archienina99

I'm a fan of many the actors in this film and I really loved the movie Atonement, by the same director. But this movie appalled me at so many points. I honestly wondered if the director had read the novel properly. Listening to the commentary on the DVD makes me think he did not - he shows a complete lack of understanding of Jane Austen's world.

I don't mind when adaptations veer from the sequence of events in a novel - not everything in a novel translates well on to screen - but I strongly object to adaptations straying away from the spirit of the novel and the spirit of the characters. If you want to do that, make up your own story rather than mangle someone else's - Jane Austen would have turned in her grave at some of the stuff put in.

Yes, Elizabeth Bennet of the novel is spirited and playful; a free-spirit and an independent thinker. But she also has a deep respect for social propriety, and for her elders, and has many moments of gentleness and weakness.

Elizabeth Bennet of this film lacks finesse, and is often uncouth, rude and abrupt in a way that would never have been tolerated in a young woman of the time. The number of times she reprimands others in this movie..! She even insults her mother at one point and actually snatches things out of people's hands and eavesdrops outside people's doors twice. Completely made up by the movie makers of course - they never occur in the book. In the scene where her mother and sisters visit Netherfield, it is her mother who reprimands Elizabeth in the book, not the other way around! And the dialogue is all wrong too. Words meant to be delivered by one character are delivered by another, or made up dialogue is created that uses painfully modern language rather than language of the time.

Mr and Mrs Bennet are not supposed to be a happy couple who have the kind of intimacy implied here. Mr Bingley is not supposed to be the fool portrayed in this movie. The entire assembly would not have made way for the Bingleys and Mr Darcy as though they were aristocracy. Elizabeth would not have shown up at Netherfield with her hair completely down and Caroline Bingley, though supercilious, would not have been so rude as to not perform her part as hostess when Elizabeth appears.

And Mr Bingley would NOT have appeared in the bedroom where Jane lay ill!! Mary is not in love with Mr Collins as implied - she approves of him, that is all, but she believes herself superior to him. Charlotte would not have exclaimed "Don't you dare judge me!" Miss Bingley's dress should not have been sleeveless as it is at the Netherfield ball. Mr Darcy would not have tried to meet Elizabeth at the crack of dawn improperly dressed, nor would his aunt visit the Bennets in the middle of the night.

I could go on and on...

I enjoyed the chemistry between some of the characters, in particular the two main characters. The women wore little make up as was consistent with the times. And there was some really lovely scenery. These are the best things I can say about this movie.

Great, fun martial arts flick. Very tongue-in-cheek and light-hearted. Excellent chemistry and performances from all the main actors.

Jet Li plays a serious, heroic character like something out of a comic book - this is one of the earliest movies I've seen using this comic-book technique. His son is simply amazing and funny as a very disciplined young martial artist. On their journey they come across a couple of con-artists (mother and daughter) with the most hilarious results. A hero's quest with a range of other fantastic characters thrown in make for a great comic, action-adventure story.

Also great for all the family. It explores themes of loyalty and traditional Chinese father-son, mother-daughter, peer, and romantic relationships in a silly but highly enjoyable manner.

Make sure you see the full, subtitled version though. Not the cut-down version or the poor dubbed version.

Some beautiful graphical work. The performances by the main actors were pretty good (though the accents were inconsistent and often unconvincingly modern-sounding). That's the best I can say about it.

The story is stupid and simplistic. "Enemy comes along. A few good men take on the evil dudes in their large numbers. Let's admire the good men forever for their bravery and courage. Let's rally to their support...yada yada yada"

Characters are predictable and obvious - either plain good or bad. At least with Sin City, it felt like some interesting ideas and new ground was being covered.

Anyone who is an enemy is perverted and licentious in some way, particularly the opposing race (yeah, b/c we're all that simple). It portrays war and genocide as cool. It dresses most of the baddies up in non-western costumes.

The annoying thing is that the majority of the audience I was sitting with were impressionable, young boys. Yep, exactly the kind of minds that we want exposed to this stupid, racist crap. (And, not surprisingly, the highest ratings for this movie come from kids under 18.)

Many people claim 300 is only a movie. If it's only a movie, I would love to see another similar movie made, but with the characterisation reversed for the races. Let's have a huge number of caucasians portrayed as pathetic, bad, immoral, disloyal, licentious, weak and stupid. Let's have a small number of Persians/Asians/Arabs portrayed as strong, heroic, courageous, loyal, self-sacrificing, intelligent and honourable. And let's have this small clan easily massacre the pathetic white people, piling their bodies in a way that's reminiscent of the holocaust.

Then see the reaction of the same large group of (mostly caucasian) movie-goers who claim 300 is fantastic, and just a movie, and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Whether they admit it or not, many caucasians would despise and be upset by seeing the way the characters that "represent" them are portrayed and they would feel the simplistic, hateful racism that is inherent in such portrayals.

This is not a movie for those who respect different cultures or value intelligent ideas.