Q: I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.

Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.

If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.

A: positive
Q: After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.

This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. "10 Items" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned "Lost In..." seems to stretch out over a few long days.

I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films.
A: negative
Q: This is the most messed up entry on IMDb that I've yet to stumble across. All the previous reviewers act like this is the movie. This is NOT the movie. Rather it's merely a featurette that's an extra on the DVD of the movie "The One" It also nowhere near being the 90 minutes that it's listed here as. In actuality it's barely over 13 minutes of how cool Jet Li can do martial arts. and his reflections on the movie. So yeah this IMDb entry is quite a bit fubar. Don't listen to any of the other reviews as they are ALL wrong. You can trust me, because I never feed you, dear reader, BS.

and that's the truth. i guess u can say that i'm "the One" Reviewer that matters.
A: negative
Q: I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.
A: negative