Kathy-70

I just watched the DVD last night and I have to say this is an excellent movie. All the acting is top-notch - Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti are especially good, Rufus Sewell is also great.

Jessica Biel however is (in my humble opinion) miscast. She looks great and does a nice job in her scenes. But I really found it hard to accept her as the SAME AGE as Edward Norton. And yet the entire story is based on them knowing each other and falling in love at age 12 or 13. They would have to BE the same age, right? Or maybe he's one year older, but no more than that.

Since Biel is in real life 12 or 13 years younger than Norton, it just made it even more unbelievable. An older actress (how about the German actress - Franka Potenta!) would have been a better choice in this movie.

Other than that I highly recommend "The Illusionist" - you'll probably want to watch it more than once.

I was never a fan of Kevin Smith before this movie. But I found Dogma an absolute delight and I laughed all through it, even the parts I didn't "get." This is definitely a movie to be seen more than once, because you can't possibly absorb it all in one viewing. As stated in earlier reviews, the references to Catholic catechism and parochial upbringing abound. I'm sure that Kevin Smith was taught by nuns and clergy, because he's constantly poking fun at things that I experienced in Catholic school. The actors are all having fun in this movie, even if they have no idea what it's all about. Jay and Silent Bob have real parts in Dogma, as opposed to Chasing Amy where they appear to be "talking extras." By the way I never saw Dogma in the theater, but it works as a video because some of the funny lines go by so fast you have to replay the tape to get the full meaning. I can't wait for the next Kevin Smith flick, and I'll definitely spend the 8 bucks!

I was somewhat disappointed in this movie, but not because of the Catholic doctrine or philosophy. The characters made frequent reference to Pittsburgh, and indeed most of the story takes place here (my hometown). Needless to say my ears and eyes perked up. I scanned every scene for recognizable settings, buildings and skyline. Alas, not one setting was familiar to me and I had to accept the fact that the movie was not shot here, not even the second or third crew "fillers". The scenes and settings that were used in the film were not at all place-specific, it could have been Anytown, USA. If that's the case why give the setting a recognizable city-name? Just call it something generic, like River City, or Oakville. This may seem like a petty complaint but I was nevertheless disappointed in the film. On the other hand I always watching Gabriel Byrne work and he turns in another fine performance as the cynical scientist/priest. I think the ending would have meant more if he had found out that the girl (Patricia Arquette) actually had the dead priest's rosary in her possession. Maybe his faith would have been restored. But instead it becomes a showdown between the "good priest" (Byrne) and the "bad priest" (Jonathan Pryce) that I thought was kind of hokey. Of course, good triumphs over evil, the true believers are vindicated, yada yada yada.