This Movie is exactly what you think it is, Although there was actually a plot. If you like Sam Jackson in Formula 51, then you should see his. The snakes CAN be a little over the top. But I found this flick to be more Comedy Thriller than Action Thriller. I gave it 2.5 stars but can be a 3 star if in the right mood.

"Ada" (Nicole Kidman) lives a comfortable life on her farm with her father "Rev. Moore" (Donald Sutherland) as the American Civil War comes to a close. That's where she meets and takes a shine to "Inman" (Jude Law) who is making his way back to his Confederate troops. When the preacher dies, "Ada" finds herself having to throw the fine frills and fancies in a box and struggle to maintain the property as the winter snows set in. Luckily, along comes the savvy "Ruby" (Renée Zellweger) who agrees to stick around and help so long as both women chip in and share the load. As the women try to survive, the war concludes and "Inman" sets about retracing his steps back to North Carolina. With the conditions treacherous and the territory pretty lawless, both must face the insecurity that prevails, and that is well exemplified by the odious "Teague" (Ray Winstone) and his brutal sidekick "Junior" (Giovanni Ribisi) who are roaming the territory looking for deserters, or for those who help them out. A violent fate awaits those they meet. Anthony Mingella knits the threads of their respective adventures nicely together here, with a certain inevitability, sure, but nothing too predicable. The brutality of war, the desperation of hunger, cold and depravity as well as the more visceral human needs are all shone a light on as his journey tests both the mettle and the morality of "Inman" and of those he meets. It's probably Winstone who takes the plaudits for me here, he really does convey a palpable sense of wickedness and Zellweger also performs well as proof that women can thrive in what is meant to be a man's world. Now it is too long, and it meanders just a little labouring the point as it goes, but the action when it happens and the strongly developed characters compensate enough for that to keep it interesting and watchable.

First time seeing this in a long time, probably back in theaters circa 2003/2004. I remembered bits and pieces. Good performances from Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger while Jude Law acquitted himself well enough, however never fully bought into the romance aspects, but the horrors of the Civil War was an interesting element. The direction from Anthony Minghella was solid along with the cinematography and production design. **3.5/5**

_**Civil War Odyssey**_
A Confederate soldier Inman (Jude Law) deserts in late 1864 to return to the mountains of western North Carolina and his one true love, Ada (Nicole Kidman). Inman experiences many different people, events and obstacles on his long journey while Ada has her own problems to deal with: death, grief, the ruthless “home guard,” starvation/poverty, and a house & farm she doesn't know how to run, that is, until the practical Ruby (Renée Zellweger) comes along.
Based on the 1997 novel by Charles Frazier, “Cold Mountain” (2003) involves two stories that ultimately intertwine and is reminiscent of Homer's Odyssey. In light of Inman's journey home, the film is episodic but, thankfully, never loses its sense of cohesion. The story shows how the war destroyed or corrupted the South on practically every level, not just the soldiers who went off to fight, die, be maimed, desert or suffer defeat, but everyone left behind as well. Every person Inman meets on his journey is somehow damaged or sullied because of the war.
For example, in the case of the family in the large cabin the husband's friendliness is dubious. All the eligible men have gone to war and those who return are maimed and scarred. Is it any wonder that the women are love-starved and try to lose themselves in drunkenness and casual sex? As for a couple scenes of overt sexuality, the book & film are contrasting drunken carnal lust with intimate committed love.These scenes are adult-oriented, so be forewarned. I should add that the “kitchen table woman” is actress Melora Walters, who played George Costanza’s date in “The Hamptons” episode of Seinfeld. Meanwhile Natalie Portman shows up for another key sequence.
Then there’s the immoral & looney "Reverend" Veasey (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who may tempt some to view the film as “anti-Christian," but this is a premature judgment in light of the entire story and particularly the ending. Not to mention likable, but shakey religionists like Veasey exist in real life.
Not everyone can handle "Cold Mountain" because of its hardcore depiction of the horrors of war, madness and immorality, but it's not all death, misery and darkness; these are commendably counterbalanced by the beauty of life, love, loyalty, companionship, poetry and music. “Cold Mountain” is an all-around well-made motion picture that cuts the fat out of the book for a more effective story.
The film runs 2 hours, 33 minutes, and was shot mostly in the Carpathian Mountains, Romania, but with some scenes done in Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
GRADE: A

I also use to not like this that much and again I like it now but I do prefer Licence to Kill.

The last of the very good 007 films.
The last of the fun 007 films for sure.
Here, Bond is supposed to stop an assassination of a Russian VIP defecting to the West, but Bond senses something, and instead of killing the assassin (a shapely female violinist), he shoots the weapon from her hand.
Something is amiss about the defector, and it's obvious to the viewer, though perhaps not obvious to someone who is in the story.
We get lots of great scenery, lots of action, lots of wit, and some great horse play, such as riding a violin case like a sled to escape bad guys.
It's perhaps the most "fun" of the Bond films, and that deserves mentioning. After this movie, "fun" was apparently a four letter word to the Generation Xenophobe minded producers.

I don't understand all the hate on Dalton as 007, I actually thought he was a decent Bond, I thought he brought back some of the cold blooded assassin that personified the first of the Connery Era films.
And I think he was a much needed change of pace away from Moore's silliness.
However, I think some of the hate comes from the change of pace away from the silliness. You get used to things and a lot of people got used to Moore.
But, then again, I was 7 when The Living Daylights came out, this was the first 007 movie I REMEMBER seeing in the theaters, and there is that special place in my heart for the cold blooded assassin style 007.
And The Living Daylights is one of the last to have all the 007 tropes in it, the smoking, the harem, the stuff that defined 007 films before they started to move away from them in the 90s.
This marks a return to the Dr. No, From Russia with Love, era of Bond, a move away from the silliness and...
... it has one of the best 007 cars, at least in my view. The Living Daylights still has the Aston Martin that I want... and, let's face it, he works with what is really the Taliban before the Taliban became the enemy of the west, when they were still fighting the Russians, and when the west was still taking their side in Afghanistan before the Soviets withdrew. So you kind of get a history lesson that really only people alive in the 80s remember.

So Roger Moore has handed the baton of Ian Fleming's "007" to Timothy Dalton and this first outing is not at all bad. The story is, perhaps, not the best but this is still an action packed adventure with loads of pyrotechnics and daft gadgets that really does move along swiftly for over two hours. "Bond" is assigned to aid would-be defector "Gen. Koskov" (Jeroen Krabbé) from Berlin, along the way encountering the lethal cellist "Kara" (Maryam d'Abo). A bit of fun with the no-nonsense Julie T. Wallace, a Harrier jump jet and and soon-to-be-trashed English stately home set a scene for the ensuing narrative that mixes perilous international espionage with glamour and plenty of entertainment. Blonde baddie Andreas Wisniewski must have done wonders for the sales of 501s, hammily megalomanic arms dealer Joe Don Baker likewise for the sale of toy soldiers and Desmond Llewelyn continues to provide our hero with plenty of imaginatively designed toys to help him escape from certain death! Art Malik is maybe not the most convincing as an Afghan freedom fighter, and I missed Lois Maxwell's few scenes as the love-struck "Moneypenny", but otherwise this is a thoroughly enjoyable piece of good-humoured and pacily directed cold war bravado. It does look better on a big screen - some of the cinematography, especially the aerial photography - lends itself well to a bigger screen and a bit of A-ha at the beginning sets it all off nicely. Not the best of the franchise, but it augers well for this new incarnation.

Great entry into the series and wonderful debut for Dalton who was charming, and for me far and away better than any of Roger Moore's movies (though found some of his to be entertaining enough). Not all that fond of this theme song but still catchy enough I suppose. Also features some great aerial stuntwork. **3.75/5**

_**Solid Bond film with Timothy Dalton taking over as 007**_
"The Living Daylights" was the first of two James Bond films featuring Timothy Dalton as 007. It's a solid Bond flick, but rarely cited when the best films of the franchise are discussed. The "problem" isn't Dalton because he makes a fine James Bond and was what the series needed in 1987 (when the film was released). Although the Roger Moore era (1973-1985) is my favorite stretch of the franchise, mainly because they're so all-around entertaining, Roger was just too old in 1987 to continue in the role (he was 60 years-old). Plus I think everyone was craving a more serious Bond by 1987 and Dalton delivers the goods.
There’s a lot of good in "The Living Daylights." It features a great opening sequence involving skydiving at the Rock of Gibraltar followed by a Jeep-going-down-the-mountain segment. The events switch to Bratislava, Slovakia (but shot in Vienna, Austria) where everything slows down to dramatic intrigue. A short while later there's a cool winter chase episode with Bond and his romantic interest (Maryam d'Abo) in a car with skis (also shot in Austria).
The action-packed last act takes place in Afghanistan (but shot in Morocco and the Mojave Desert). This part of the movie increases in suspense as James and his babe try to get out of the country on a cargo plane, and the film still doesn't end at that point. This climax features three or four excellent suspense scenes and some funny quips as well.
Unfortunately, the film is weak in the area of women. D'Abo is decent in a doe-eyed, winsome way, but her presence is never really capitalized on; she looks good in slacks though. Other than her, there are only brief flashes of women with no one particularly standing out, except maybe a blonde in white shorts.
The cast also includes Joe Don Baker, Jeroen Krabbé, John Rhys-Davies and Andreas Wisniewski, mostly villains or possible villains.
BOTTOM LINE: Although "The Living Daylights" is not a highlight of the series, it's still a worthwhile Bond flick with the usual staples, albeit shaky in the female department. Aside from Timothy Dalton, who makes a refreshing Bond, the opening and ending sequences are the best parts.
The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes.
GRADE: B-

Funny movie but very irritating at the Sametime. He's trying to get him to the greek but all he wants to do is party. They both get pretty messed up throughout the movie.

Russell Brand gives a good performance. Everything else is quite forgettable.

This is one I saw back in theaters and don't remember caring much for perhaps due to the stark shift in direction with the digital format and over-saturation (compare that to Heat) but seems like the 16 years since, not only with Mann's Collateral, but other films have adopted something similar, that this time around it didn't look or feel off. As for the movie itself, solid storyline and the performances from Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell were really good, now I wish there was a sequel but that time has passed unless Universal goes the streaming route. **4.0/5**

**A classic western in its own right.**
When I decided to see this film, I did so because of its enormous popularity in European lands, and not because of its particularly good reputation. For example, I knew that my father had seen this film in a theater in Luanda, Angola, in the years when it was released in theaters (back when Angola was not an independent country). Only later, when I read a little about it, did I discover that the film is a remake, an adaptation for a western of the famous film “Seven Samurai”, directed by Akira Kurosawa, which I saw before and which I thought was a bit overrated. And of course, it's one of those pure classic US westerns, not a western-spaghetti.
The script maintains the structure of Kurosawa's film, adapted to Northern Mexico: a village of peaceful peasants, often pillaged by a band of malefactors, who hire a small group of seven honorable gunmen to help them defend themselves. However, this film corrects several of the “errors” that I pointed out to the original Japanese film: first, it is much shorter and summarizes the facts more to the essentials, giving us a less dull and dense narrative, more efficient to entertain us. To do so, the plot focuses on finding the best men for the job and, then, on the adventures to defend the village. It remains, however, a predictable film: we know that, in the end, the heroes will save the day, albeit with a few brave deaths in the final body count.
This is certainly the greatest film of Yul Brynner's career. He was already a renowned actor and had a strong influence on the casting, ending up putting together a kind of “dream team” of incredible action actors. And he himself made an impactful and remarkable performance. Steve McQueen also deserves mention, along with James Coburn, both of whom will meet again in “Great Escape”, shortly afterward. Charles Bronson and Horst Buchholz also do a very good job and make good use of the opportunity to develop their careers. In a more discreet register, Robert Vaughn and Brad Dexter help compose the seven heroes. Eli Wallach, in the role of the villain, cannot be forgotten for the quality of the work he offers us, and for the charisma that come with him.
Technically, the film does not present great values to consider. Much of what we see was standard US cinema in the 1960s: the cinematography is good, quite colorful and well lit, but not particularly notable, and the sets and costumes are relatively good, from an aesthetic point of view. The recreation of the historical era fails a little: set around 1865-1870, the film does, however, have several props and clothing that are distinctly later by several decades. They look good, but they are not exact. However, this film makes up for it with good editing, a very pleasant rhythm, good special and sound effects and an excellent soundtrack, with a pleasantly epic and heroic nature, signed by Elmer Bernstein.

From the opening bars of Elmer Bernstein's superb score you just know that this is going to be a good film... Add the ensemble of Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, Yul Brynner and a superb Eli Wallach and it is a certainty. This version of Kurosawa's 1954 story tells of a group of put-upon villagers who set out to recruit some hired guns to help them fend off a gang of murderous marauders. There is some fairly grand cinematography; strong performances from all including Robert Vaughn as the neurotic cowardly "Lee" and Horst Buchholz as newbie "Chico" that provides for a great, action-packed Western adventure movie with more than it's fair share of twists and turns, some good tight dialogue/direction and Wallach is really entertaining, if not especially menacing, as "Calvera". The local population put up some good performances too and although it lacks the intensity and grittiness of "Seven Samurai" I think it certainly holds it's own as a classic piece of entertainment.

I have been offered a lot for my work, but never everything
A vile bandit constantly raids a small Mexican village and pilfers what he so wants. Finally having enough, and not wanting to relocate, the villagers set about recruiting some hired guns to finally rid themselves of the dastardly Calvera.
As most people now know, The Magnificent Seven is of course a remake of Akira Kurosawa's immense and hugely influential picture, Shichinin no samurai. Adhering closely to Kurosawa's themes, director John Sturges has crafted a classic in its own right, one that has become something of a Bank Holiday staple for TV schedulers. When you break it down for scrutiny, the story is purely a very ordinary one, but as each archetype character and set up arrives, it becomes evident that it's a story rich in texture, all framed marvellously in a Western setting.
Sturges for sure knew how to direct ensemble casts, he would after all go on to direct the fantastic 1963, ultimate holiday movie, The Great Escape. Here he is excellently served by a faultless cast, though Yul Brynner was the only major name of note, the likes of Steve McQueen (owning the movie), Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn and James Coburn would go on to become part of cinematic macho culture, with each actor vying for the right to own the movie proving to be a bonus trump card for this rousing and much loved picture. Even the score has slipped nicely into popular culture, Elmer Bernstein's music having now become recognisable to even the most youthful of movie fans ears.
Unashamedly macho, but certainly delightful for the female viewers as well, The Magnificent Seven is an across the board delight for almost everyone who enjoys the escapism of film. Perhaps the last word should rest with Kurosawa himself, who after viewing John Sturges' picture was moved to present him with a Samurai Sword in recognition of the great film he had crafted, enough said there I feel. 9/10

Well, it's not one quality... but I like to do a thumbs up or thumbs down approach. If the movie entertains a thumbs up, if it doesn't a thumbs down. Seems simpler than debating on a 4, a 5, a 6, whatever.
This is also kind of why I want to be able to review individual actors, just so I can write a memo to Guy Peirce and tell him that he needs to stop doing period literary pieces and go back to making films that don't require ascots and puffs.
And this brings me to the point in the review where I question why I know what the difference between an ascot and a puff are.
Anyway, self-reflection aside, the problem is that it doesn't know if it wants to be a thrilling adventure novel that is best epitomized by the writings of Dumas in all his pulp adventure glory... or if the story lasted in popularity for a century or so too long and now has to be regarded as a drama and treated with all the seriousness of a mature literary classic.
It teases with both and never settles on either. It kind of comes across that Wolpert, the writer, understood that Dumas was a pulp adventure writer but Reynolds, the director, thought Dumas was as serious as Dante.
It makes you feel like you are sitting in two different worlds. It kind of feels like you are watching a movie that wants to be a fun adventure yarn about revenge and prison breaks but every time that beast tries to escaped, it's forced back into it's cage by directorial gods of pretentious pompery.
This is the type of movie that you'd get if the director of "Taming of the Shrew" thought everything Shakespeare wrote was "Richard III"... it's unsettling how deadly serious it takes itself.

Jim Caviezel is adequate, no better, as the wronged "Edmond" who gets caught up in a Napoleonic conspiracy that sees him confined on a remote island prison from which no-one escapes alive. His situation seems hopeless, until he receives an unlikely visitor - the elderly Abbe Faria (Richard Harris), who has been trying to tunnel his way out but took a bit of a wrong turning! The two become firm friends, and his parting gifts to the younger man are the secrets of an immense treasure - and his bodybag - that might enable him to seek revenge on "Fernand" (Guy Pearce); "Villefort" (James Frain) and "Maurice" (Christophe Adams) whose machinations stole a great chunk of his life, and cost him the love of "Mercedes" (Dagmara Dominczyk). His vengeance is cleverly structured, he determines to allow each of these people to turn on each other - using their own greed and mistrust to destroy the other. Alexandre Dumas wrote a great story, with loads of intrigue - yet somehow this iteration doesn't really get going. Too much of the build up is abridged (or just not there at all) and that makes the rest of the story weaker and less engaging. The production is adequate, the costumes and look of the film are good, but the pace and performances are both about box office than about characterisations. I felt indifferent about all of them - even the naive young "Albert" (Henry Cavill) whose character is actually quite pivotal in the book, helping remind "Edmond" of the humanity he once had before incarceration. There are way better versions of this story - notably the Robert Donat one from 1934, and I'd recommend that instead, any day.

Fantastic story given a quite smashing adaptation.
Every once in a while, when Hollywood is stuck for new swashbuckling ideas, they turn to the writer of "The Three Musketeers", "The Man In The Iron Mask" and "The Count Of Monte Cristo", one Alexandre Dumas père. Which of course is no bad thing as long as the adaptation is given care and consideration - which hasn't always been the case. So when it was announced that the director of Waterworld, Kevin Reynolds, was to direct the latest version of "The Count Of Monte Cristo", many feared the worst. Made for around $35 million, Reynolds' film fared OK at the Worldwide box office, taking in around $76 million. Yet although far from being a flop, it upped and vanished rather quickly and was barely given a mention come the arrival of 2003. Thankfully the film gathered momentum with the rental releases and is now firmly established as a much loved genre piece.
On the two big hitting movie internet sites, Rotten Tomatoes & IMDb, the film scores 75% and 7.5 respectively, that's about right I would say. Reynolds' film doesn't bring anything new to the table as regards the story, but if it isn't broke then why fix it? Staying safe and true to the spirit of the source, Reynolds has simply crafted a rip roaring movie about betrayal, torture, faith, revenge and love. The makers have costumed it up and added the necessary sword play ingredient. All that was needed was for his cast to deliver performances worthy of such period shenanigans. And he got them.
James Caviezel plays Edmond Dantes. Two years away from playing Jesus Christ, the role that would make his name known, Caviezel had prior to Cristo looked anything but a leading man. But here he finds a role to get his teeth into and it's a comfortable fit, and crucially he seems to be having a good time with it. No such point to prove for Guy Pearce (Fernand Mondego) though, for he already had "L.A. Confidential" & "Memento" under his belt. Here he gives it the full pompous villain act and struts around like some dandy spoiled brat. It's a film stealing performance that shows that the guy who played Mike Young in Aussie soaper Neighbours, has indeed come a long way. Richard Harris adds a touch of class as Abbé Faria, gravel voiced Michael Wincott does a nice line in sadistic bastard as the Château D'If governor, Armand Dorleac. While Luis Guzmán as Jacopo is fun comic relief and Dagmara Dominczyk as Mercedès Iguanada is both sensual and heartfelt.
Never over camping the movie, Reynolds keeps it pacey and dots it with smart set pieces and memorable scenes. Backed up by an on form cast and a sure fire source story to work from, "The Count Of Monte Cristo" turns out to be period winner. So see it if you haven't done so already. 8/10

Adrian Lyne’s Lolita (1997) is a haunting and provocative adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s controversial novel. Despite being over two hours long, the pacing felt just right. The first act didn’t drag at all, and the transition to the second act was seamless, keeping me engaged throughout the film. Every scene felt necessary, with nothing added unnecessarily to stretch the runtime.
The script was very well written and stayed true to Nabokov’s original novel. It captured the complexity of Humbert’s character and the disturbing dynamics of his relationship with Lolita. Jeremy Irons’ narration as Humbert added depth to the story, giving an intimate view into his twisted perspective while constantly reminding the viewer of the uncomfortable reality behind his justifications.
The cinematography was outstanding, moving in harmony with Humbert’s narration. The film’s focus on Lolita’s legs and feet was a subtle but powerful visual choice, directly reflecting the meticulous and fetishistic way Nabokov’s Humbert describes her in the book. He often noticed her bare feet, her sandals, and the way she moved, emphasizing her youth and innocence while twisting those details into objects of his obsession. The camera captured this fixation without needing explicit explanations, immersing the viewer in Humbert’s distorted mindset.
The soundtrack was beautifully done, complementing the film’s emotional shifts. It expressed Humbert’s feelings, from his infatuation and longing to his jealousy and guilt. The music never overwhelmed the scenes but added a layer of emotional complexity that made the film even more immersive.
Adrian Lyne’s direction brought intentional discomfort. The lingering on certain scenes and objects, like Humbert’s stairs, was not random. These moments were designed to make the viewer feel trapped in the same uneasiness as Humbert’s world. It forced me to sit with the moral weight of the story and think about the darkness behind Humbert’s actions. While they echo Humbert’s fixation and Nabokov’s descriptions, they can feel exploitative in a medium as visual as film. This stylistic choice makes the audience complicit in Humbert’s gaze, which is arguably the point, but it may alienate viewers or overshadow the film’s critique of his behavior.
Adrian Lyne’s Lolita is a visually stunning and narratively complex film, but it is not without its flaws. It is undeniably ambitious, tackling one of the most difficult stories in literature, and it does so with technical brilliance. However, the film's reliance on Humbert’s perspective and its sensual style raise questions about how effectively it critiques its protagonist and the story’s darker themes.

If you push the button, two things will happen.
The best quote I ever saw as regards Richard Kelly's The Box, was that it is a Marmite movie. Marmite is a food substance that people either love or hate, The Box is a Marmite movie.
Cameron Diaz and James Marsden star as a couple who are visited by a mysterious stranger (Frank Langella) who has a bizarre offer. The Box now in the couple's possession has a button (Langella's mysterious Arlington Steward informs them it's called the Button Unit), they are told that if they push the button then a complete stranger will die, they will then receive a life changing amount of money. What to do?.
Based on a Richard Matheson short story titled "Button, Button", The Box is an ethereal mind meld of a piece. Morals and ethics are married up to a whole bunch of twists and other worldly ideas, which goes some way to explaining that where once there was a more than adequate half hour "Twilight Zone" episode (Profile in Silver/Button, Button 1986), there is now a near two hour movie crammed to the brim. It's this that hurts an otherwise stylishly produced and potentially thoughtful picture.
After the raves and craves for his "Donnie Darko (2001)", Richard Kelly appeared to believe the press praise, that here was a new surreal director on the block. Where "M. Night Shyamalan" had success with the twist gimmick and couldn't let it go until his career went in the swamp, so to Kelly who kept straining to make movies that were needlessly over complex, trying to be smart when it isn't needed ("Southland Tales (2006)" is a car wreck of a movie). The Box does have intelligence and lots of good ideas, but a two hour film it does not make, with the attempts at weaving all the threads together proving to be too problematic come the finale. Incredulity a most appropriate word, plausibility is not.
The Box, an intriguing - attractive - failure, but some do and will love it. If you haven't seen it then roll the dice and good luck. 6/10
Footnote: We have yet to actually get an adaptation to screen that contains Matheson's original literary ending!

Sandra Bullock does almost all of the heaving lifting in this engaging, if slightly far-fetched love story. She works in the token booth at her local Chicago train station where every morning she sees that cashmere-coated "Peter" (Peter Gallagher). She's got a bit of a crush on him, but after he gets accosted by some muggers on the platform and knocked onto the track she is more concerned that he will end up getting crushed by the 7.45 express! She manages to drag him to safety and next thing we are in the hospital, he has amnesia and she has allowed a scenario to develop where everyone things she's his fiancée. It's only really his brother "Jack" (Bill Pullman) who's a tad sceptical about this woman about whom none of his family have heard and as the two start to spar, they also start to... The rest of this follows some quite predicable lines but there's a fun chemistry between the always expressive Bullock and Pullman with Jack Warden and the scene stealing Glynis Johns adding some character to the family dynamic. Though it's hardly laugh-out-loud, we do get a sort of feel-good feeling that warms your cockles as it trundles along amiably.

**A good and really funny romantic comedy.**
I don't consider myself a fan of romantic comedies, so I feel free to talk about them with complete dismay. And what I want to say about this romantic comedy is that it manages to be much better than we might expect at first glance.
In fact, this film manages to associate an excellent lead actress with a good story, full of comic moments. It all starts with a platonic passion that a young woman feels when she sees a man going to work every day. One day, she ends up saving his life, and a succession of misconceptions ends up making his family believe that she was going to marry him without them knowing. The comedy, of a familiar and friendly nature, has a Christmas background and is extremely appealing to watch in the company of the whole family.
Sandra Bullock, however, is what makes the film work. I can't see an actress with more talent to be naive and nice at the same time as being funny. She has the time, space and material to shine, and she never misses an opportunity to dazzle us with her extraordinary creativity and skill. Bill Pullman also does a very nice job, and there are other actors (Peter Boyle, Jack Warden) who add even more talent to the film.
On a technical level, the film is much simpler. Cinematography, sets, costumes and effects are quite regular, there is no real investment in these aspects, just an effort is made to keep the film within industry standards. However, this is not a real problem if we allow ourselves to be seduced by the story told and the moments of comedy that the film gives us.

**While You Were Sleeping is about more than just romance. It’s about finding family and, in this case, an adorable but crazy and entertaining family.**
While You Were Sleeping is a heartwarming romantic comedy with the lead falling in love with a quirky but sincere family as much as their charming son. The script isn’t perfect, with a couple of cliche and stereotypical rom-com moments, but the cast of goofy but not completely outrageous characters keep you engaged and want to see more of their antics. Sandra Bullock and Bill Pullman are a fun couple to watch and laugh with, and the whole premise of the film presents plenty of fun moments of awkwardness to laugh at. While You Were Sleeping is a funny, heartfelt, and wholesome rom-com from the 90s that my parents watched 100 times while I was growing up, which was way too much, but I have to admit… it’s a good one.

Insanely cheesy and overtly sentimental... yet, I kinda like 'While You Were Sleeping'.
Sandra Bullock is probably the main reason for the latter, as she gives a near perfect performance for this sorta role. The rest of the cast are good too, from Bill Pullman to Peter Gallagher to Jason Bernard. The story is paced finely, it's really just the strong cheese that brings the rating down for me. Still: 7/10.
It's the sixth Jon Turteltaub film that I've seen: I'd class each one as good. Reliable director!

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
This feels like a classic watch, like a movie that started a trope...but I can't think of a single other movie that did what this movie does. Sure there are movies about comas, amnesia, lying, but they don't do it in the same way, and I honestly believe it's because this movie did it so well that no one wants to risk copying it and do worse.
This is also a great example of good situational comedy without bleeding over into abuse humor: at no point is she "suffering", she's not attacked, or wronged, but she's in a difficult situation that doesn't lend towards pleasantness in a ridiculous fashion, mostly because the family is insane, in the best of ways.
Every single actor in this really brings it too. There are plenty of notable names, but as much as Sandra Bullock elevates the quiet, reserved character of Lucy, there are so many other good actors and characters throughout the movie, it feels extremely balanced, despite all the different story angles happening.
The other thing happening is that this is sort of a reverse mystery. Instead of information that other characters know being hidden from the audience to be revealed later, the audience is almost the only one to know the truth until aspects are slowly revealed to the rest of the cast.
If you haven't see this yet, put it on your list, I promise it still holds up: even if there are no smart phones yet, you'll barely notice.

**Payne Relief**
The black and white photography is a nice touch. It gives a kind of Karsh look to the weathered faces of the aging, reflective, yet still yearning cast of characters, and suits the rapidly fading memories of a bygone era in recent American history. The acting was pretty good. Bruce Dern gives an effortless performance as a cranky old coot with one attention-seeking foot in the spotlight and the other half-buried in the shadows of utter dementia. The interpersonal conflicts among family and community, past and present are presented in a simple, linear uncomplicated way. The story seems to want to explore the sad truths of a regressive, bankrupt nation and the ridiculous dreams and delusions people cling to. Life is limited and unfinished. Like the heads carved out of Mount Rushmore. Like the forlorn characters wandering on and off the screen. For even after a lifetime of honest hard work aligned with various fixed Christian principles, a restless, quiet desperation lingers. Lies and illusions are necessary to prevent a lonely, inconsolable reality from setting in. And while Alexander Payne manages to keeps things relatively upbeat to prevent dragging us down into a pit of futile despair, he also fails to fully develop and realize the themes he puts forward. Every time Payne rustles up a movie (Sideways, The Descendants) he gets high praise, and this time he almost deserves it. He's a fairly astute cinematician who wants to make meaningful pictures without getting in too deep. Specifically, road movies on half a tank. Thankfully, he doesn't tread into murky Bergman territory, or puff his stuff up with Goddard-like self-importance, but he doesn't do himself much justice by avoiding or brushing off the potential worth and urgency of the matters he introduces. His concepts are cut short. While I'm watching Nebraska, I can't help but wonder how adept filmmakers like Kieslowski or Cassavettes would have treated and serviced the material. What's almost more disappointing than getting old, losing a presence of mind and attempting to reconcile broken memories, is not being able to fully grasp, much less handle and nurture, your own brainchild.

I do vaguely recall Andy Kaufman in "Taxi" but the remainder of this rather zany depiction of his life just reminded me of a compendium of the "Goon Show" meets "Mork and Mindy". His sense of what was entertaining was eclectic to say the least, and his stand-up routines reminded me a little of Peter Sellers when he was using his exaggerated (European) accents to try and get a laugh. Nobody is much interested in these stage shows until talent agent George Shapiro (Danny DeVito) spots him and sees something original about his talents. Exposure on television followed, then his casting in the sitcom about New York's amiable mix of yellow cab drivers - the series that made the name of Danny DeVito too - before he embarked on a curious and one-sided career wrestling women. It was this latter profession that introduced him to male wrestler Jerry Lawler who tired of this and took to fighting him man-to-man. Needless to say, he's no match for the man with the "Piledriver" so has to resort to other ways to keep ahead of the ever changing entertainment game. His behaviour becomes more erratic and soon nobody with a television camera will touch the man... Jim Carrey is a natural at these quirky and over-the-top interpretations, and here is no different. He immerses himself into the role and manages to very successfully convey the sheer irritation factor of this man who had practically no talent but an ability to pander the "Emperor's New Clothes" theory to an audience who thought, initially, it better to laugh with the crowd than to scratch their heads and wonder what they were actually laughing at. On that front, Milos Forman has created a cleverly structured biopic of a man who was flawed and obsessed and who was fuelled by a market place desperate for something different. What I didn't feel here was any empathy for Kaufman. The industry is hard, cruel and unforgiving to the best of them and maybe it is a testament to the acting, but I genuinely felt this person hadn't the skills required to entertain at an holiday camp for the hard of hearing. Maybe it's more relevant to Americans who can better associate with their standard and style of 1970s television programming but as an observer from elsewhere this come cross as entirely self indulgent. Sorry.

Great movie perfect for Andy Kaufman. Throughout the film you could barely tell that it's Jim Carey. It's like watching Andy Kaufman all over again.

Interesting movie tailored to Jim Carrey. In any case, probably more interesting for those who lived in US and in the time Andy Kaufman became a celebrity.