Film Reviews by MH

A strong contender for the worst film I have ever seen. The direction was appalling, the cameraman was obsessed with trees doing nothing, the editor allowed the pointless footage to be shown, Patricia Clarkson was expressionless (although you did get the impression she wondered what on earth she was doing there) and Emily Mortimer gurned instead of acting.

The only redeeming feature was Bill Nighy's untypically restrained performance which was genuinely endearing.

And I paid for a cinema ticket. I should have asked for my money back, like they do in the US.

Susan Dey, beguiling and sexy? I found her unattractive, unappealing, and uncharismatic. I'm glad I was told it was supposed to be a comedy because otherwise I wouldn't have understood why it is just so SILLY.

It's a tawdry tale not worth the telling and I'm surprised they managed to get the funding to make it.

I watched it to see what Tom Hulce would be like in a 'normal' role, having only seen him before in 'Amadeus'.

He is really, really cute and I'm not surprised he was nominated for an Oscar, which he might have won if only he'd been in a half-decent film.

What a truly lovely film! I was most impressed by Martin Clunes, whom I positively hated in 'Men Behaving Badly', and only fell in love with when I accidentally caught an episode of 'Doc Martin' on TV. He is a very gifted and versatile actor and carried this film brilliantly.

I watched this film because I'm having a 'Hugh Grant' season at the moment. I was a bit wary because I don't like Sarah Jessica Parker and the idea of Hugh Grant being married to her seemed to stretch credulity a bit too far. But it turned out to be a likeable and amusing watch and I would recommend it for an evening of unchallenging and light-hearted entertainment.

There is little I can add to the reviews that have gone before, except to say that it was the best last line of a film I've ever heard.

I agree that, like Contini's film, this one didn't seem to have a script or a purpose. DDL's character is a thoroughly unlikable narcissist going through an existential crisis. He seemed to totally lack charisma and it wasn't obvious to me why women appeared to find him magnetic. The dancing was brilliant (Kate Hudson - who knew?) and Judi Dench was a revelation, but the photography was a mess and the editing abysmal.

A curiosity, especially as to why such good actors wanted to get involved in it. Not surprised it bombed.

This is a rather superficial look at what is a really difficult problem. Children are, until they learn differently, unkind and natural bullies. And they have in spades that unfortunate human inclination to distrust and dislike anyone who is not like them. Strangers, foreigners, the disabled - it's all one to children: they're different. The book/film attempt to show that they can be won round by patience and perseverance, and the story is well told, with very good child actors and an almost unrecognisable Julia Roberts.

Although I can in all honesty give it only 3 stars, I did enjoy it and can recommend it to you.

Clever concept well explored. Billy Connolly manages not to go over the top and the whole thing is very watchable and great fun.

This is a terrific film, every bit as good as the first. The animation is truly inspired (check out especially the pop-up book), the characters are true to the original film, and Paddington is just as lovable.

It would be a scrooge indeed who didn't enjoy this film! I saw it at the cinema, and when the lights went up the (largely mature) audience all had a soppy grin on their faces. Tip - watch it right to the end or you may miss some fun.

I do not often write reviews because I'm not a professional critic and I figure 'who cares what I think?' But I must seriously warn you not to waste 104 minutes of your life on this terrible tosh. The visuals are ugly - none of the characters are endearing; the singing is tuneless wailing and shrieking; the dancing is not particularly clever or entertaining; and it's silly, boring, and 100 minutes too long.

I was forced to watch it with grandchildren of 5, 11 and 14, and when it was over it turned out every one of us felt the same but was too polite to say so in case the others were enjoying it.

And they made a sequel? Good grief!

What a waste of time! There was no tension, shock, fear, worry or surprise in any part of this film. And definitely no chemistry between the leads. Kate Winslet has always struck me as a boring and talentless actress since I first saw her in 'Titanic'. She has absolutely no charisma and I would rather watch paint dry. Idris Elba is normally reliable, and goodness knows he tried, but he was let down by a ridiculous plot and boring story not worth making a film about. Why did I watch it? We tossed and my friend won.

This unusual, off-the-edge film is really, really good. For once in her life Kristen Scott-Thomas actually acts, instead of just relying on looking enigmatic, and golly, can she act! Timothy Spall turns in his usual reliable performance, and all the other actors give good performances - with the exception of Emily Mortimer, who seems to think looking pained is acting (did you see the TV film about the children sent to Australia? I rest my case).

The plot is exceptional, and although I felt afterwards I should have worked out the denouement from the opening scene, I didn't see it coming at all and it was brilliant. The black and white photography and dark humour rounded off an excellent film.

Batman and James Bond it ain't, and thank goodness!

Rather boring account of what should have been a significant event in the UK's/US's history. Bill Murray is good as FDR, Laura Linney has no personality /charisma and the whole film leaves one yawning and wondering what was the point of making it?

I cannot understand anyone not rating this film highly. It is brilliant on all levels. Of course the basic subject matter of class action lawsuits for big corporation misdeeds has been covered in film before - think Erin Brockovich, Class Action, A Civil Action, The Insider - but never with such suspense and wonderful acting. Speaking of which, for a masterclass in movie acting (which requires infinitely more subtlety than stage acting), watch George Clooney's face carefully all through the last few minutes when he's in the taxi going nowhere and the credits are showing on the right hand side of the screen. You can almost read his mind. Amazing and impressive.

There have been so many films recently bashing the Roman Catholic church for its historic sins that one becomes weary and there is a danger of sympathy fatigue and boredom setting in. Don't get me wrong - I would never suggest condoning the terrible mistakes that have been made, and it is always disappointing when religious people turn out to be basely human. But we saw a similar story in Philomena and I can't see how this film adds anything to it.

Rooney Mara is excellent, veering from wildly histrionic to intensely withdrawn, and almost - but not quite - persuades us of the magnetic quality the character is supposed to exert over men. But Vanessa Redgrave is absolutely brilliant as the older Rose who is finally exonerated and rescued ,and although the cosy ending is rather patronising, it is nevertheless satisfying on a superficial emotional level. I am not a huge fan of Vanessa Redgrave but she does give a fine performance here.

An interesting sub-plot involved the support of the ever-Brit-hating Irish Republicans for Hitler and the Nazis in the second World War. Very few people now know - or remember - that the Irish fought with Germany against Britain in that war and I believe it is something that should never be forgotten or, like the sins of the Church, forgiven.