input: I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...

It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.

The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.

I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.

(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates "One... Two... Three... Four..." as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.

Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Back in 2004 I saw "True", Tom Tykwer's contribution to Paris Je T'aime. When I saw it I loved it and became thrilled. It became my favorite short film and made me appreciate the format so much. Of course I wanted to watch the whole film, and I would even check who was attached, etc.

Yesterday I finally saw it, courtesy of the internet.

First of all I must say that it looks AWESOME. The photography is BEAUTIFUL in every short and shot, at the worst being nothing special - but still brilliant and clear. Later I read the trivia here, and maybe it's how scanning in 6K gives more justice to all the DP's work. My special favorites are the "Quais de Seine" first scene (that sunlight!), the Sin City-esquire (but better for me) "Quartier de la Madeleine", and "14th Arrondisement" - but you know, what the hell I like them all: "True" or "Faubourg Saint-Denis" still makes me nervous with those brilliant colours (my eyes, they tremble!) and "Quartier Latin" is gold imprisoned on silver. Beautiful.

Yes, these are some BEAUTIFUL short films.

Now let's get onto the content. I very much (and I mean VERY MUCH) like the eclecticism that is so successfully felt. You never have have the same themes or treatment between two shorts, and I think the formula is restrictive enough to let all these artists explore beautiful and deepening things inside the shorts. I loved coming from a simple love story into a crazy-Chinese-musical-in-Paris-with-Barbet-Schroeder into a social commentary into a terror comedy into a humble monologue. I love surprises! And this film has them! It's great they took a chance to let all these director's flesh out things that are not usual in mainstream cinema (which I have come to heavily despise). It's not heavily experimental, but I can breath the breathing space these people had.

I like the small time and I love the acting. I love the simplicity and I love the love. I like the simple feelings and the beauty and the eclecticism and in general it's a film that is very very very nice to see, alone or with someone. To simply feel. It left me feeling very good.

There is something about the earnestness in it... it's so frank...

What I didn't like? Well, for me there are two shorts that aren't exactly the best - "Quais de Seine" (which is good natured, sure, and maybe even necessary, but feels too much like a commercial?) and "Pere-Lachaise" that even though I love the acting, I felt it's themes were forced. But that of course, is just me. "Tour Eiffel" I also didn't love but I think is probably because of my very different sensibility from that of Sylvain Chomet? I don't know if this film has a special interest for people who already know the actor's and directors, and so they can delight in their interaction, in the surprises (look out for Alexander Payne in a funny role) and basically in "what will this director do with this?" great question. I enjoyed it very much in that way.

I repeat now: Most shorts I loved and all of them together form a beautiful and energetic mix. I definitely recommend it. Definitely!!! So, watch it if you like Eclectic Beautiful Love!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Brian Dennehy, Bill Paxton, Joe Pantalino and, best of all, Jeff Fahey, all in one film. Wow is all I can think to say about that. These are four of the most underrated actors in the biz and they work beautifully together. It's like poetry the way they play off each other and ooze the natural ability to seem as though they had been best buddies for eons for even shooting the film.

The film itself is fine and one that can be quite intense to view the first time, and the four stars help the re-watch-ability to a great extent. I cannot describe how good it was to see Bill Paxton and Jeff Fahey together on screen, the greatest moment being when they watch a couple from a distance and fill in the vocals themselves, it almost brought a tear to my eyes.

A good film, a great cast, go see. Why? Four words, Fahey, Dennehy, Paxton, Pantalino.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive