Q: Being the Beatlemaniac that I am, I approached Two Of Us with a combination of fear and fascination. Having seen 'In His Life: The John Lennon Story', I was quite concerned that Two Of Us will turn out no better. The fact that Aidan Quinn and Jared Harris look absolutely nothing like John Lennon and Paul McCartney even with some make-up and proper hairdos didn't help one bit.

But I was more than a bit pleasantly surprised. It's probably thanks to the involvement of Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who directed Let It Be in 1970 and consequently probably knew John and Paul quite well, that the characters and the dialogue came across as convincing as they did. (The writing credit for Two Of Us is given to a man named Mark Stanfield, of whom I know absolutely nothing; I feel confident that director Lindsay-Hogg had more than a bit to do with the script.) Two Of Us is not a biography of the Beatles; it has very little plot, in fact, and takes place all in one day in New York City. What it does is imagine a meeting between John and Paul in 1976, while John lived in New York. That meeting is entirely fictitious, of course though it can't truly be disproved that such a meeting actually took place. But through that imagined conversation it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of these two great musicians their intelligence, their sense of humor, their different reaction to stardom, and most of all their relationship; what made them such a great team, and what broke them up.

Since it's a talk movie, nothing much except for dialogue between two characters for an hour and a half, it's likely to bore all but true fans of the Beatles; but it's a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling, and is both informative and touching. For those interested in these two musical giants, very quickly you'll get over the shock of how different the actors look from their counterparts and feel like John and Paul had come to life so intimate and convincing is the script, and so committed are the actors. Two Of Us gives you priceless insight into the lives of two geniuses, and a tale that is both sad and funny. Most certainly recommended.
A: positive
Q: Only after some contemplation did I decide I liked this movie. And after reading comments from all the other posters here, and thinking about it some more, I decided that I liked it tremendously. I love American films - probably because they are so narrative. They usually have a well-defined beginning, middle, and end. "Presque rien," on the other hand, makes no such attempt. I disagree with other posters that say it's 'too artsy.' In every way, this film is meant to evoke your sense memories. So often throughout the film you feel like you're there... you feel the summer sun, the breezes, the heat, the winter chill, the companionship, the loneliness, etc., etc.

In every way, the director pulls you into the lives of the characters - which is why so many people feel so strongly that the movie disappointed them. After I finished watching it, I felt the same. But upon some reflection, I recognized that this is how the movie had to be: the 'story' isn't the narrative, it's the emotions you (the viewer) feel.

The lighting, scenery, and camera angles immerse you in the scenes - they're rich, exquisite, and alive with detail and nuance. Although I normally cannot countenance films without a fully developed plot (after all, isn't a movie 'supposed' to tell a story), this film is definitely one of my new favorites.
A: positive
Q: Where to start? OK, don't compare this film to fight club for a start - ridiculous. If it was even a patch on fight club, the violence, blood, gore etc would be much more evident and realistic. Secondly, this film is no football factory - which is so much more real (and Danny Dyer makes Nicholas Nickelby look like an embarrassment). Fair enough, the storyline is quite decent and the fight scenes are well choreographed - with a decent ending i might add. But the film on the whole is poor, seriously poor. As people have been mentioning the accents should not spoil a film - i disagree - either a simple casting error, or a lack of effort in coaching the voices caused the film to be irritating all the way through - it was obvious from scene one some American/Geordie was playing the role. Don't get me wrong, good looking guy, who looks great with a skin head - but no not a football hooligan. I could go on forever about how ridiculous the football scene was - the 'fake steward' situation. Also, when the GSE are going to play United up north, they go on the train expecting only 3 of them - doesn't make any sense - this a real organisation of gangsters and thugs, which is portrayed in the film to be some mickey mouse cult of about 5 people. In terms of accuracy - did West Ham and Milwall not play for the last couple of years they have been in the Championship together? Hmm, ten years OK. And I'm sure 'Bother' would be able to just waltz into a Milwall firm pub. Basically, a very poor film which people will like if they have little knowledge of real football, and hooliganism. If you do actually love football and are intrigued by the underworld of hooliganism,, you will simply feel as though this film has insulted your intelligence. Ross George
A: negative
Q: Colorful western.

Wyoming cowboy James Stewart moseys on up to the Yukon Territory to dig for gold, sell his steers, and try to get a date with pretty saloon-owner Ruth Roman if he can shake the tail of crooked sheriff John McIntire who wants Stewart's cattle. Beautiful cinematography in a collaborative effort by William Fritzsche and Bill Daniels. Good Technicolor adventure from Universal-International, directed by Anthony Mann.

Also starring Corinne Calvet, Connie Gilchrist, and Walter Brennan as Stewart's sidekick.
A: positive