Where's Batman Dracula?

This may be the most beautiful film I've ever seen. Life is a landscape. Memory is a tapestry. Color is felt in the hands. Fairy tale as Pure Cinema. 75 minutes I didn't want to end.

The interplay of layers was very impressive and thought-provoking, but it lost itself in its ending. A stronger film would have had Costa leave the mother in the chaos, the thesis of indigenous people abused by outside influences coming to its logical summation. It could have been devastating, but settled for easy humanism. But other than that, it was a very powerful, thoughtful film.

This is the most godawful worst, broadly-acted, clumsily-directed film I've seen since A Safe Place. I couldn't make it past the first 40 minutes.

I take it that was your accomplice in the woodchipper...

Much fascinating information here. My favorite part was the section on Barry Lyndon, my favorite Kubrick film, and the cameras and lenses used. My one caveat with Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures was it could have included critics who are critical of Kubrick. It was too back-patting, and Kubrick made several awful films (but many masterpieces). Addressing criticisms would have given the documentary more weight.

A masterpiece of editing and conceptual invention, but Welles made his point in the first ten minutes, then monotonously harped on it for eighty more.

I wish we had a TV show like "Ledgeman"...

I'm sorry. I can't help associating the Coca-Cola scene with the reference in Family Guy... :-)

In a word: meh. It was made of nice little moments, but the story didn't go anywhere and the characters didn't seem to move. Also, narration was used more as a convenience in spots than for character insight (after seeing this and 2041, comparisons to Terrence Malick and Godard don't seem fair). At this point: 3 stars/5.

Oh God, I'm desperate to see this!

Now that I saw this on TV, I see what a great influence it was, not just on Ingmar Bergman, but Jan Troell as well.

The worst film Godard never made. I couldn't even stomach half an hour.

A masterpiece. You never saw characters as challenging as Scarlett and Rhett in American films before this, nor a marriage drama where the two are equally rotten enough to deserve each other, so nasty and (shock!) can't work out their differences in the end. It refuses to pander to the values of its time.

Easily one of the most nihilistic films I've ever seen.

This is an "emperor has no clothes" film for me. I like "elemental", but sometimes something is so much so that one wonders if there is anything there at all.

This would be a perfect film if not for the miscast Kevin Costner. His New Orleans accent is so terrible... I would have cast Albert Finney - or tried to at least. The supporting cast and Stone's direction are extremely good, though. I can watch all three and a half hours easily. It's dense and well-paced, and you never feel the length.

My first Campion film, a very mixed bag. Uneven acting (it's hard not to crack up at Abbie Cornish's despair, or Paul Schneider wailing "I failed John Keats"), but splashes of visual poetry help her case. The visuals (Brawne lying in bed with the wind billowing the curtains, the natural light photography, faces emerging from a field of flowers) are more poetic than the writing or acting.

I hate to slander a classic, but I think I could count on five fingers the number of times I laughed - and possibly have some left over...