Germans, dropping bombs on London during WWII. It next cuts to a scene of a mother frantically herding her four youngsters (the 4 who protagonists of the film) to their bomb shelter. In this scene, Edmund disobeys and runs back inside so he can grab a picture of his dad, who is fighting the war. There is a close call with a bomb, followed by Peter admonishing Edmund with the line "why can't you do as you're told?" (or something like that). This scene is followed by a long and boring goodbye scene at the railway station.

On the one hand, I like the fact that these scenes place the story in their proper timeframe; essentially, they act as a historical backdrop to the tale. On the other hand, however, they're not precisely necessary. They're nothing that a couple of text stills or voice-over narration couldn't have accomplished. One might argue that they give the film emotional weight (or some such crock), but they really don't, especially since they don't really have any bearing later. In my cynical opinion, they're an excuse to give Peter something to say (the aforementioned line to Edmund) that he will say later (though not in any meaningful way); a popular Hollywood convention, apparently. Also, I might add this is a kid's book. Why the need to open the movie with such grim scenes as the WWII bombing of London? Again, unnecessary.

However, this stands apart from the main story, so no real harm done...that is until they get to that main story. Changes are made, seemingly at random. Presumably they are done to enhance the drama of the story but all they really do is impede narrative flow and create scenes that are simply wrong. For example, there is a scene involving the four children in the Beavers' dam, getting the scoop on Narnia from the Beavers. Before this scene there is a scene with Edmund and the Witch, with the latter showing the former where her castle lies, between two hills, quite a ways away off in the distance. In the Beavers' dam scene, Edmund is shown to look at the hills, still quite a ways a way. Later in the scene, Edmund sneaks off to report to the Witch. His absence is quickly discovered by his siblings, who follow with the Beavers. It is quickly seen, though, that that prodigious distance to the Witch's house wasn't very great at all, as Edmund is soon shown to be at the castle, with his siblings and the Beavers close behind! Did I somehow miss the teleportation scene? I won't even comment on how this deviates from the book; the scene, by itself, is just ridiculous. In another scene, a fox (a character invented for the movie, as is the scene he is in) helps the children escape by throwing the pursuing wolves off their trail. On moment, the fox is telling the children and beavers that he will throw the pursuing wolves off, the next the wolves have arrived and demand the fox tell them where their quarry is. He tells them they went north, but it turns out that they are in the very tall tree towering over them. Again, I must have blinked and missed the crucial scene where the fox sprinkled fairy dust on the pursued.

Then there's the problem of acting. The four children aren't terrible but they're not very good either. And two of them (the elder two) are made out to be whiners. I guess you can't blame them too much, especially as they're made to say and do things not in the book (they might have fared better if they stuck closer to the original text).

But how do others, more experienced actors fare? Not all that well either. Tilda Swinton does not make a very good White Witch. In fact, she doesn't seem to know what to do with this role, underplaying it to the point of distraction. Also, the physical match between book and film is poor. Similarly, James McEvoy, paints a very limp portrait of Tumnus. No real conviction or anything of interest there either.

The other main gripe I have with the movie is its mimicry of the Lord of the Rings movies. Lots of armor and weapons and posturing and clashing of armies. Unfortunately, it's all pretty dull and hackneyed (and, please...beavers in armor?)

Overall, there's not much of a sense of fun about the film. Everything seems either overblown or underdeveloped. Too much effort has gone into making things look real and not enough into making things wondrous. For instance, a key piece of dialog by the Witch (one in which she calls out for the creatures in her army), is absent. It's moments like those that made the book so much fun that are noticeably missing from the movie.

I don't mean to nitpick this film to death and come off like someone who thinks the movie should have followed the book to the letter. That is not precisely so, although I don't think there's any excuse for not doing so in this case. Sure, there are parts of the book that could have used embellishment or even improvement but there was no real need to drastically change or add anything. Wasn't the reason the Lord of the Rings (or book to film) couldn't be adapted faithfully that the books were too long? Well, there's no such excuse here.


Everyone who has read the book will agree with me, the movie is rubbish: There is no magic, Aslan is 'just' a lion. The books have a lot of room for your own imagination: anthropomorphic animals and especially Aslan are just things you can't film. And if you can, you're one hell of a Filmer, this one just couldn't.

I quote C.S. Lewis himself in a letter from him to producer Lance Sieveking: 'But I am absolutely opposed  adamant isn't in it!  to a TV version. Anthropomorphic animals, when taken out of narrative into actual visibility, always turn into buffoonery or nightmare. At least, with photography. Cartoons (if only Disney did not combine so much vulgarity with his genius!) would be another matter. A human, pantomime, Aslan would be to me blasphemy'

Nowadays, because of technology, animals don't turn into buffoonery like C.S. Lewis says, but he is still right about Aslan.

There is no spirit in this movie!


This movie does one of the best jobs of following a book I have ever read. The best character in there was Edmund, played by Skandar Keynes. He portrayed the character exactly as I pictured him being in the book. His development was right on the mark. The other kids were great as well and I hope all four end up with wonderful acting careers. His dynamics with Tilda Swinton were commendable, especially coming from such a young actor. I would love to see Skandar Keynes and Tilda Swinton in a project together. Tilda Swinton was another wonderful actress in this movie. She gave the White Witch more dimensions than what appeared in the book. The scene where she gives Edmund the Turkinsh delight was one of the best in the movie. Tilda Swinton steals that scene when she welcomes Edmund onto the sleigh and really makes him believe she will make him king. Her scene in the castle throne room where she looses her temper with him makes us see her true wickedness in a startling way, as does the scene where she slaps him. Like previous posters have said, her icy stare is such a good touch. James McAvoy is another standout in this movie. He demonstrates his versatility as an actor. To see him perform as a faun in this and then watch him in "The Last King of Scotland" in one of the most powerful roles I've ever seen is amazing. He is another one I hope to see more often. The changes made to the were great for the movie. The subplot with Maugrim and his pack of wolves was a wonderful addition, especially with the dynamics between him and Peter. Changing the character of Susan into a much stronger young woman was also appreciated. In the book she was a much weaker character.


I remember being hugely disappointed the first time I saw the first installment in what is shaping up to be the massive adaptation of the Chronicles of Narnia novels into movies. In sheer numbers, this collection will be second only to the making of all of the Harry Potter movies which, if I may say, seems to be getting more and more like pulling teeth with each successive movie. That depends, of course, on whether or not they make it through the whole series, which is debatable. This is not, as you know, the first time the Chronicles have been attempted. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is the most famous of C.S. Lewis' classic collection of seven novels, which is part of the reason that expectation was so high in anticipation of its release.

I read the books several times when I was a kid, although I haven't read any of them for probably almost ten years. Nevertheless, I hold the stories themselves in high regard and so I also had high expectations of the movie. When it was first released I was unimpressed. I don't remember exactly what I said about the movie back then, but I'm pretty sure that some strong words, like "sucked," were thrown around.

I watched the movie again the other day and, while I can see what I didn't like the first time, I think I was a little harsh in my initial opinion of the movie. For starters, it is a brilliantly visionary and faithful re-creation of the book for almost the entire first hour, and doesn't get genuinely cheesy until the talking wolves show up and the movie forgets that it's not supposed to take itself so seriously. The Christian undertones are slightly heavy-handed (note: when I say "slightly" I really mean "extremely"), although this is not exactly much of an aberration from the novel, which in many ways made real efforts to rival the Holy Bible in its direct, straight-forward Christian message.

You know how those educational videos that they show us in school, whether you're in school now or you were in school 20 years ago, all look like they were made in the early 1970's by people being paid in bad polyester suit patches? Or how those videos that they show in driver's training look like they haven't been updated since the conversion from BETA to VHS? Most outwardly religious movies suffer from the same fate. Consider, for example, the hilariously bad 2002 film Time Changer. Remember that thing? Ouch!!

At any rate, those familiar with the numerous past adaptations of the story will find the whole ordeal a little redundant, but the rest of us (and that's most of us) will most likely be looking at this adaptation with fairly fresh eyes. It's a major motion picture, instead of the radio plays and animated or television features that preceded it, and is packed with brilliant performances and impressive special effects, although I would be lying if I said that there were no bad effects and no bad performances in it.

The story involves a group of young children sent off to live in the country while World War II raged outside their home, and they find themselves stuck living in an environment very unfriendly to children. While playing hide-and-seek, little Lucy hides in an old wardrobe and discovers a portal to a world called Narnia, where humans are a myth. Before long, they all find themselves in Narnia trapped by their own consciences into staying and battling the evil White Witch to protect the inhabitants of Narnia from her vicious wrath.

The film, like the books, is aimed at a young adult audience, as it should be. The books are meant for exactly the same age of children as the movie is, which speaks well for the success of this adaptation of Lewis' story. The roles of the children are cast with uniform perfection, and Tilda Swinton is outstandingly ruthless White Witch. As an aside, this is how the Terminatrix in Terminator 3 should have behaved.

Strangely, the only performance in the movie that is really distracting and out of place is Liam Neeson as Aslan, theumlion king. The animation of the lion is a distraction in itself, but Neeson's soft spoken voicing of the squinty-eyed beast, who always looks like he's about to fall asleep or has hair spray in his eyes, doesn't mix well for what is supposed to be the long-loved and lost King of Narnia. It's easy to see why he's loved, but there is no air of real respect or authority about him.

James MacEvoy, by the way, gives one of the best performances in the movie as Mr. Tumnus, the half-man/half-fawn that Lucy meets as soon as she first enters into Narnia. This is a tremendously talented actor, and even after a string of consistently brilliant performances in outstanding films, I don't think he's getting the recognition that he deserves. Lucy and Edmund are the other critical characters in the story whose casting could have single- handedly made or broken the movie, and both are flawless.

There are times when the effects are unimpressive and even downright bad (some of the evil Witches evil henchmen are of the old, cartoon-like CGI variety) and it's interesting to consider that Tumnus's initial betrayal of Lucy is exactly the same betrayal committed by Hoggle against Sarah in Labyrinth, although I guess it's not exactly a rip-off. I don't feel like researching it at the moment but I'm willing to bet that this story was written before Labyrinth


Based on the classic novel by CS Lewis, four London children are sent to a professor's country home in order for protection during World War II. There they find a magic wardrobe which leads to a mystical land called Narnia, which is being ruled by an evil witch. To defeat the witch, they must join forces with Aslan, the lion God of Narnia.

I was slightly disappointed in what I saw of this film. It's good, yes, but it's not really all that fantastic, compared to the first films of "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter." I think Lewis deserves better. However, it's good enough to start off a franchise (hopefully). In this first film of probably many, we're introduced to four children, all uniquely different in a good way. It feels like you would want to spend a whole movie with, which is the first thing one must do before making the movie.

The CGI effects were brilliant, along with the set designs, costumes, and action sequences. But no, this is not a rip-off of "Lord of the Rings" in any way, although it does in the trailer. Instead, the two films are completely different, both just seeming to have epic battle sequences, one which seems to have animals fighting. The magic is decent, I guess, although I hope they can expand a little more in the future.

I found the film quite good because of the allegory behind it. The film obviously touches on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which is probably why this film was so successful during the winter season. Apart from that, I found the film quite long. The first act drags a bit and I thought they could've sped up the pace a lot better.

The performance by Anna Popplewell, the youngest of the bunch, is quite...annoying. She seems like a rip-off of the character Hermione in the "Harry Potter" series. Apart from that, everyone else was fine. The best character in here is Tilda Swinton because her character is vicuous. I mean really vicious. I think she ranks up as one of the best villains in movies.

I think the film is a decent start to the franchise. I hope the films would get better along the way, much like the "Harry Potter" films, as well as more magic that made people fall in love with "The Wizard of Oz." The look of the film is beautiful yes. It's a stunning achievement. Overall, it's a good film for the family, although it's a bit violent for a PG rating.


I don't think I've ever used the phrase, "a movie everyone can enjoy" to describe a movie, but I'll do it here. OK, done. I'll give props where it's due, for a PG movie for kids, this was surprisingly engaging, non-cliché, and very, very well written.

There aren't a lot of fantasy movies I like, and that has to do with the way they're presented to you. They present the world to you in an already existing state, bombarding you with everything without gradually introducing you to its various elements. They present these life or death scenarios without truly exploring why we're supposed to care about the world's inhabitants in the first place. I like this movie because we're learning about the world at the same rate as the four kids here (assuming you haven't read the books, which I haven't). In fact, it was the great acting done by the kids that kept me interested enough in the "pre-fantasy" portions of the movie before we finally entered the fantastical realm, after which I cared enough about the characters to be invested in their ultimate outcomes.

**The character Lucy single-handedly kept me interested with her GREAT acting in the beginning where she was prominently featured. She was better than a good 70-83% of grown actresses that I've seen, and probably 98% of child actresses not named Dakota Fanning and a select other few. I loved her response when asked by the faun about the human beings' hand-shaking ritual. "Yeah, I don't know, why DO we do that??"

**I loved the interaction between the kids. I loved the tension there. In most PG movies the good guys are usually black and white, you don't have ugly things like traitors, jealousy, and greed.

**A mark of a well-written movie is how many times you DON'T have to say to a character on screen, "why are you doing that?" or "why AREN'T you doing this?" Prime example, in the beginning after Lucy returned from Narnia as she re-entered the wardrobe, the character specifically knew that she had been gone for apparently hours, so as she re-enters, the first thing she does is to shout out to everyone who inevitably will be worried about her, that she's OK. After they question her, she then realistically asks, "wait, what? You mean to tell me that after our hide and seek game, from your perspective I must've disappeared for hours, and you didn't wonder where I was???" That's perfect. That's exactly how a real person would behave, and the actress pulled off the well-written lines just as perfectly, as she questioned her siblings with a confused look. I'm pointing this out because I can specifically think of other movies with analogous situations where the lines the character would've said would've been ALL wrong, and the intonation with which the actor delivers the line would've been so unrealistically understated.

I only have a couple complaints:

**When the lion is lying dead on the concrete slab, and Lucy and Susan go up to him, I don't understand why Lucy was so easily talked out of using the injury healing potion she was given by...Santa Claus earlier. She first begins to use it, but then is told by Susan that it's too late, implying that since he's already dead, the potion would do no good since it's meant to heal injuries only. But how did she know the exact boundaries or properties of this magic elixir? It's MAGIC. How do you know that it won't revive him? No one specifically ever defined its limitations. Besides, what's the worst that could happen? Just pour the liquid on his wound, worst-case scenario is you get red dye on his fur (I didn't know until later you're supposed to consume the potion, not apply it directly to the wound).

**I didn't like the sword fighting scene between Peter and the witch. It just looked weak, like they were struggling to swing the sword(s). Peter, I can understand, since he's a kid, but the witch should have been a lot smoother using the dual swords.

**This one is minor, but, the grown versions of the kids at the end just looked very goofy.

Those are hardly plot holes or badly written scenes however. If my only major gripe about a 2 hour+ movie is the non-use of a Phoenix Down on a fallen Red XIII, then it's a pretty good movie. Sure the overall arc of the story may have been predictable, but there were still plenty of dramatic moments along the way and you enjoyed the ride. The plot didn't feel contrived, it was believable for what it was, and the characters are extremely likable, to the point where I was hoping that even the CGI animals don't get hurt or killed. This movie has a lot heart and certain charm to it that leaves you happy for seeing it.

***Random personal trivia: I finally saw this three years after the movie had come out, but it wasn't random. I've always had it in the back of my head that I would eventually get around to seeing this, and it was all because of an enduring three second image in my head that I remembered when they advertised this movie on TV. It was the scene at the end showing a front view of the lion and the four kids as they walk towards the camera, towards the coronation area. As corny as it sounds, there was just something noble and inspirational about that scene.


I only decided to watch 'The Lion,The Witch and the Wardrobe' as it was showing on BBC1 This Evening (Boxing Day) and the family were all sat down to watch it...I was convinced from the very start that I would not find a great deal to like in The Film, but had nothing better to do so gave it a whirl....I'm very glad that I did! It's quite possibly one of the most Enjoyable Films I have EVER seen....and it's little over 2 hour running time flew by,Now I was aware and so should all viewers be that C.S Lewis was a devout Christian,and therefore Christianity does feature rather heavily and at times Too Heavily, But most should be able to ignore the bible lesson and enjoy the spectacle.

****1/2 out of *****


I seem to remember an OLD cartoon that did the story more justice than this film. In fact--and I'm not usually one to say this--the book is way better than the film. But for those without a vivid imagination, the CG is (or was at the time) the best. <--(period) I understand how a film like Lord of the Rings had to remove some extraneous areas even at 3 hours, but The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe isn't nearly long enough to warrant the omitted movie content.

In any case, it's worth watching if you like the book. It's worth watching if you didn't like the book. It's worth watching if you've never heard of any of the books. And it's worth watching again because it's so beautiful. I give it only 7 out of 10 because I was disappointed that the story that I loved wasn't fully realized (IMO).


Contrary to another review, this show is suitable for anyone who might watch TV. Unlike the septic sludge of today the children are depicted in a reasonably innocent childhood. However, it should be noted that there is one element of unspeakable filth that must be addressed - the father's hobby is collecting . . . . T-O-I-L-E-T-S. Shhhhhh.

So if you find such filthy hobbies offensive turn off your TV, pick it up, and throw it out the window because this program is as tame as it gets.

This is an EXCELLENT Program for ALL ages. (I love this show - and I'm 51.) It is unfortunate that The Wayne Manifesto has not been made available to a larger audience and/or on DVD. With brilliant story lines, believable acting, real sets/locations there is little here to be improved and the overall package can appeal to all.

A+ with double distinction.


I'm always looking for good quality entertainment, whether it be books, movies, or TV series, for the young or the not-so-young, and "The Wayne Manifesto" is a rare gem that doesn't disappoint.

Based on the books by David McRobbie, it follows the life of 12 year old Wayne Wilson, who moves to a new neighbourhood with his family, and is therefore the 'new kid', in almost every aspect of his life.

Chronologically, I'm definitely not a 'kid' any more, and wasn't when I first watched this excellent series either, but I still couldn't resist its charms, and thankfully, had the foresight to record most of the episodes.

Apart from hoping that more great Aussie shows like this could be made, my only other wish would be that it be released on DVD in the not-too-distant future.


Decent horror movie about a warlock who terrorizes a town through the body of a scarecrow. It's never boring and the acting and special effects are fairly polished, but the movie suffers from one too many stupid scenes near the end. It also takes a while to explain what exactly is going on, but overall it was enjoyable enough. 4 out of 10.


This is a pretty boring slasher in my opinion, as I was quite disappointed, after reading lots of positive stuff about it. It has some decent gore scenes, but all the characters were very unlikable, and it moved along at a snail's pace, plus the only time it got interesting was the finale, as that was kind of fun to watch. I bought this at a pawn shop for a $1, as thankfully I didn't spend much money on it, plus The Scarecrow wasn't menacing at all for me, as it was just too weak looking. It may be worth a watch for Horror fanatics(like myself), but even then I would have trouble recommending it, and it's badly made and written as well, plus Gary Lockwood played his role extremely well as the prick of a Mayor!. There is one amusing moment, where a couple of drunk guys try to go mess around and pee on the Scarecrow, and things go dead wrong, and I thought the two leads Elizabeth Barondes(Claire) and John Mese(Dillion) hardly had any chemistry together at all, plus as I said the only worthwhile things are the decent gore scenes and the finale. This is a pretty boring slasher in my opinion, as I was quite disappointed after reading lots of positive stuff about it, and I say avoid it. The Direction is not very good. Jeff Burr does a bad job here with dull camera work, using a potentially good setting, only problem is it moves along too slowly, for me to really give a damn. The Acting isn't much better. Elizabeth Barondes and John Mese are mediocre as the leads, and I didn't really care about there characters, they were just there, plus it didn't help that they didn't have very good chemistry together. Stephen Root is OK as the Sheriff, and did his job adequately. Howard Swain plays the scarecrow well enough too bad it wasn't that menacing. Gary Lockwood plays the prick of a mayor very well I hated him. Rest of the cast are mediocre. Overall I'd say avoid. * out of 5


The special effects and make-up are well done. The plot is standard. Characters are really fun, especially the priest. But the main girl and guy were a bit of a bore. As if cast only for their looks (which is usual, but at least look for a bit more, right?) The Scarecrow is funny and entertaining. He could've easily become one of those horror film characters like Leprechaun, or PumkinHead, or Jack Frost. But not exciting enough to become a Jason, or Freddy. Not much to say except i enjoyed it, rather than getting just plain bored.


Night of The Scarecrow is a cool horror movie. The scarecrow may look cheesy but he is cool. There are some great killing scenes throughout the movie which make this a worth while watch. Not many people have heard of this, but still give it a go because it is much better then some of the other horror movies out there.


Warlock's spirit, trapped within a scarecrow as his burnt bones lie in a tomb buried deep within the ground of his cornfield home, rises when the erected slab imprisoning his casket is disturbed as bolts of lightning emerge awakening his lifeforce..that's the best I can explain it, folks. It seems that the community founded by the Goodmans needed magical assistance if their unfertile land and people starving were ever gonna yield any satisfying results..in comes the Warlock to fulfill their needs, with his magic book of spells as a tool to help the community thrive and land fertile. When the magician began causing such rampant sin and perversion as his granted freedom gave way to lascivious appetites, those religious townpeople, who haven't succumb to the lusts of the flesh decide to hang him on a wooden cross in the middle of a cornfield, later burning his bones & burying them in a tomb. A scarecrow was erected, as was the slab, over the burial plot of the warlock, reminding the generations of Goodmans of the deeds they committed years ago. Anyway, we are now in the present and the recently awakened warlock uses his scarecrow body to kill various Goodmans(..and others in his path)looking to retrieve his magical book of spells and reunite with his bones so that he can return to fleshly form even more powerful than he is as a walking man of string. Claire Goodman(Elizabeth Barondes)is set up as you female heroine and lover Dillon(John Mese), who works for her pops, Mayor William Goodman(Gary Lockwood, FAR removed from 2001, that's for sure)is the male hero who must stop the killer scarecrow before he is able to become all-powerful.

Supernatural slasher milks the scarecrow idea for all it's worth. One scene has the scarecrow planting a seed within the lusty daughter of Priest Uncle Thaddeus(Bruce Glover, appropriately hammy as a corrupt priest who reads lingerie magazines while alone in his church)as it explodes wooden branches from her skin. Another has the scarecrow sowing Uncle Thaddeus' mouth shut. Oh, and you especially like the scene where the scarecrow causes one poor soul to grow straw from his facial orifices, fingers and torso. One scene has the scarecrow blowing straw into a cop's face like little nails that stab the guy in the face. Lots of WTF? death sequences that cause one to giggle..

Some recognizable faces include Dirk Blocker as drunken Uncle George who gets shredded by his tractor, Stephen Root as sheriff Uncle Frank who receives straw "needles" into his face, Martine Beswick as Uncle Thaddeus' wife Barbara(she likes to sew, so this ought to hint at how she'll likely perish), and John Hawkes as Danny, the nuisance who unearthed the warlock to begin with. Director Jeff Burr tries to inject some style into the incredibly asinine premise, but to enjoy this you'll have to accept the film on it's terms. Judging by the film's user rating, few have..


Night of the Scarecrow deserves more recognition then it gets.It's got a good storyline and plot to it.Theres no characters that are that famous,but if you watch soap opears you'll recognize Cristi Harris who plays "Stephanie".She's from NBCs Sunset Beach.The killer Scarecrow is corny ,like the snowman in Jack Frost,but it's still a great movie.It also has great death scenes;so if you like horror movies rent Night of the Scarecrow,you won't be disappointed.I give it **** out of ***** stars.


I picked up this movie because I'll watch any horror movie. I was surprised to find it was actually pretty good and fairly scary.

The acting ranged from quite good to ham, and although I wished the scarecrow didn't talk it was still a pretty creepy-looking horror villain.

Jeff Burr has proven himself to be an okay genre director. His first movie, The Offspring, was great, and his Stepfather and Pumpkinhead sequels were better than average. Even Leatherface was okay, though his version of the movie was seriously tampered with before release. Night of the Scarecrow doesn't make me long to see his other movies, but I'd pick them up if I tripped over them.


Jeff Burr is definitely one of the most talented horror directors ever.I really enjoyed his earlier horror films like "The Offspring"(1986)and "Leatherface-Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3"(1990)."Night of the Scarecrow" is amazing!-well-acted,suspenseful and exciting.Great special effects,fine acting and plenty of gruesome death scenes.The gore is well-done and suitably splashy and the villain is really cool!Not as good as "Scarecrows"(1988),but definitely worth checking out.I give it 9 out of 10.


"Night of the Scarecrow" is a typical horror movie from 90's.The production is slick and polished,the acting ranks from acceptable to lame and the special effects are mostly cool.There are some graphic gore scenes,so the gore-hounds will not be disappointed.It's a decent movie however I prefer earlier "Scarecrows"(1988,William Wesley),which is not only gory,but also creepy as hell.In conclusion,this is sometimes nonsensical,but quite enjoyable picture so you should give it a chance.


I loved this movie when I was a child. I loved this movie along with The Ice cream man which also needs to be released on DVD. Any Night of the scarecrow is a very fun and enjoyable film. I must say that the coolest thing about this film is the scarecrow and right being that is the gore and cool special effects. It's been so long since I've seen this movie it's been about five years since I've seen this film. Then of course I started buying my horror movies on DVD and unfortunately this little gem was never released. It's missing from my collection along with the Ice cream man. Amazon needs to get some copies of this movie on DVD real bad. Recommended to every horror fan out there.


This movie has no redeeming qualities (okay a couple of inventive deaths but you'll be bored getting to them). Writing a review of it seems to be a waste of time but I've already wasted 90 minutes of my life watching it so if I can stop other people from doing the same then it was worth it. Think for a minute what makes bad horror movies so bad and you have Night of the Scarecrow. The director needs to go back to film school and study suspense again because this movie doesn't have any. Let me say this one last time: gore does not equal horror!!! The gore in the movie is even quite lame. I find Scarecrows scary so I had high hopes for this film but it's just another example of why horror movies get such a bad rap. The acting is mediocre as are the few shocks that the film has. Do yourself a favour and skip this dud. 1 out of 10.


Really, how to make something original, fresh and odd out of absolutely nothing except a few characters? Using characters, only characters and nothing except characters. That's the simple formula Brooks uses in all of his work, but, for me, he has never created so much charm, warmth and sensibility as he did in `As good as it gets'.

Characters write the screenplay in this movie, and everything that happens - happens because of what they are. They are nothing special  they are ordinary people we meet in the street every day and that have the same problems a lot of other people have. This movie presents the example of how much you can pull out of that. And if that is written as well as it is in this case, not even a happy ending can bother you. Because, in real life, shown here, what is the end?

Everything is good and warm in this movie, everything is fresh and vivacious, understandable and well performed. Jack Nicholson brings one of the best performances of his career, that terrific Helen Hunt finally got a chance to show how skilfully an actor can connect naturalism with the laws of the camera performance, and Greg Kinnear shows the most convincing emotions coming from a gay character I've ever seen.

The relationships between the characters are created in the way that you can't predict anything that's going to happen, eventhough you know in advance what could come out of their mouth and what kind of attitude they'll have in a certain situation.

You can simply feel the progressive collaboration that occurred between Brooks and the actors and the mutual understanding they developed, and it's not often that you see that kind of artistic superstructure shining on the screen so much as it does here.

I find `As good as it gets' complexed, vital, intelligent, emotionally deep and studied, fresh, original, amusing, cheerful, funny, and one of the best films of 1997.


"As Good As It Gets" boasts a splendid, delightful combination of wonderful, zesty acting and a remarkably bright and effective screenplay. Jack Nicholson is pitch-perfect as the obsessive-compulsive curmudgeon Melvin Udall, who possesses some of the strangest and most curious tendencies ever concocted by screenwriters; his Udall is so human, so heartfelt, so genuine, and so whimsical and Nicholson perfects him to such a degree that not a moment of his screen time is unwanted or uninteresting: in my valid opinion, this is Nicholson's best performance of his career, and one of the most reverent performances in film history. What an engaging, enthralling story: an troubled, insecure man helps a troubled, insecure waitress (troubled and insecure in different respects), and the two form an unlikely relationship from being distant acquaintances (Hunt even exclaims that Nicholson is crazy in their most uncomfortable moment in the film) to practical soul mates (Nicholson to Hunt: "I feel that I'm the only person that knows that you are the greatest woman alive"), through a series of misfortunes, self-explorations, and mutual bondings. Kinnear's character Simon has the distinct purpose in being both the bridge and the divider of Nicholson and Hunt's relationship, and he identifies with his character with compassion and understanding, as he has frequently been wronged throughout his existence. The most curious aspect to a story such as this, involving such unduly, diverse characters: a miserable recluse, a zesty, yet insecure waitress, and a sensitive and insightful, yet wronged homosexual, is that in their distinct differences, they share many of the same problems, and these problems eventually bring them all together, although hardly in a civilized manner. I appreciated practically every element in this wonderful, delightful masterpiece of exemplary romantic comedy, in its indelible acting (Oscars well deserved), its whimsical, touching screenplay (This was neons above "Good Will Hunting"'s quality) and its comforting morale, that despite all of the great odds in life which prevent us from being happy, we can perhaps find it within ourselves to take that one important step in reversing our fortunes, in "stopping with taking pills" and to allow our lives, and our desires to shine and be realized, as this story depicts life. The best romantic comedy, certainly the best film of 1997, and one of the greatest films of all time, "As Good As It Gets" succeeds in practically every entertaining and endearing cinematic respect. **** out of ****


Comedies (especially romantic comedies) can only be judged by how much they make you laugh and if they make you feel good inside. As Good As It Gets does it for me every time. I'm not just saying this on account of being a "Jack fan." The characters are so beautifully drawn, you forget it's just Jamie from "Mad About You" (Helen Hunt) and the man with the eyebrows (Nicholson). This movie deserved all of its Oscars, and then some. The role of an obsessive-compulsive is an easy one to parody and mock to death, but Jack does it with style, humour, emotion, and that usual Nicholson flair. Hunt has never been better as a waitress with a major anxiety to do something for herself for a change. Greg Kinnear is also very good as a gay artist that ends up having to turn to the irascible Jack for help after he is scarred and left destitute following a break-in. This is such a special comedy, fresh from the pen of James L. Brooks, the man behind the wonderful Terms of Endearment (another wonderful Nicholson performance) and Broadcast News. As Good As It Gets made me feel so good, even though I couldn't really relate to the characters' situations. The humor is pure Jack, set to the script with perfect ease. The emotions evoked by the actors are also authentic and heart-felt, as if they love what they are acting out. Movies like this come few and far between, and that is the reason why I appreciate this film so very much. As Good As It Gets was one of the best films of 1997. Rating: Four stars.


Jack Nicholson is one of those actors who impresses me the second (and I'm not overstating in the least bit) he appears on screen. The moment I see Jack's face on screen, I get this feeling that everything's going to be all right. He could do a Pauly Shore film, and elevate its quality with his mere presence. And I didn't even get to his acting.

Nicholson won a well-deserved Oscar for this movie. Then again, I feel like he deserves an Oscar for virtually everything he's been in. Hell, you can even give him an Oscar nod for "Anger Management." THAT'S how great he is! He's one of those actors who can communicate even more emotion when he's not saying anything than when he is. And of course, he has one of the coolest movie star voices ever, so it makes it a joy whenever he does speak. I still feel like "You can't handle the truth!" wouldn't be as priceless a line if Jack didn't yell it. He can say almost any line of dialogue and turn it into gold. In this movie it was "You make me wanna be a better man." Again, an otherwise forgettable line of dialogue made gold by Jack.

"As Good As It Gets" is a flawed film, with scenes that drag and an overlong running time, but it's highly enjoyable and altogether pretty well-written. Aside from its many hilarious moments, it's also quite touching. But I have to admit that it's the comedy that sticks out most in my memory. There's some priceless gags like when a Jewish couple is sitting at Jack's usual table. He first intrudes into their conversation saying, "People who speak in metaphors oughtta shampoo my crotch." He complains to Helen Hunt, his usual waitress, saying "I have Jews at my table!" He then intrudes in the couple's conversation again, noticing the food on their table, saying "Obviously your appetites aren't as big as your noses." Now, I probably wouldn't want to personally know a man like Melvin in my real life, but I still found those cracks to be hysterically funny. The same when he attacks Greg Kinnear's gay character with constant homosexual slurs.

The performances are great all-around. Though Jack pretty much steals the show, Greg Kinnear gives a wonderfully endearing performance. He doesn't play out the gay stereotypes, yet he's sensitive and feminine enough to have me convinced that he is gay (unlike Eric McCormack on "Will and Grace" who acts like he's gay for the sake of the show's gimmick). It's nice to see Kinnear rise from the host of "Talk Soup" and the thankless late night talk show "Later" to a fine actor. Previously, I wouldn't have any notion that he could become what he is now. Helen Hunt also gives a compelling, emotionally packed performance. And Shirley Knight, as her mother, provides a little bit of comic relief. Cuba Gooding Jr. has a small but interesting role, and he makes the best of it.

The film does have its dull moments, but Jack's one-of-a-kind performance makes it all worthwhile. There is nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who could've played Melvin better than him. I read in the trivia that John Travolta was originally offered the role. Now, I like Travolta, but in this type of role he wouldn't hold a candle to Jack.

My score: 7 (out of 10)


As Good As It Gets is one of those incredibly moving films that is also hugely entertaining. It's not just a comedy, you can't quite label it a drama piece, it just is what it is; simply great.

What works here so well are the actors and the script. Nicholson and Hunt both won Oscars and they're simply great but Kinnear is no less effective as Nicholson gay neighbour. Plus that dog is amazing as well. This film really relies on great performances and there's no shortage of that here.

As Good As It Gets is also remarkably well written. So well defined characters and completely involving, you quite simply grow to love them and sympathize with their plight. Nicholson's remarks are terrific, each one very quotable (personal fav; I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability).

Direction is first rate, Brooks made Terms of Endearment so it's well established that he's quite capable of making great films. As Good As It Gets is very nearly as good it gets.


This movie is bizarre because, while judged overall its story is shmaltzy and unbelievable, nevertheless each individual scene plays absolutely convincingly and feels very real. It's weird. I don't know if it's just the greatness of the actors overcoming an under-thought out script, or whether it's just the script concentrated solely on crafting great scenes one after the other, but not so much in coming up with a convincing through-line. Whatever. All I know is that this is one of the most entertaining pictures I've ever seen, extremely funny and quite emotionally affecting in places. Somehow, it just doesn't matter - I like it anyway.

The performances are uniformly excellent. Nicholson shows real range here - sure, he gets to be the sarcastic curmudgeon we've all come to expect, but his character also has moments of fear, repression and vulnerability which he brings off equally well. My problem with this character (and the "problem" only exists as I think about him afterward, not while I'm actually watching the movie) is in his conception: he seems to be whatever the writers want him to be at that moment, with no particular consistency from scene to scene so when he supposedly "changes" at the end, we're left to think, "Change? This guy's been changing through the entire movie!" And also, the fact that his character is a romance novelist is never really explained or examined in any way.

And yet, Nicholson's performance makes it not matter quite so much.

Helen Hunt is a revelation in this movie - she nails every scene she's in, whether she's forced to be witty, embarrassed, angry, defiant, emotionally overwhelmed, whatever. She keeps Jack on his toes, and they work off each other brilliantly. Also, I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but Greg Kinnear was great as Simon, the gay neighbor. (It was also nice to see director Harold Ramis - the third Ghostbuster, after all - in front of the camera again, if only briefly, in a small part as a doctor.)

What more can I say? Good comedy, good love story, great acting. None of it, in the end, is very convincing, but if you just focus on the individual moments and not on the grand design - a task made easy by the wonderful writing and playing - it's very easy to like As Good As It Gets.


Directed by Oscar nominee James L. Brooks, the story written by Mark Andrus brings up not only very interesting characters but also very interesting issues. I have the video and enjoy watching it. The CD is great with music of Nat King Cole, Shawn Colkin. Outstanding acting by Helen Hunt (Mad About You, Twister) who won an Oscar for this role where she plays Carol Connelly, a single mother, working as waitress in Manhattan, New York. A single parent trying to cope with her work and paying medical bills for son Spencer Connelly, played by Jesse James (Message in a Bottle, The Gingerbread Men, Gods and Monsters). Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men, Easy Rider, Witches of Eastwick) is Melvin Udall who is an obsessive compulsive. Nicholson also won an Oscar for his part. His obsessive compulsiveness has taken over his life and he is not able to live a normal life. Melvin Udall has tons of soap all organized in his medicine cabinet. He uses a bar of soap once and then throws it out. He will not step on a crack on the side walk but skips to the next block of concrete. When he goes to the restaurant he brings his own plastic fork, knife and spoon in a plastic bag. Udall uses plastic gloves to hold the dog and has all his office supply stacked and all color coordinated in his home/office. He eats at the same restaurant, sits at the same table, if someone is seating at his table he insults them to make them leave so that he has his table back, wants the same waiter Carol to wait on him, and takes forever to take a shower. He closes his door several times and counts how many times he has done it. As a writer who works at home I do understand Mr. Udall really well. Writers think somewhat like this: we like to be alone with ourselves in order to think. We have to go inside ourselves to produce good work. It is a very isolated world. We do not like to be bothered unless we are bored, or tired, in which case we want to communicate with the outside world for a brief period of time, then after one hour or so we want to go back inside ourselves again and be left alone. This is somehow like Melvin thinks. People think that he has nothing to do and they keep knocking at his door and he gets really aggravated about that. He is my favorite character in this movie, not to diminish the other ones. He is just so full on nuances that make him very entertaining. Helen's role is very, very, good and she did a really good job with it. Greg Kinnear (Sabrina) is Simon Bishop, the artist who is Udall's next door neighbor who finally has Melvin turning into a little more normal human being and he is there to teach him many life lessons. The supporting actors are great, you have Oscar winner Cuba Gooding Jr. (Jerry Maguire) playing Frank Sachs, Simon's agent.

My favorite scenes: elementary school kids all in uniform screaming: "Wait! Melvin, wait"! Greg Kinnear imitating Melvin. Melvin and Caroll going to eat fresh rolls in the wee hours of the morning. When Melvin realizes that the dog is also skipping cracks on the sidewalk.

My favorite quote: "I am drowning here and you are describing the water." This is a nice story telling movie. I recommend it!


Now I know what good acting means. You are absolutely surrounded with it in this movie. There is not a single actor or actress in this movie that didn't exceed himself/herself. Helen Hunt is great (I don;t know why, but I find her quite attractive) and I won't bore you about the performance given by Jack Nicholson. When I first saw this movie I thought it was really boring and overrated, but I saw it again the second day and immediately loved it. Maybe the ending is a little bogus, but it's a romantic comedy, so it didn't bother me that much. A fairly complicated plot presented with ease and simplicity works perfectly and there's a nostalgic tone to the movie in whole. Maybe because it's a rare occasion nowadays to come across a movie that isn't stuffed with special effects. This is a movie that should be seen on a beautiful day, when you're in a good mood.

Great fun that keeps getting better and better each time I see it. A strong 8/10.


A telly-familiar face from the production crew of the Simpsons series, James L. Brooks, directs a 5-year old screenplay and rakes up a pretentious cast of actors. The original script has been written by Mark Andrus in 1992, and has been developed differently from its origin in 5 years time by the director James L. Brooks. The length of the time passed in between this period has surely deprived the efficiency of its editing. Hence, we shouldn't have expected a good relation between the storyline and the plot. Thankfully, James L. Brooks hasn't even put a plot on view. So we get a simple sit-com entirely tied to the actors' contribution in this comedy/family movie.

When a movie goes nowhere via its point, comedy is the easiest cure to make it find a way. Consider a horror movie, you watch it but you don't feel any fear; in order to be meant for something, a horror can be cured with some comedy, that way can it only become interesting. On the other hand, comedy is the hardest cure to make a point-lost movie find a way; 'cause you gotta have Oscar worthy performances at least to make it worth to watch. As Good As It Gets is the worst movie of 1997 with its technical features:

Editing is the worst, screenplay is a mess, no camera aspects, no successful sound editing or mixing(no one has no idea how can a puppy murmur through a garbage chute and can be heard inside an apartment unit), art decoration has zero achievement(that's why it's a sit-com) ; at the same time As Good As It Gets is at its best for 4 great performances: Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson at the leading, Greg Kinnear and Cuba Gooding Jr. at the supporting. If a Hollywood movie is just leaning upon its cast, why watching Hollywood then?

As Good As It Gets absolutely deserved its 2 actor-based Oscars and in total 3 actor-based nominations. The other 4 nominations are a fine cods-wallop!

Priggery and meticulousness are very well staged by Nicholson, playing a quirky character at the culminating point of capturing viewers' attention, reminding us of Bart Simpson at age 60; especially with his style of walking crab-wise on the street. Helen Hunt plays and heartens a mother of a sick child within bearing of her vicissitude of fortune at one side, bearing Jack Nicholson as the menace of her emotional argument at the opposite side. Cuba Gooding Jr. is a self-assertive individual and the only person in the movie who can deliver a replication to Nicholson. Additionally, Greg Kinnear is the gingerbread of the movie playing the beaten and robbed gay artist. Because each one of the actors has a complete different view of life, the non-plotted script magnetizes us growing our curiosity on if they ever roll up like a hedgehog together.

As Good As It Gets made me want to watch Seinfeld. Based upon same idea, to play along with each other, Seinfeld is much much more better than this one of its analogous. There is absolutely no technical feature to make As Good As It Gets a worth-watching movie. It is likable only for its remarkable acting.


This is a touching film because it's centred on a man that you will initially dislike and may continue to dislike. That doesn't matter though because it's about non-conformists being able to fall in love without sacrificing their individuality. That's what sets it apart from your typical romantic slush: this is the most genuine, uplifting film I have seen in ages. It isn't formulaic, and it works: future script-writers take note!


As Good as it Gets is a very funny movie, filled with great acting and lines that always hit the mark p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y... Jack Nicholson is absolutely perfect, and Helen Hunt proves that she can do better than playing in Twister... Greg Kinnear is also very convincing in his role. The Oscar-cursed Cuba Gooding Jr. gives one of his last good performances, if not THE last one... Great movie...

85%


A story of messed up real life people trying to find a happy hollywood ending, almost real life for a change.

Nicholson is fantastic getting all the quick witted replies and comments that he deserves, and Hunt provides a fantastic lead opposite him and the pair blend beautifully together in their scenes.

Gooding and Kinnear provide strong support, but it's Kinnear who outshines Gooding, why haven't we seen him in more prominent roles before?

The film can get a bit sappy in places, but it always brings it back to reality with a bang.

Definately a go see, for all those Victor Meldrew types.


I have to say that after watching this movie the first time, I totally enjoyed it. Second viewing was somewhat bored but still liked it. By the third viewing, I noticed it was too long, some scenes were boring and pointless and I"m sick of the male lead being 30 years older than the female lead. Nonetheless:good acting, good dialouge(for the most part), good direction, but after repeat viewing the movie doesnt hold its strength.


"As Good as it Gets" shows that comedies can have something more than laughs and silliness.

Jack Nicholson (playing Melvin Udall, a very unusual man) and Helen Hunt (playing Carol, a very nice waitress and an ordinary person) really deserved the Oscar. I've already known that Nicholson was a great actor, but Helen surprised me. She's a wonderful and graceful actress; one of my favorite ones. Her character has the gift to change the life of a cold and boring man like Melvin. I think Greg Kinnear should have won the Oscar (he's much more better than Robin Williams).

I can compare "As Good as it Gets" with another great comedy released recently - "Notting Hill". They both show you the disabilities and the joy of ordinary people (even if he is a maniac man, like Melvin Udall, or the most famous movie star, like Anna Scott - Julia Roberts - in "Notting Hill").

I think this film wouldn't be very good with other actors, but it's a very human comedy and it had the attention it deserved.

9/10


James L. Brooks is a man with a gift for developing interesting characters but with a weakness for squeezing them into cliched and/or manipulative circumstances. When obsessive compulsive Jack Nicholson pays for Helen Hunt's seriously ill son's medical expenses just so she won't have to stop being his waitress, the movie flows along with a lot of invention and energy. But then the movie becomes another one of those dangerous romantic fantasies where an unlikable guy is "cured" of his xenophobia by the love of a good woman.

At the beginning the racist, sexist, and homophobic jokes made by Nicholson are played for laughs, which is fine for the movie's purposes, but then Brooks expects us to feel threatened by the exact same type of comments and then warmhearted when he tries to change his ways. Who cares about a bigoted old man's happiness?

The movie goes a lot into Hunt's devotion to her son but does she really think Nicholson would make a good father figure? Hunt and Nicholson falling in love is an easy out because then Brooks doesn't really have to deal with the more difficult (and more interesting) ideas brought up in the first half.

So is the movie actually good? Well, sure. It's quirkier than most romantic comedies (if you want to call it that) but it's disappointing intellectually in the end. Soooooooo, *** out of ****


This film is really not about anything. It starts off simply introducing some of the characters who you will soon never forget. We are immediately introduced to a crumudgen named Melvin played by Jack Nicholson.

Melvin in short is a SOB. He is rude, racist, paranoid, homophobic, and just a horrible person. Our first introduction to him we wittness him taking his gay neighbour's dog running around and chucking it down the garbage chute.

When Simon finds out (played by Greg Kineear) he decides to take a stand but is so intimidated by Melvin's antics that even when he tries to confront him he just breaks down. This also leads to a diatribe Melvin says to Simon that is so brutal that you can't help but feel bad but laugh at hystericaly.

This is pretty much the pace of the film. All the characters have their shining moment. Melvin has several, Simon has many, and even Simon's lover played by Cuba Gooding Jr. has a great confrontation scene with Melvin telling him to lay off Simon.

There is a reason for Melvin's antics, which isn't explained until about 1/2 way through the film, and that is he has OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). In short this is a bit of a flaw cause it makes the viewer not sympathize with Melvin right away. Instead many people witnessing his antics may just end up hating him so much cause his behaviour is without reason, (walking in to the same restaurant every day, at the exact time, demanding to be served by the same waitress [Helen Hunt], bringing his own plastic cutlery, while bad mouthing everyone else in the place is a good example). When he finally gets kicked out by the owner all the patrons stand up and cheer. To some degree that may be the reaction some people watching this film may have by walking out of this film before its even 1/4 through. It's a testament to Jack's performance for creating someone who is truly an absolute unbearable person to witness. Melvin seems VERY real..

But in short all these characters come together in the end out of bizarre circumstances and life changes for the better. It's an enjoyable film, with some great performances particularly for Jack's best actor performance, and Kineear's wounded likes of Simon.

The film also has a very well trained memorable dog that is amazing in its personality. This dog even has better acting chops than most actors in films I have seen! The film does try to create a romance between Melvin and the waitress which is OK but gets a bit overlong (the restaurant scene is a bit lengthy), but still highly recommended

Great feel good film.

Rating 8 out of 10.


I enjoyed the film greatly. It is extraordinary clever and witty with original, incredibly amusing dialogues. I didn't want any action in the movie: it was enough just to look at the characters and to listen to their speaking. Besides, it's very moving: background is highly dramatic, though on the surface you find the funniest comedy. The real life is like that, you know  a short way from tragedy to the farce. The plot twists unexpectedly but so naturally that I never doubted the possibility of such events. Actors' works are outstanding. Jack Nicholson is the unique actor, he gives an unforgettable performer as Melvin Udall. Helen Hunt is excellent: expressive, spirited, and stylish. You feel every emotion of Carol and sympathize with her. Greg Kinnear showed all his abilities in the part of Simon  the most convincing and likable gay character I've ever seen. I also admire Shirley Knight as Carol's mother  perfect! My favourite moment is that at the end of the movie where she listens behind the door and suddenly pops out to explain that `normal boyfriends' don't exist. It was great  so funny and so true! According to the story there is no such thing as `normal people' in the world, we are all crazy. So never mind being crazy  life is just as good as it gets! Both of lead actors deserved their Oscars, however two awards are too little for such film. At least, screenwriter and director must have had Oscars. And why there is no special award for `the best animal in the film'? Verdel is an irresistibly attractive creature, and so talented! The film entertains you and touches your heart deeply, makes you smile, laugh and cry, but never depress or bore. 10/10 in every sense.


among the best 3 movies of 1997, along with good will hunting & l.a.confidential. this movie has 3 top artistes giving off their best. the story is simple, and yet so complex. the characters are out-of-the-world and yet so real. as good as it gets revels in this paradox.

touching at the raw chords, a story of a man who cannot (or rather does not want to) reveal his emotions. helen hunt plays the woman that turns him around, the one person who makes him "want to be a better man". greg kinear plays a brilliant role as the gay friend. he would have bagged the oscars in most years, his tough luck that he ran into robin williams giving his career best performance in good will hunting.

as good as it gets is funny, endearing, touching, dark, sad, cathartic, confusing and enlightening all at once. one of the modern masterpieces. the casting director deserves a special award for this casting coup. watch the movie for the brilliant performances, the arresting chemistry between these superstars, the heart-rending moments between them. this is one of the best movies of the 90s.

A deserving 9.


My main quarrel with romance movies is that they are targeted for a specific audience (females 18-30) and from working in a video store that is the demographic who rents them. This movie I could watch with just about anyone, as it is a perfect balance of comedy, good drama, and romance, with great acting by everyone, and good directing as well. Call it a chick flick if you want, but it does not disappoint, 'Excuse me there are JEWS at my table' hahahahaha (by the way im jewish)


The two leading actors here just own the film. There are so many memorable scenes, its full of drama yet is a great comedy.

Lets face it Jack Nicholson was made for the part, and he says things that I would love to do but never have the balls, yet he is incredibly dry.

The scene where one of his fans, a stereotypical dumb blonde (he's a writer) asks him how he writes women so well, 'I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.' LOL!


As Good as it Gets was really a funny romantic comedy just like I expected. The movie focuses around the character of Melvin (Jack Nicholson) a superstitous, bigot, and writer. He then meets a waitress (Helen Hunt) and his gay neighbor (Greg Kinnear) and they all form a friendship with each other. As Good as it Gets got me hooked from the start. I like Jack Nicholson and Greg Kinnear. The two are paired with Helen Hunt and what comes out is a great, romantic comedy. There are some parts that are draggy but everything else is just great.

9/10


This movie is just as good as it gets. I saw it once more last night on late TV and couldn´t stop watching even though I´ve seen it 2 or 3 times already. You just can´t get tired of it and there´s not a lot of movies you can say that about. Jack Nicholson and all the cast are excellent. I give it a 10.


The problem with plot driven movies is that they are confined to the plot. Any and all plot driven movies (movies that rely on plot instead of character to tell the story) must stay within that plot. Jurassic Park must always involve dinosaurs. Bringing Out the Dead must involve ambulance drivers. Die-Hard must involve terrorists. This is not a bad thing. All of those movies I mentioned above are great movies, but they are plot driven.

It is nice, however, from time to time to see a character driven movie. A movie with no gimmick, no real plot, only characters that tie it together. These movies usually have more than one main character, lots of dialog, and most importantly, they can go anywhere. The characters can jump in a plane and fly to Antarctica if the want to. It is this feeling of open-ness that makes such movies feel so good. As Good as it Gets is one of these movies. Because the movie is character driven, we feel anything can happen.

As Good as it Gets has some of the best characters I have ever seen. There is no real plot. If I had to say what the plot was I would say it's about a crazy jerk who tries to change himself. But that doesn't even come close to describing this movie.

One reason why I love this movie is that I can really identify with the main character, Melvin Udall, played with shear brilliance by Jack Nicholson. You see, I am a little obsessive-compulsive. Not enough to warrant medication, just enough to know I have it. As I have said before in other reviews, I love movies about crazy people. And Melvin is about as crazy as they come. I can really understand why he locks and unlocks his door ten times overtime he comes home. I can understand why he wants to have the same waitress serve him breakfast every day. Obsessive-compulsive people love routine and if anything gets in the way of their routine, they feel violated. They not only want everyday to be like the last, they need it that way.

The acting in this movie is the best I have ever seen in one movie. The cast was perfect. No one plays a better lunatic than Jack Nicholson. The man is so good mer words can not express it. Helen Hunt is great as the cruel, stressful yet sensitive waitress. She deserves the Oscar for this and she has become one of my favorite actresses. Cuba Gooding Jr. has a small part, but he works it beautifully. Greg Kinnear is great as the sensitive and confused gay painter. Even Yeardly Smith (who some of you may know as Lisa from The Simpsons) is good. That just shows how good James L. Brooks is. He assembles on of the greatest casts ever and he directs them with grace and beauty.

Speaking of James L. Brooks, he and Mark Andus have made on of the funniest scripts of all time. This movie has some of the best one-liners I have ever heard (most of which come from Melvin). The dialog is great. This is some of the funniest writing I have ever heard.

Example:

Melvin- Never, never, interrupt me, okay? Not if there's a fire, not even if you hear the sound of a thud from my home and one week later there's a smell coming from there that can only be a decaying human body and you have to hold a hanky to your face because the stench is so thick that you think you're going to faint. Even then, don't come knocking. Or, if it's election night, and you're excited and you wanna celebrate because some fudgepacker that you date has been elected the first queer president of the United States and he's going to have you down to Camp David, and you want someone to share the moment with. Even then, don't knock. Not on this door. Not for ANY reason. Do you get me, sweetheart?

The movie even reminds me of The Simpsons. James L. Brooks is a producer for that show (which in my opinion is the greatest show of all time) and As Good as it Gets is filled with the same sudden, jab to the head type humor of The Simpsons. No, there is no other similarity, it's just that both seem to have the same comic timing.

In conclusion, this is one of my favorite movies and is definitely a classic. I normally hate softy romantic movies. The only thing is As Good as it Gets is anything but a softy romantic movie. Sure the movie has romance. It is, mostly, a love story. But it is NOT soft. It is very hilarious. Melvin is a cranky, brutally honest, meticulous, eccentric man and it is hilarious to watch him. I recommend this to anyone. It's a sweet, intelligent, deep, fresh, funny, and original movie that will continue to entertain me for years to come.

Normally, I believe that every one has an opinion. If I like a movie and you don't, so be it. But, if you don't like this movie, well, I can say with APSOLUTE accuracy that you have no taste. Sorry, you don't.

9/10


TITANIC might have had the last laugh making the most money in 1997, but AS GOOD AS IT GETS bowed out with far more Oscars and respect. There are very little faults in this movie. With some crafty editing, flawless acting (even from a dog), and clever direction, AS GOOD AS IT GETS may probably end up being one of the greatest forgotten movies of the nineties.

We are introduced to Melvin Udall, a romance novelist with an obsessive compulsive behavior and a rotten attitude. When his next door neighbor, Simon, gets robbed and beaten brutally, his friend Frank assigns Melvin to take care of his dog while he recovers.

There is far much more to this movie than the causative incident. Helen Hunt 's role as Carol is just as equally well played as Greg Kinnear and Jack Nicholson 's. The acting is positively great. The screen writing is also just as superior. Some of the lines have had absolute positive effect on some of my friends throughout some troubled times ("what if this is as good as it gets?"). AS GOOD AS IT GETS relates to everybody, especially anyone who has a little Melvin in them. It is something that everyone can smile and laugh at.