Film Reviews by MH

Unfortunately it's all been done before, and 'Strictly Ballroom' did it infinitely better. Ben Miller did his best, but wasn't really suited to the part. I wouldn't waste your time on it.

Rufus Sewell is terrific as Charles II and the series is interesting, absorbing and entertaining. As Big Bob says, the history is not too inaccurate and gives a good idea of what actually went on.

That's all I have to say about it. I recommend you waste neither time nor money on it. I gave it time and was not rewarded.

Why can't I give it no stars?

You'll never view a delivery driver in the same way again. Or complain about one. This should be compulsory viewing for everyone who orders goods online for home delivery.

I'm not good with subtitles so found the film somewhat confusing. I couldn't get my head round who all the characters were - the relatives, the child carers, I even didn't always recognise the parents. My fault, not the film's, I'm just explaining why the stand-out attribute of the film for me were the child actors' performances. Nina Kervel-Bey was incredible, unbelievably good. I can't understand why she seems to have done nothing since. I watched it twice just to marvel at her acting. And Benjamin Feuillet, who is even younger, was amazing too, and so lovable.

If you watch movies because you appreciate fine acting, do watch this one.

I don't personally like Gwyneth Paltrow, but she does play Emma well, and Toni Colette is not as annoying as other Harriets; Jeremy Northam is a very personable and likeable Knightley. The costumes are not ravishing, but probably very true to the clothes they would have worn in Jane Austen's day. A very pleasant evening's viewing.

A fine film, but somehow the actors didn't grip me as much as the ones in Ang Lee's version. I mean, have you ever seen finer acting than the scene in which Emma Thompson as Elinor discovers Edward is free and wants to marry her? Amazing.

Don't get me wrong, the film's not boring or inconsequential. It just didn't have that 'zing' which makes you remember it for a long time. In fact, that's why I've earmarked it to watch again when it's shown on TV. It's worth the time just for George Clooney, who's at his magnetic best. But then, I could never be bored watching George Clooney.

This is just awful. The scenes which supposedly were meant to build suspense were just too long drawn out and became boring. It didn't involve me at all. Angie Dickinson gurns instead of acting, and has little sex appeal compared to Nancy Allen. Michael Caine must be really embarrassed now by his wooden turn, especially considering what a first-rate actor he is. Watch anything else with him in it, but do give this a miss. Terribly dated.

Why can't I give it no stars? It doesn't deserve any.

If it's meant to be a spoof it falls wide of the mark, and if it's meant to be serious, it's unbelievably naff.

How on earth did Pierce Brosnan and Kylie Minogue get mixed up in this woeful mess?

Boring and tawdry tale about an episode in the life of a narcissistic loser. There's insufficient plot to sustain an entire movie so a lot of time is devoted to lengthy pictures of Julianne Moore's expressionless face and - worse - of her singing along to the radio as she drives in her car.

There's zilch chemistry between the leads, and the sex is voyeuristic, prurient and boring. But then, I never have been able to understand the modern obsession with watching other people perform the sex act.

In an effort to pep things up. Julianne Moore even descends to gratuitously exposing her naked breasts on several occasions, like some young starlet trying to get a bit of attention.

Then, at the end when the credits came up and I saw she was an executive producer, I finally twigged - it's just one long, boring ego trip - a vanity project.

And what was it with the ugly cat?

At nearly 3 hours running time, it is over 1/3 too long. What little there is to accomplish could easily be achieved in well under 2 hours.

Anthony Hopkins is competent as always, but I was sorry to see him in this decidedly second-rate film Brad Pitt is largely expected to do nothing but look slightly clueless but otherwise expressionless. The director must have been besotted with Claire Forlani as he keeps the camera focused on her for so long that it becomes obvious she doesn't know how to fulfil his expectations of facial expression. This is where most of the time-wasting goes on. (If you're a fan of hers, you'll love it. I was bored to tears).

I kept watching simply because the plot seemed promising and I wanted to finish my knitting. It wasn't and I did.

I agree, Tom Hardy (yum) delivers a brilliant acting turn in this absorbing film, as does James Gandolfini. Noomi Rapace is a disappointment, not much acting going on there, but it doesn't really matter as she is relatively unimportant.

I heartily recommend it.

If you're an Enid Blyton fan, PLEASE don't watch this film. I assume it must be a fairly accurate portrayal of her, otherwise it would be besieged by libel complaints.

It shows her as a classic narcissist and a really nasty piece of work. Helena Bonham-Carter does a good acting job but has a really unpleasant character to portray.

Personally, even as a child I found her writing patronising, banal and boring, and her world-wide book sales of over 600 million absolutely mystify me.

I didn't think the subject matter warranted making a film about.

A delightful film: Billy Connolly is lovely, Sharon Stone acts her socks off, the children are charming, and Ian Holm takes the Mickey. The totally anticipated ending manages (just) not to be mawkish, and I felt well entertained by the whole thing.