Q: First, let me state that I am a big fan of Ashley Judd; that's why I was curious to check out this, her debut role. No argument that her talent is apparent and her performance excellent. I guess I can also see how the professional critics liked the aesthetic content of the story. However, I like to think that movies are meant to entertain us and that is where this movie fails.

By the halfway point, I found myself thinking, "How much longer do we have to watch a bored shop girl, idly standing around a deserted souvenir shop, rearranging the merchandise?" It seemed to go on forever!

Then, I thought, maybe this is one of those movies where the director tries to lull the audience into a relaxed state before hitting them with some dynamic event. No such luck. The movie continues it's bland, boring, uneventful story all the way to the end.

I'm not saying this because I'm an action-junkie. I like all kinds of movies, especially romantic-comedies. But I expect to be entertained.

Add the fact that the cinematography and sound quality are comparable to your neighbor's bad home movies. Depressing!

I just don't get how anyone could like this movie. Zero-entertainment value. The longest 114 minutes of my life.

OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: As a convert into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I try to absorb as much as I can of my new religion's history. I was invited to attend a showing of this film with my sons & the other young men & women as well as their families of our ward.

On a beautiful spring evening, we drove to Kirtland, Ohio to the church's historical village located there. We were to have had reservations at the Vistor's Center to view this movie. Since my movie viewing was limited to only a few church documentaries, I was intrigued. The only "full length motion pictures" of the church's I had seen was "Legacy" and "My Best Two Years", both which I thought were very well written and preformed.

At the beginning, the missionary interpretor passed out tissues stating that several people had been deeply moved to the point of tears by this movie. I thought "OK...but it takes a lot to move me to tears." Imagine my surprise when I found myself sobbing! It truly is a very moving & inspirational testament to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

See it & believe in it's powerful message! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Knowing Enki Bilal's comics for quite some time, I had to see this movie. I have thought this would be a good way for the artist as Bilal to spread his art and ideas to wider audience. I have also thought this would be a good movie to recommend, and I thought I will enjoy watching it... I was wrong! The movie was a true torture to watch. The idea has potential... but, movie leaves way too much to be desired, and basically everyone who sees this movie is left with impression that he could do it better. I will not make suggestion whether you should see this movie or not. Chances are if you're reading these pages that you have already seen it, or that you're gonna see it - but be prepared for very bad 102 minutes. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Yeah, I "get" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his "Decameron" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed "realism" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.

And Pasolini's "Decameron" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say "Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.

The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's "Decameron" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy ("Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's "Satyricon". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas "Decameron" fails by those same elements. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative