Michael-Gambon Movie Reviews

There are two things extremely wrong with this DVD. First and most important are statements made by Martin Sheen as a representative of Rome stating that during Mass, the miracle that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ does not happen. This is one of the basic tenants of Catholic belief and a representative from Rome would NEVER state that this miracle does not happen. No wonder the monks revolt!

The transfer to DVD is HORRIBLE! The color continually fluctuates, skin tones go from almost black and white to flech tones to green tints all in the same scenes. The picture is very grainy in some scenes. One of the worst transfers I have seen.

The original title of this film was "Catholics" and, while "Conflict" is a better indication of the content of the story, it should have been released under the original title.

All things considered, in spite of strong performances, this DVD is a mess and a definite affront to Catholics.

This made-for-TV movie from 1973 was shown full-length on U.S. public broadcasting stations in the 1970s. It is a visually and intellectually impressive film. The story line is very faithful to the 1972 book "Catholics" by Brian Moore, with only a couple of scenes sequenced differently, and in my opinion, rather more effectively than in the book. Unfortunately, later VHS versions have been shortened, with about the first ten minutes of the original film deleted. This DVD version shares the same significant defect.

The first few minutes of the original film were essential in setting the context for the conflict portrayed between the traditionalist Irish monks led by their Father Abbot (Trevor Howard), and the modernist representative (Martin Sheen) of their order's Vatican Father General. During these missing first few minutes, we would have seen Sheen meeting with the Father General (Raf Vallone) in Rome, and discussing the "problem" of the return of Latin Mass celebration by the monks of Howard's abbey and the growing world-wide popularity of that celebration. The first scene made it clear that the time period portrayed is hypothetical and futuristic. In this fabulous Roman Catholic Church, additional modifications and liberalization of doctrine are supposed to have taken place beyond those that have been in effect since Vatican II. Within the film, there are mentions of a "Vatican IV" and other hypothetical conventions. Missing the original initial scene, many may believe that the film has grossly erred in, or deliberately distorted, current Roman Catholic beliefs. This was not the motive of the movie as originally filmed, and it is a tremendous loss to the integrity of the original story that the vital first scene of the movie has been edited away. However, this does explain the crediting of Raf Vallone as Father General at the start and end of the film, when in fact Raf Vallone/Father General never appears in the VHS or DVD versions. It would be well worthwhile to read the first chapter of the book before seeing a shortened home video release, if at all possible.

The DVD video quality is disappointing. The color is washed out, and in several scenes it is strangely yellow-tinted. It is definitely inferior to my ten-year-old VHS copy issued by USA Home Video. The sound is occasionally clipped, with words lost in several places. Not so my VHS copy. The original film title was "Catholics, A Fable" but the cryptic title of "The Conflict" has been used for the DVD. The DVD also contains an idiotic special feature in the form of an interactive quiz about the movie content. One may entertain one's self with such challenging questions as "What was on the sign carried by the man in the brown suit?" or "What color was the priest's car?" The quiz even has incorrect answers!

In spite of these problems, I state without reservation that this DVD is well worth owning. Since Vatican II there has existed a Roman Catholic traditionalist movement that today seems to have more Vatican-sanctioned success than would ever have been thought possible at the time this film was made. Some have tried to relate the events portrayed in this film to that movement. But by movie's end, this film actually depicts far more important issues of religious belief, and its loss. This is a film, like the book, that will be of interest to anyone, of whatever faith or none, for whom philosophy of religion is of interest.

The acting by Trevor Howard is absolutely flawless and authentic. It is art and it is masterful and it is heartfelt and it is beautiful. Almost equally so is that of Cyril Cusack, who plays the role of Father Manus, a monk. Sheen's role is important, but not nearly as much as Howard's, and not remotely as well-crafted.

This is as intelligent and entertaining a film today as it was when it was made 30 years ago. Let us hope someone in the near future will gather an old PBS copy of the complete film, digitally re-master it, and finally give us a proper and fitting version of this film. I know of no other film that deserves it so much.

Trevor Howard and Martin Sheen star in this portrayal of an attempt to completely destroy the Catholic Church. Trevor Howard is the abbot of an Irish monastary that continues the two thousand years of the Roman Latin Rite of the Church. People come from all over the world to participate in the last of the Roman Latin Rite Masses and the Vatican (Vatican V) wants to put an end to it. The Vatican sends a priest, Martin Sheen, as emissary to end the latin Mass. Catholics is a supposed futuristic view of the Church while in reality it is about the struggle Catholics face today.

There are two things extremely wrong with this DVD. First and most important are statements made by Martin Sheen as a representative of Rome stating that during Mass, the miracle that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ does not happen. This is one of the basic tenants of Catholic belief and a representative from Rome would NEVER state that this miracle does not happen. No wonder the monks revolt!

The transfer to DVD is HORRIBLE! The color continually fluctuates, skin tones go from almost black and white to flech tones to green tints all in the same scenes. The picture is very grainy in some scenes. One of the worst transfers I have seen.

The original title of this film was "Catholics" and, while "Conflict" is a better indication of the content of the story, it should have been released under the original title.

All things considered, in spite of strong performances, this DVD is a mess and a definite affront to Catholics.

This made-for-TV movie from 1973 was shown full-length on U.S. public broadcasting stations in the 1970s. It is a visually and intellectually impressive film. The story line is very faithful to the 1972 book "Catholics" by Brian Moore, with only a couple of scenes sequenced differently, and in my opinion, rather more effectively than in the book. Unfortunately, later VHS versions have been shortened, with about the first ten minutes of the original film deleted. This DVD version shares the same significant defect.

The first few minutes of the original film were essential in setting the context for the conflict portrayed between the traditionalist Irish monks led by their Father Abbot (Trevor Howard), and the modernist representative (Martin Sheen) of their order's Vatican Father General. During these missing first few minutes, we would have seen Sheen meeting with the Father General (Raf Vallone) in Rome, and discussing the "problem" of the return of Latin Mass celebration by the monks of Howard's abbey and the growing world-wide popularity of that celebration. The first scene made it clear that the time period portrayed is hypothetical and futuristic. In this fabulous Roman Catholic Church, additional modifications and liberalization of doctrine are supposed to have taken place beyond those that have been in effect since Vatican II. Within the film, there are mentions of a "Vatican IV" and other hypothetical conventions. Missing the original initial scene, many may believe that the film has grossly erred in, or deliberately distorted, current Roman Catholic beliefs. This was not the motive of the movie as originally filmed, and it is a tremendous loss to the integrity of the original story that the vital first scene of the movie has been edited away. However, this does explain the crediting of Raf Vallone as Father General at the start and end of the film, when in fact Raf Vallone/Father General never appears in the VHS or DVD versions. It would be well worthwhile to read the first chapter of the book before seeing a shortened home video release, if at all possible.

The DVD video quality is disappointing. The color is washed out, and in several scenes it is strangely yellow-tinted. It is definitely inferior to my ten-year-old VHS copy issued by USA Home Video. The sound is occasionally clipped, with words lost in several places. Not so my VHS copy. The original film title was "Catholics, A Fable" but the cryptic title of "The Conflict" has been used for the DVD. The DVD also contains an idiotic special feature in the form of an interactive quiz about the movie content. One may entertain one's self with such challenging questions as "What was on the sign carried by the man in the brown suit?" or "What color was the priest's car?" The quiz even has incorrect answers!

In spite of these problems, I state without reservation that this DVD is well worth owning. Since Vatican II there has existed a Roman Catholic traditionalist movement that today seems to have more Vatican-sanctioned success than would ever have been thought possible at the time this film was made. Some have tried to relate the events portrayed in this film to that movement. But by movie's end, this film actually depicts far more important issues of religious belief, and its loss. This is a film, like the book, that will be of interest to anyone, of whatever faith or none, for whom philosophy of religion is of interest.

The acting by Trevor Howard is absolutely flawless and authentic. It is art and it is masterful and it is heartfelt and it is beautiful. Almost equally so is that of Cyril Cusack, who plays the role of Father Manus, a monk. Sheen's role is important, but not nearly as much as Howard's, and not remotely as well-crafted.

This is as intelligent and entertaining a film today as it was when it was made 30 years ago. Let us hope someone in the near future will gather an old PBS copy of the complete film, digitally re-master it, and finally give us a proper and fitting version of this film. I know of no other film that deserves it so much.

Trevor Howard and Martin Sheen star in this portrayal of an attempt to completely destroy the Catholic Church. Trevor Howard is the abbot of an Irish monastary that continues the two thousand years of the Roman Latin Rite of the Church. People come from all over the world to participate in the last of the Roman Latin Rite Masses and the Vatican (Vatican V) wants to put an end to it. The Vatican sends a priest, Martin Sheen, as emissary to end the latin Mass. Catholics is a supposed futuristic view of the Church while in reality it is about the struggle Catholics face today.

I highly recommend this movie for two very good reasons.

First, the acting and the dialogue involved with this project are great. I can still hear Lady Bird Johnson telling a frightened and fatigued LBJ "When eloquence of words are no longer effective, then perhaps it is time for eloquence of action..." And with these words, LBJ decides to retire the presidency and public life.

Second, I recommend "Path to War" because of the subject of this impressive movie is Lyndon Baines Johnson. Arguably one of the most controversial figures of American history, it is easy to forget all the good he has done for our country in the hell of Vietnam. This movie finally reminds the viewer that although President Kennedy had such wonderful dreams and ideas for our society, it was President Johnson who made those dreams a reality by maneuvering the congress to enact the "Great Society" laws. The audience can feel his joy and elation as he sees his vision of an America that has beaten poverty, racial discrimination, and the host of other social ills present in America during the 1960s. Then, we see his dreams transformed into nightmares as the American public become increasingly angry and hostile with his policy towards Vietnam. The audience is shown the private torture inflicted by decisions president Johnson makes in regards to Vietnam and the anger he knew they would generate...In conclusion, "Path to War" reminds me of a Greek tragety; riveting and enjoyable to watch and experience in the comfort of ones own home.

Being a huge John Frankenheimer fan, this movie was on my list to see for some time since I don't have HBO. Overall, I wasn't expecting too much from this movie, somehow I have that perception with all made-for-tv movies. The movie certainly has that feel in the first few minutes, with acting that seems a bit forced and wooden. But as the story progressed, I slowly got pulled into the situation and characters of all involved. By the time the movie was over, I was impressed with the portrait provided of LBJ as a troubled man who wanted to do so much for the country, but was held back with a stalemate war. It's expertly directed by Frankenheimer, with his classic visual style that exudes tension with facial close-ups. Gambon does a pretty good job too, although most of his acting in this movie falls into the 'concerned man' and the 'screaming and yelling man' episodes; it still shows the bi-polar sources pulling at him.

It resonates a bit with the current tensions and war in Iraq (some of this is mentioned in the bonus features), but it still carves out its own identity; when was the last time a President talked about a Great Society? It makes me wonder how significant of a President Johnson could have been (many books defer to this position as well, almost worthy of a place on Mt. Rushmore). But as a youngster, most of the Presidents I've been alive to experience are focused more on cautious outlooks than on civil progression and visionary goals. Of course its all easier said than done, but it seems to me the era visionaries has ceased with Johnson's statement not run for a second term in office.

I know very little of the historic values of past Presidents, but it's a genre I enjoy experiencing in the movies and television. If you watch the West Wing on a regular basis, or just enjoy movies with historical facts and situations (13 days, JFK, All the Presidents Men), then you'll enjoy this movie. I expected little, and I got a home run in return. I think it's a great movie that concludes Frankenheimer's career. I like his work a lot, and he will be missed.

It should be noted that the movie is not 4x3 full frame format. Instead it's in 16x9, anamorphic format; and the transfer I would rate as 'good' but not exceptional.

Path to War is a great movie for several reasons. For one, it is a movie about LBJ, which is rare. In most movies he is a background figure, perhaps because it is hard for an actor to capture his personality. Secondly, it is a Vietnam movie that shows a different side of the war: the political side. Movies like Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, and The Deer Hunter have done a superb job of showing the side of the common soldier in Vietnam, but what went on in the corridors of power in Washington is rarely shown. And, finally, the filmmakers have assembled a great team of actors and historians to bring this film to life. Michael Gambon, who portrays LBJ, does a commendable job, as does Alec Baldwin as Robert McNamara, but the best is Donald Sutherland as Washington insider Clark Clifford. As an added bonus, the DVD version of the film is loaded with extras including cast interviews and commentary by historian Michael Beschloss. Despite its length, it goes by fairly fast, and it is easy to get caught up in the tension and paranoia that plagued LBJ during his presidency.

Elizabeth Bowen's novel "The Heat of the Day" is considered by many to be the finest novel written about Britain/London during World War Two. It certainly is a great romance. This Masterpiece Theater version is a surprise, not unwelcome, thanks to some strong performances, but it ultimately tries to dry out the story/plot to its essentials and does not take advantage of Bowen's own cinematic descriptions of her characters, story and setting.

Patricia Hodge is a strange Stella Rodney. Her performance is strong but her characterization is off the mark. This is a Stella in control. One can't believe that she would be dependent on anyone, much less her lover, so that when she is expected to unravel, it scarcely seems believable. Stella's romance with Robert is circumstantial and special. It is made possible by the blitz London atmosphere and is, indeed, a rebirth for the heroine of the novel. It suggests that finally, Stella, a divorcee, is able to find intimacy from someone other than her son (who is played abominably). But Hodge's Stella is so controlled, so dry and so independent that she is startling and very unromantic. Her tragedy is not believable.

The strongest perfomances are by Michael Gambon (who plays Harrison, probably the hardest character to play in the novel with all he can to give us some sense of what the character is about - the script gives him litle aid), Peggy Ashcroft and the women who play Robert's mother and sister (they're terrifying).

It's worth seeing if you're into the book. It will probably make you disagree with it's take, but I don't think it will disappoint.

This film stars Patricia Hodge, one of England's most beautiful and competent actresses, and Michael Gambon, one of the greats. Michael York plays a pivotal role but the film really belongs to Hodge and Gambon. I have been trying to secure a copy for my own library to no avail. If you ever have the opportunity to see the film don't let the chance pass you by. It is suspenseful to the very end. And even then the viewer isn't exactly sure how it ends. Hodge and Gambon play against each other in a way that you will never forget. The beauty and the "beast".

The only reason it even gets two stars is that Meryl Streep is in it!

When I saw this movie, I had just found Wicca. I pretty much said to anyone I met, "Hi, my name's Barb, nice to meet you. I'm a Witch." I was still in that first falling-in-love phase. As a matter of fact, I still thought that Wicca was "The Old Religion!"

Someone reccomended this movie to me as a movie that portrayed Pagans in a positive light and it had Meryl Streep in it! I fully expected a story about a Lughhnasa Rite. NOT!

This movie is actually quite boring and is the only movie with Meryl Streep in it that I've seen that I haven't liked! It's basically a story about three sisters that live in Ireland in the(I think)1950's.

There is only one brief part about Pagans in it, and they are definietely NOT PORTRAYED IN A POSITIVE LIGHT! There is a brief scene of drunken revelry where a group of people who identify themselves as Pagans appear to be engaging in orgiastic behavior.

Not only that, there is an intimation that they might possibly force the young woman who was brought to this not even knowing what it was, to join them!...

'Dancing at Lughasa' is an interesting (if somewhat depressing) movie, but worth watching for the sterling performances; Streep is sensational as the priggish elder sister trying to hold her family together, but the screen is really stolen by the excellent Cathy Burke, one of Britain's finest character actresses. The real 'loose link' in this movie for me was the child the plot centres around - this kid is no Mark Lester, and his hopeless performance adds a 'surreal' element to his scenes; one minute, we are so swept up in the believable performances that it is completely our'reality', yet as soon as the kid walks into a scene, it's like; "Oh yeah. I'm watching another movie about an Irish family. Bring out the fiddles." Furthermore, there is no real 'action' in this movie; events build up and then turn into non-events, the ending so depressing (and predictable) that you feel a little resentful for investing so much EMOTIONALLY in this movie. Still, it's worth seeing for the performances, if nothing else.

I watched this movie last night and thought it was excellent. It's a story about the adversity that 5 Irish sisters and their lone brother(recently returned from Africa) face when technology and a changing environment cause them to re-evaluate their lives. Rhys Ifans (best known as "Spike" in Notting Hill) is very good as the wandering boyfriend (and father of her child) of one of the sisters, played by Catherine McCormick. Meryl Streep is excellent as always and has no trouble mastering an Irish accent. This movie is definitely worth watching, but don't expect a happy Hollywood ending--it doesn't exist!

If you are looking for a movie to catagorize the poor films of the 70s, here it is. A rediculous plot and poor acting go right with hilarious special affects, including the dog falling through the sun roof and the dude being electracuted by a chain-link fence. It was worth it for me, because me and my friends needed to rent 1 more movie to get a discount, and the comical title and our lack of time forced us to hurridly pick this turkey. Plus it was fun to rip on everything in a MST3K-style manor with my buddies that night, but certainly dont spend 25 bucks on this disasterpiece.

I first discovered this movie about 15 years ago when it ran on a rainy Saturday afternoon throwaway slot. This isn't a great movie, but it's a great potboiler, where even if you know how it's going to end, you like watching the characters unravel throughout the story. Camp at its best.

You don't see movies like this anymore, probably because they don't use self-conscious ironic detachment. The (over)acting must be good enough that the players actually inhabit their roles. Play it straight and it's unwatchable. The effects aren't so special, so it's just as well that the action is implicit rather than graphic.

Everything about the film is dated--there's no mistaking the costumes or the music for any era other than the mid 70's. For that matter, the voiceover, the ticking clock and the freeze-frame shots of the characters probably looked dated even when the movie was new. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Later the horror film evolved into the mindless slasher film in the late-70's-early 80's, where the killer was only a setpiece, and then into the 90's, where the ironic, self-aware Scream type picture cannibalized the former genre. So hungry were moviegoers for subtle, sincere horror that they drooled over Blair Witch. It was a valiant effort, the spookfest had all been done better, when films relied on pacing, acting and camera angle to scare the audience instead of gore.

It's surprising enough that this film merited a DVD release at all and I was so thankful to find it that I didn't even care about the lack of outtakes and extra comments. The next rainy Saturday afternoon I'm watching this again.

I recently purchased this film on DVD purely as a matter of nostalgia.

This flick first caught my attention one dark, lonely night when I was five or six years old and suffering from my seasonal allergies and asthma attack. This movie both entertained me and scared me to death. It has been twenty-three years since I last saw it and, to my surprise, I still think it's a really good movie, though for very different reasons.

Sure they put a fur coat on a black dog and expect us to buy it as a wolf. Sure the soundtrack seems better suited to "Shaft in Merry Ol' England" as opposed to a modern gothic horror film. Sure the acting is heavily stylized and, at times, just plain goofy. Sure the "Werewolf Break" in which the audience is given thirty seconds in which to dissect a fairly uncomplicated mystery is way out in Goofyville, but who cares?! Anyone who finds fault with the above is, quite obviously, someone who should not be watching this film in the first place. Like many films made in the long ago and far away, you have to accept a certain level of culture shock. Like many horror films you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief nigh on to the breaking point. Like many British films you have to put up with acting that seems more suited to Stratford on Avon than Dogma 95. Accept these as simple facts of life or don't rent it, folks. It's just that simple.

I've read several negative reviews for this particular film which stress the above elements over and over again. Surprisingly, many of these are written by avowed horror hounds who would probably love the movie if it had nudity and/or more gore. I'm certainly no prude and would turn away from neither should a "Director's Cut" of "The Beast Must Die" ever surface. Then again, sometimes it really is nice to see a horror film like this or any of the Amicus vignette films of the sixties and seventies ("Tales From the Crypt," "The Vault of Horror," "Asylum," et. al.) They have an innocense and a joviality that you just don't find often enough. Though some recent horror fare (most notably the "House on Haunted Hill" remake and any episode of HBO's "Tales From the Crypt") attempt to emulate the feel of a picture like this, they always seem to miss the mark. Perhaps its because they are much more willing to let fly with the gore and nudity. The resulting product hence becoming muddled somewhere between childishness and exploitativeness. (For a further discussion of this see the write-up of Stephen King's "Maximum Overdrive" penned by the good people at Jabootu.com).

In closing, if you like seventies kitsch or Brit horror of the period or if you just find yourself in the mood for a watchable mystery, you could do a hell of a lot worse. I mean, "Murder, She Wrote" could still be on the air.

When I read the few negative reviews among all the raves, I figured that some people are simply not sophisticated to appreciate a good movie. I was wrong. Gosford Park is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. It is incomprehensible when it comes to connecting the characters. Certainly, this movie would be better watched a second time. But why torture yourself to a second viewing of a movie that goes nowhere?

That is my only question about this waste of money.

A previous reviewer refers to this film as a 'classical Agatha Christie whodunnit'. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Never would Agatha Christie, mistress of her craft, have written such a feeble mystery. For a start, the murder doesn't take place until more than halfway through the film, the detective when he appears is an idiot who couldn't detect his way out of a paper bag, and it's pretty obvious from the start who the murderer is, and why she did it. Pathetic. The film is riddled with cliches, all the upper-class characters are grim and repressed, all the working-class characters are warm, vibrant, life-loving etc. The film is just about worth watching for the performance of Maggie Smith, playing the only interesting character in the film, and the lovely Ivor Novello music. As a mystery, the film is hopeless.

When I read the few negative reviews among all the raves, I figured that some people are simply not sophisticated to appreciate a good movie. I was wrong. Gosford Park is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. It is incomprehensible when it comes to connecting the characters. Certainly, this movie would be better watched a second time. But why torture yourself to a second viewing of a movie that goes nowhere?

That is my only question about this waste of money.

A previous reviewer refers to this film as a 'classical Agatha Christie whodunnit'. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Never would Agatha Christie, mistress of her craft, have written such a feeble mystery. For a start, the murder doesn't take place until more than halfway through the film, the detective when he appears is an idiot who couldn't detect his way out of a paper bag, and it's pretty obvious from the start who the murderer is, and why she did it. Pathetic. The film is riddled with cliches, all the upper-class characters are grim and repressed, all the working-class characters are warm, vibrant, life-loving etc. The film is just about worth watching for the performance of Maggie Smith, playing the only interesting character in the film, and the lovely Ivor Novello music. As a mystery, the film is hopeless.

I wanted to like Charlotte Gray. I'm a big fan of war stories, but I found this film to be drawn out, and at times tedious. Charlotte is a Scotswoman, selected to become a spy in war-torn France. When her cover is almost blown, she is hidden away in a remote farm playing mommy to two orphan boys.

While I enjoyed the cinematography, I didn't care for Charlotte's character. Her romance with the pilot seemed superficial to me. Her convictions to help France, had all the genuineness of a dogma spouting cultist. And, I'm sorry... But if I were selected to be a spy, I would hope I'd do more than play housekeeper. Come on Girl!

I had to give up half way through the movie. I just couldn't muster the interest to finish it. Perhaps if the story had been a little tighter and the characters a little more engaging....? Overall, I was disappointed.

I watched this movie because it had Cate Blanchett and the French Resistance, two things I like. You would think a film with this subject matter would evoke solemn feelings and a great tension considering the danger at hand, but unfortunately, like Charlotte herself I imagine, I forgot all of that and my brain turned to mush whenever Julien (Billy Crudup) came on screen.

This movie had lots of cliches and things that didn't make sense. As other reviewers have said, her mission in France was never clear. Oh well. The story did play up the good old save the Jews, reek occaissionally of Pearl Harbor (*puke*) had the [worst] ending, and did no justice to the absolute courage of the Resistance or bother to explain what motivated some French people to collaborate.

But I don't think the film was out to explain the merits of the Resistance, the sentiments of the occupied French people, the workings of the British operations or anything better left to seperate films. The film, like "Dominique", had no view on these things, just accepted they were there. And they were.

The most interesting thing in the film is Charlotte's relationship with Julien. It's for the most part unspoken, just an underlying tension, but its well done and makes a fabulous show right in front of the Germans! haha It's also a great contrast to her relationship with the English pilot, which is quick and passionate and points out so clearly how little she knew this man, and herself. It's a selfish relationship with the two of them absorbed in their passion for each other. Her relationship with Julien is unselfish, they become close helping others - the Jewish children, his father, the Resistance.

I'm going to defend this movie despite its flaws because I like this message, and am usually annoyed by the films where romance overshadows the historical tragedies like Titanic and Pearl Harbor. I'm sure this film knows there are better films out there to deal with the historical aspects, but for me it functioned as decent human interaction (until the stupid ending, that is) and beautiful scenery. And, dare I be so shallow, Julien was hot right there, on the floor, in front of the Nazis.

This movie seems to get a bad rap for strange reasons. I had no problem whatsoever with the accents, nor did I think Cate Blanchett's wardrobe was overly nice for wartime. (It was the FORTIES, and anyway, she's in muddy clothes for most of the film.) My one and only complaint is that we get a clearer sense of Charlotte as Dominique than of Charlotte as Charlotte. Things seem to progress a little too quickly early in the film, so that we don't know enough about who this girl was before she fell in love and started diving out of planes and blowing up Nazis. (This would help make the ending a tad more powerful.) Other than that--well played by all, very enjoyable, visually stunning, and as for the raging debate on accents, I'd like to say this: as Gillian Armstrong points out in the commentary, it's better to have British people with shallow accents than French people with accents so thick you can't understand them; Cate Blanchett was willing to do two-thirds of the film in French, but Armstrong feared criticism that her French wouldn't be perfect; and, as for those German-speaking Germans, they're foreigners taking over a foreign land. The fact that they're not speaking the language of the audience or the language of the townspeople makes them seem more alien and menacing. Do we desperately need to know exactly what they're saying? No, because you can figure out that they're not saying much beyond, "Get zem into ze truck" or "Stop making out on ze floor, Frenchies!" So sit back and enjoy.

I wanted to like Charlotte Gray. I'm a big fan of war stories, but I found this film to be drawn out, and at times tedious. Charlotte is a Scotswoman, selected to become a spy in war-torn France. When her cover is almost blown, she is hidden away in a remote farm playing mommy to two orphan boys.

While I enjoyed the cinematography, I didn't care for Charlotte's character. Her romance with the pilot seemed superficial to me. Her convictions to help France, had all the genuineness of a dogma spouting cultist. And, I'm sorry... But if I were selected to be a spy, I would hope I'd do more than play housekeeper. Come on Girl!

I had to give up half way through the movie. I just couldn't muster the interest to finish it. Perhaps if the story had been a little tighter and the characters a little more engaging....? Overall, I was disappointed.

I watched this movie because it had Cate Blanchett and the French Resistance, two things I like. You would think a film with this subject matter would evoke solemn feelings and a great tension considering the danger at hand, but unfortunately, like Charlotte herself I imagine, I forgot all of that and my brain turned to mush whenever Julien (Billy Crudup) came on screen.

This movie had lots of cliches and things that didn't make sense. As other reviewers have said, her mission in France was never clear. Oh well. The story did play up the good old save the Jews, reek occaissionally of Pearl Harbor (*puke*) had the [worst] ending, and did no justice to the absolute courage of the Resistance or bother to explain what motivated some French people to collaborate.

But I don't think the film was out to explain the merits of the Resistance, the sentiments of the occupied French people, the workings of the British operations or anything better left to seperate films. The film, like "Dominique", had no view on these things, just accepted they were there. And they were.

The most interesting thing in the film is Charlotte's relationship with Julien. It's for the most part unspoken, just an underlying tension, but its well done and makes a fabulous show right in front of the Germans! haha It's also a great contrast to her relationship with the English pilot, which is quick and passionate and points out so clearly how little she knew this man, and herself. It's a selfish relationship with the two of them absorbed in their passion for each other. Her relationship with Julien is unselfish, they become close helping others - the Jewish children, his father, the Resistance.

I'm going to defend this movie despite its flaws because I like this message, and am usually annoyed by the films where romance overshadows the historical tragedies like Titanic and Pearl Harbor. I'm sure this film knows there are better films out there to deal with the historical aspects, but for me it functioned as decent human interaction (until the stupid ending, that is) and beautiful scenery. And, dare I be so shallow, Julien was hot right there, on the floor, in front of the Nazis.

This movie seems to get a bad rap for strange reasons. I had no problem whatsoever with the accents, nor did I think Cate Blanchett's wardrobe was overly nice for wartime. (It was the FORTIES, and anyway, she's in muddy clothes for most of the film.) My one and only complaint is that we get a clearer sense of Charlotte as Dominique than of Charlotte as Charlotte. Things seem to progress a little too quickly early in the film, so that we don't know enough about who this girl was before she fell in love and started diving out of planes and blowing up Nazis. (This would help make the ending a tad more powerful.) Other than that--well played by all, very enjoyable, visually stunning, and as for the raging debate on accents, I'd like to say this: as Gillian Armstrong points out in the commentary, it's better to have British people with shallow accents than French people with accents so thick you can't understand them; Cate Blanchett was willing to do two-thirds of the film in French, but Armstrong feared criticism that her French wouldn't be perfect; and, as for those German-speaking Germans, they're foreigners taking over a foreign land. The fact that they're not speaking the language of the audience or the language of the townspeople makes them seem more alien and menacing. Do we desperately need to know exactly what they're saying? No, because you can figure out that they're not saying much beyond, "Get zem into ze truck" or "Stop making out on ze floor, Frenchies!" So sit back and enjoy.