What is the last movie you saw? and rate it.

[Nossa]

Wow! Janine, that was an excellent review!! I didn't see the movie actually, but I'm planning to. Your review is just amazing. You made me wanna watch the movie even more now

[Janine]

Wow! Janine, that was an excellent review!! I didn't see the movie actually, but I'm planning to. Your review is just amazing. You made me wanna watch the movie even more now

Nossa, gee, thanks - and here I thought I would be strung up for that review or attacked. I was trying to be honest and I had to really force myself to see this film, but my son and his wife both highly recommended it. The film is 'dark', and I guess by now, I was a little bit leary of watching a truly dark film again this week; I just saw the Jesse James film and that was dark in nature. The thriller aspects of this film cannot be beat. It is, as my son told me, 'unlike anything you have seen before' - even the setting. It is not contemporary, but rather set in the 1980's. I did not realise that fact, until I watched the 'Extra Features', on the DVD. I guess I was so engrossed in the movie plot, that I did not even think about the time period in Texas, although there are many little symbols and important details of set, I should have noticed as in the past. I liked that about the film and always do. They did a good job, depicting these areas in Texas 20 yrs, or so, ago. The set designer said, it is actually harder to depict a time period, not that far from present day, than it would be to do period piece that is set further back, perhaps the 1800's. I thought that was an interesting fact.

Nossa, after you view the film, let us know what you thought of it.

[Janine]

That's how I saw it, too, Janine. The scenes of implied violence were much stronger than the bloody scenes.

I totally agree - it seems they got it right in some scenes. I even thought the handcuff strangling scene amazing, but then they showed it on the 'Extras' and you could actually see blood spurting out - oh gross! I really had not noticed that before, since I was concentrating on Bardem's expression, which was truly amazing. That also looked so totally scary and real. But where I really thought the Coen Brothers excelled, were in scenes like in the hotel, with Woody Haroldson; first off Woody was creepy himself, and so 'cool and calm and collected' and cocky-sure of himself, and then that phone ringing created such tension; the way it all played out was perfect timing, and one did not see much in blantant violence - imagining was much worse. It was enough. I also felt other scenes that cut right before the violence, were better played out that way.

I felt Javier Bardem gave an amazing performance (Tommy Lee Jones as well), but Bardem's character, Anton Chigurgh, was robotic in his ability to kill and kill and kill.

Exactly, and I thought I would be crucified on this thread, if I said so. I wish I could have seen something to indicate the man was anyway human or had a reason to be as he was. But truly, that was the idea of the film and I know that Bardem definitely pulled that off well. I think next Bardem should play Frankenstein...haha...however he would bring some humanity to the role. Yes, the kind of killer he was one could not comprehend. He did play that perfectly and well deserved the Oscar.

I have no desire to see the film a second time, though I am glad I watched it.

Me either. Too scary too. Yes, all the talk about it, I am glad I did see it even though I found it disturbing.

I don't understand what's with all the violence, either. I'd rather watch a Jane Austen period piece or something by Merchant/Ivory.

I would too. You know that to be true, Antiquarian. I like thrillers when I am in the mood but I would prefer a film that is a little more uplifting or restores my faith in human beings.

Oh, speaking of Merchant/Ivory films, if you ever get a chance to see "The Europeans" don't pass it up. It's not the best film or the most engrossing, and Lee Remick was a little too old for the role she played, but the cinematography is the best I've ever seen, even eclipsing "Atonement." The Henry James book takes place in springtime, but Merchant/Ivory changed it to autumn to take advantage of a New England autumn and it is gorgeous. Worth it for the cinematography alone.

Thanks, Antiquarian for the suggestion; I must find that and watch it. I don't mind Lee Remick. I recall her from years ago. How old is this film? I love beautiful cinematography! I like Henry James and the films made from his books; I love films set in autumn - they are so vibrant.
Ever see the Henry James adaptation of "The Bostonians" - I really liked that film and saw it twice now. It's merits really rest heavily on the fine performances. It is an interesting film. Vanesa Redgrave is amazing in her role - worth it just to see her in this part; she is so convincing.

[Nossa]

Nossa, gee, thanks - and here I thought I would be strung up for that review or attacked. I was trying to be honest and I had to really force myself to see this film, but my son and his wife both highly recommended it.

LOL. Well I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't oppose you yet
But sometimes, even when a review isn't 100% in favor of the movie, it's an excellent one. I guess now that I wanna watch the movie, it's a total contradiction to your purpose of the review, ha?
I have a comment on something you said, on how the serial killer in the story is acting like a robot. I think this is pretty realistic. I mean, a killer is a killer, that's what he does, it's more of a routine to him, he doesn't feel guilt and so his killings are more of habits by time. At least that's how I see it. Maybe when I watch the movie I'll get more insight into his character.
I still think you provided a great review.
I have one question though. Is the movie different from MacCarthy's novel?!

[Nossa]

I don't understand what's with all the violence, either. I'd rather watch a Jane Austen period piece or something by Merchant/Ivory.

I think that maybe in a movie, there's exaggeration sometimes, or maybe it's beacuse you see the actions rather than read them(if you read the original novel). I know an Egyptian movie that was in theatres a few months ago. It claims that it depicts the Egyptian reality now, but it's like reality X100...it doesn't scare you, but it just made me feel depressed for a whole week. This might be a downside in the movie, I'll still have to watch it to decide, but I agree on the concept.

[Janine]

LOL. Well I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't oppose you yet

Nossa, that is true - you might be the one to condemn my review instead of applaud it.

But sometimes, even when a review isn't 100% in favor of the movie, it's an excellent one. I guess now that I wanna watch the movie, it's a total contradiction to your purpose of the review, ha?

I feel that way also. I can see the value in a good movie even if it does appeal to me personally. I recall seeing "Bonnie and Clyde" when I was young and I we all thought that movie was extraordinary at the time. Now I don't think I would take the time to view it. It just does not interest me and I think it won many awards; and was well done. It is all personal taste.
No, I meant my review to be impartial in a way and I tried to be quite honest. I could see some flaws but basically I thought it was a good film and very well constructed and played out. Let me know what you thought of it when you have viewed it and be honest with me.

I have a comment on something you said, on how the serial killer in the story is acting like a robot. I think this is pretty realistic. I mean, a killer is a killer, that's what he does, it's more of a routine to him, he doesn't feel guilt and so his killings are more of habits by time. At least that's how I see it. Maybe when I watch the movie I'll get more insight into his character.
I still think you provided a great review.

It probably is realistic and that is what actually makes the story so scary and gives it it's impact as a film. One cannot explain the killer. I think that is the point. He definitely feels no guilt and no remorse at all; one wonders if he feels anything; you will see. He even walks robatically I think. I don't think there is any insight into the charcter that Bordem plays - that is not to say he plays the role badly - to the contrary - he plays the role spendidly. Who could show no emotion at all? He pulls it off perfectly.

I have one question though. Is the movie different from MacCarthy's novel?!

Ah, I did not read the book; I know Virgil did; he mentioned that once in his film review. You would have to ask him; I believe he loved the book.

I think that maybe in a movie, there's exaggeration sometimes, or maybe it's beacuse you see the actions rather than read them(if you read the original novel). I know an Egyptian movie that was in theatres a few months ago. It claims that it depicts the Egyptian reality now, but it's like reality X100...it doesn't scare you, but it just made me feel depressed for a whole week. This might be a downside in the movie, I'll still have to watch it to decide, but I agree on the concept.

That is true. That Egyptian movie sounds funny - reminds me of something. I befriended someone on this site, who lived in China; she told me the movies that I mentioned to her, were all 'unrealistic' to the real China and it's history. These were fine acclaimed films. I had to laugh, but I did think it probably true, that they were way 'off' in reality', when I watched them. One was "The Last Emperor" and another was "Raise the Red Lantern". So, you can't believe everything you see on the silver screen, either; for any country this applies. Yes, 'exaggeration' is a 'by word' in the movie industry I am sure. It is all done for effect, not realism.

[Nossa]

It probably is realistic and that is what actually makes the story so scary and gives it it's impact as a film. One cannot explain the killer. I think that is the point. He definitely feels no guilt and no remorse at all; one wonders if he feels anything; you will see. He even walks robatically I think. I don't think there is any insight into the charcter that Bordem plays - that is not to say he plays the role badly - to the contrary - he plays the role spendidly. Who could show no emotion at all? He pulls it off perfectly.

Yeah I agree. I only saw the trailer to the movie and Bardem looked scary, with that weird hairdo they gave him too

That is true. That Egyptian movie sounds funny - reminds me of something. I befriended someone on this site, who lived in China; she told me the movies that I mentioned to her, were all 'unrealistic' to the real China and it's history. These were fine acclaimed films. I had to laugh, but I did think it probably true, that they were way 'off' in reality', when I watched them. One was "The Last Emperor" and another was "Raise the Red Lantern". So, you can't believe everything you see on the silver screen, either; for any country this applies. Yes, 'exaggeration' is a 'by word' in the movie industry I am sure. It is all done for effect, not realism

I agree that the exaggeration is done for effect not realism. But something about this Egyptian movie was just...disgusting to a certain extent. Without going into details, there's this trend in the country these days that some people (who're supposedly wiser than all of us) say that the society is corrupted and many moral and ethical problems are spreading in it, and that the role of cinema is to uncover these problems for the purpose of healing them. I agree on that the society has problems, whatever these problems are, but it's been there forever not just now. My take on any movie like the one I talked about is that they don't show the problems in their real size. I mean if you make a movie about a certain moral problem in society, this probelm has to be some sort of a phenomenon, it has to be on a wide scale in order for people to understand and identify with it. That movie wasn't a thriller or a horror movie where some issues can be 'made' and depicted. But in a movie they call 'social drama' or whatever they call it, you gotta make the viewer believe that these things actually happen. Not to mention that the movie is obviously rated NC 17, it's got heavy sexual content and and heavy bad langauge (some words that were said there, was the first time for me to hear them..lol), they let kids go to the movie, like 8,9 and 10 kinda kids. It was weird hearing the questions the kids asked their parents during the movie.
I'm sorry I went off-topic...lol...but I hope you get my point.

[Sir Bartholomew]

Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress 3.0/4.0

[Janine]

Yeah I agree. I only saw the trailer to the movie and Bardem looked scary, with that weird hairdo they gave him too

I saw a trailer or interview with Bardem on Youtube and he said he hated that haircut that the Coen Brothers insist he wear. It did alter his appearance and he looked frightful, but mainly it was the look in his eyes that was truly scary - like nothing was behind them at all, blank, empty sort of - hard to describe, like dead eyes. One interesting aspect of the story, is that none of the characters chasing each other are in the same scenes together. I hope that does not give away the story to you; but note it when you do view the film. I had not noticed this fact, until it was pointed out in the "Special Features".

I agree that the exaggeration is done for effect not realism. But something about this Egyptian movie was just...disgusting to a certain extent. Without going into details, there's this trend in the country these days that some people (who're supposedly wiser than all of us) say that the society is corrupted and many moral and ethical problems are spreading in it, and that the role of cinema is to uncover these problems for the purpose of healing them. I agree on that the society has problems, whatever these problems are, but it's been there forever not just now. My take on any movie like the one I talked about is that they don't show the problems in their real size. I mean if you make a movie about a certain moral problem in society, this probelm has to be some sort of a phenomenon, it has to be on a wide scale in order for people to understand and identify with it. That movie wasn't a thriller or a horror movie where some issues can be 'made' and depicted. But in a movie they call 'social drama' or whatever they call it, you gotta make the viewer believe that these things actually happen. Not to mention that the movie is obviously rated NC 17, it's got heavy sexual content and and heavy bad langauge (some words that were said there, was the first time for me to hear them..lol), they let kids go to the movie, like 8,9 and 10 kinda kids. It was weird hearing the questions the kids asked their parents during the movie.
I'm sorry I went off-topic...lol...but I hope you get my point.

Nossa, I know exactly what you mean in this paragraph; I agree. People do form false impressions from films. Also, it is appalling that 8, 9, 10 yr olds are permitted to see these films with NC17 ratings. I hate heavy bad language - it starts to make me ill, personally. It is funny, but this Coen movie did not resort to much or any of that. I was glad of that fact. I don't think it is really necessary, as much as it is used at times.

Tonight, having been prompted by a discussion on "Wuthering Heights", in it's own thread, I watched the adaptation version of:

"Wuthering Heights"

Starring Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall. Some may know her from her fine performance in Lawrence Olivier's "King Lear". I like Dalton very much in the BBC version of Jane Eyre, with is more like an intimate stage play on film. This movie also felt more intimate, as a play would feel, although much takes place in the exteriors and on the moors, of course. First off, the cinematography is amazing, truly stunning at times, and depicts perfectly the wild austere aspects of the moors. It feels absolutely authentic and the angles that both closeups of faces and other scenes are filmed is commendable and very artistic. I truly love this version. I found the film quite by accident at a thriftstore for $1 - VHS tape, but the tape had lines across it. Still the movie and Timothy Dalton's mesmerizing eyes, kept my sister and I watching intently, putting up with his annoying flaw - we simply could not turn it off. Since then, I have invested in the DVD and tonight was the first time I have watched it on my new HD TV - it looked marvelous and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am still thinking of how mesmerizing Dalton's (Heathcliff)face appeared in some of the scenes; they feel ingraved now on my mind. His performance was absolutely noteworty and very strong/fine. He was quite young, I believe, when this film was made. He certainly had innate talent at a young age. I don't know how well known he was then, but the film is certainly worth watching, just for his performance, alone. I felt he captured the complexity and diabolical qualities of Heathcliff. I also felt that Anna Calder-Marshall was amazing; she also has such hypnotic eyes - they were the perfect match. One alternately, felt sorry for her and then angry with her, for being so selfish. I think the fact she could embody this kind of 'ambiguity' made her performance even more worthy. I think the same with Dalton. One did not know whether to hate them or love them both. I felt like I wanted to cry and felt that this story was truly a tragedy. Afterall, they both were very young and foolish in their own ways, but the strong love/passion they possessed for each other, always surfaced and you could feel this strongly numerous times throughout the film. I have seen other versions of "Wuthering Heights" advertised, one is with Juliet Binoche and Ralph Fiennes, but I can't personally see how they would fit the role. I feel they both possess a maturity, that would not translate to the roles of Heathcliff and Kathy. In this film, I didn't just see but I felt their immaturity, and their weaknesses/flaws, and their deep pain. Therefore, I feel this adaptation did what it set out to do. The only criticism I might have is that the ending is slightly altered, but to me, it does not damage the story; it is rather stunning and beautiful in the way it does end. One can never fully capture the book and I think taking some liberties is sometimes necessary. It has been a long time since I read the novel, so I am not sure how much was altered throughout the film, but I do think, standing alone, as a film based on the novel, it is a very well done and fine film. Good supporting cast as well. I highly recommend this and also the BBC version of "Jane Eyre" also starring Timothy Dalton.

[Shalot]

Cloverfield

I just watched this movie called Cloverfield. It was something my husband selected. He prefers horror and science fiction horror, and this one seemed to be science-fiction horror.

This movie was like the Blair Witch Project, except that it didn't look so much like a home movie. The movie preface is this: something horrible happened and in the aftermath, a camera has been found, and as the viewer you are trying to piece together the events as though you yourself were the in the story and had discovered this camera amidst the ruin of a city.

The story takes place in New York. The first part of the movie is slow-moving, especially if you're the type that likes to get right to the gore. It is also slow moving and dull if you like to watch a quality movie, but that's a given.

Everything is seen through the lens of a video camera. Different people hold the camera and you see snippets of the goings on between one couple, and then another couple. Then there is a party, and you view the party through the camera.

Then the drama unfolds. The party is interrupted by a rumbling and blackout. When the lights come on at the party, they switch on the news, which shows some reports of some goings on at the Statue of Liberty. The camera holder still has the camera and is still filming even after the blackout.

Then the explosions start and everyone at the party runs, including the person who is holding the camera. Apparently the camara holder is running through an exploding city while still holding a camera to his face. And the camera holder continues to hold that camera as little monsters that fell off the big monster attack them in a darkened subway tunnel

Why are they in the tunnel? Well that goes back to the first part of the movie and the slow scenes showing moments between different couples who inexplicably wind up with the camera.

I hate these kinds of movies. The vantage point is supposed to be interesting, and cool somehow, but it's just not believable. If some huge dinosaur thing is chasing you, you are not going to be holding a damn camera. And you're not going to hold on to that camera after you escaped the giant dinosaur type creature only to wind up running away from man-eating creatures that are chasing you through a dark tunnel.

So 2/10. F. This movie is silly. There is no explanation of what that monster is or where it came from, but I guess there doesn't have to be an explanation in a story told from that vantage point. As the viewer, you are not privy to anymore information than the characters in the movie. And I guess that's supposed to be horrifying somehow, or more interesting than the standard tale that manages to convey both the characters reactions and emotions while clueing the viewer in to the big picture.

[Mark F.]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 10/10

Arguably the best film made over the last decade or so. The confrontation of Ford's childhood dreams with the stark reality of his adult life, epitomized by the downfall of his hero and model, Jesse James, is absolutely heartbreaking. Affleck deserved much more credit than he was awarded for his performance. The directing and cinematography are perfect and the soundtrack kicks ***, of course it does, it's Nick Cave. Deakins' work on this film was far better and more innovative than on Old Country For No Men.

[Janine]

Quote by Mark F

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 10/10

Arguably the best film made over the last decade or so. The confrontation of Ford's childhood dreams with the stark reality of his adult life, epitomized by the downfall of his hero and model, Jesse James, is absolutely heartbreaking. Affleck deserved much more credit than he was awarded for his performance. The directing and cinematography are perfect and the soundtrack kicks ***, of course it does, it's Nick Cave. Deakins' work on this film was far better and more innovative than on Old Country For No Men.

Hi Mark F, we have been discussing this film a page or so back. I saw the film a couple of days ago and liked it very much. I thought the cinematography was just great and the tasteful cuts. Casey Affleck was fantastic; he surely beats out his brother's acting ability. That guy is going places. I liked the score, too. Thanks for letting us know who composed it; it fit the movie perfectly. I agree - direction and casting both were perfect. Why was this film swept under the rug? See my other review and Lady Wentworth's, as well.

Quote by Shalot:

I hate these kinds of movies. The vantage point is supposed to be interesting, and cool somehow, but it's just not believable. If some huge dinosaur thing is chasing you, you are not going to be holding a damn camera. And you're not going to hold on to that camera after you escaped the giant dinosaur type creature only to wind up running away from man-eating creatures that are chasing you through a dark tunnel.

Shalot, I hate these mindless movies, too! I always roll my eyes and say "oh, give me a break..." Yeah, right holding fast a camera as a monster eats you - right, sure thing! Just plain a waste of good time and silly. Also I hate movies pieced together like this; probably it was a handheld shakey camera also - that truly makes me dizzy and my eyes ache.


Quote by Antiquarian

Janine, I'm not sure how old "The Europeans" is. It's not recent, I know that. Looked it up. It was made in 1979.

Antiquarian, I will look for it online for that today and put into my 'wish list'. Have you seen many Forster adaptations? I saw one I considered now on Amazon which stars Helena Bonham Carter and Rupert Graves - two actors I adore. The title is something with the word 'Angel(s)' in it; my mind is a blank right now. I like films from the 70's so I would probably like "The Europeans". Also, did you see "The Golden Bowl" another James adaptation? I liked it but many criticized it. I liked the set design emensely. I think it was also a Merchant Ivory production.

I've not seen or read "The Bostonians." Always mean to read it, as I love Henry James.

I found the film in DVD on a cheap rack at Wallgreens and bought it for a few dollars, but it played horribly, so I took it back; then my library got in the tape. I would like to buy the DVD sometime. I thought Vanessa Redgrave's performance was a tour de force - she was outstanding. A very young and handsome Christopher Reeves is in the film, as well. I forget his love interest's name - the actress but she also was quite good. It is a love triangle of sorts, very different.

"No Country for Old Men" sticks very close to the book. Barely deviates at all. I thought the Coen brothers could have done more with Woody Harrleson's character, but I guess they wanted to stick very closely to the book.

Interesting. Yes, Harrleson's character was creepy in itself I thought - he was a strange one wasn't he? Yes, they could have done more with him, but then that would have lengthened the film, I suppose. He did play that role perfectly, very convincing.

Last night I watch "Hero" with my brother. Okay, for a martial arts film. Some lovely scenes. I'm just not into martial arts films.

I don't totally enjoy martial arts films either. I find some entertaining but I could do without all that fighting and violence. I do love good scenery and set design - probably why I love period films so much. Anyway, I was thinking about my Chinese friend again, and how she said these films are so so 'unrealistic' to her country. They are totally commercial, but I suppose entertaining to most. Nice you watched a film with your brother, anyway. I like to watch some with my sister sometimes, but lately she has not been a bit interested. My mother only likes a few kinds of films, mostly ones that are not too deep and that end on a positive note, although she has liked some good ones that don't. I never know what to suggest to her really; but, it is more fun to share film viewing, don't you think?

That is one of the soundtracks you sent me, right, "Hero"? I love the music/score, but funny, sometimes I love the score and don't care for the film, at all. I did not really care for "Legends of the Fall" and the soundtrack is stunning. I have a few others like that, that I listen to all the time.

[Janine]

I usually like to watch films with my husband and oldest brother, Janine. Then we disucss them afterwards. Trouble is, all three of us like different types of films. My oldest brother likes action/adventure, my husband like comedy, and I like period pieces and art house films. We've all started compromising, though, watching things the other likes and it's interesting and broadens our horizens.

I actually, don't have those problems anymore, because I just watch them alone...so I should not complain at all. I have my little tv upstairs, away from everyone and can watch anything I am in the mood to watch at anytime. Usually, every night, I watch at least one movie. If I watch it in my sister's room, it uncomfortable, same with the family/living room sofa. Upstairs I put my feet up and relax, with pillows around me (cozy) and I am close to the TV screen, even though it is only a 19", but it is HD widescreen, so all my my movies look fabulous now. Glad I bought it. It is like watching a whole new movie even when I watch ones I have seen over and over again and still love. The picture looks so much better so I fully enjoy the cinematograpy and the set designs. I like discusing the films with others, so this thread is a God-send. I am glad we can discuss the period films, because I would say that most I own, are of that genre and of Shakespeare, which I also consider period.

I liked "Hero" ST emensely, but I like "M of a Geisha" and "The Red Violin" the best, I think. They are simply stunning! thanks so much!

Hahaha - you did my trick - you edited, didn't you? I just saw this part and thought I was seeing things, Antiquarian.... ha!

Yes, I have seen a lot of Forster adaptations. I love "Maurice" and my favorite is "A Room With a View." I think you're thinking of "Where Angels Fear to Tread."

I have not seen "Maurice" but now you are the second person who said they loved it. I must see it. It is not listed as cheaply as I would like on Amazon but it is in my "wish-list'. That is the movie - "Where Angels Fear to Tread" - how is that film? Did you like it? I keep wanting to buy it.

I have "The Golden Bowl" and it's one of my favorites. I want my husband to see it next week.

I have the film, also (DVD) and I want to re-watch it soon. I really love that film. Someone on this thread slashed it to bits one day, a year or so ago, but I feel the film was very well done and I love the story. I liked the acting very much. I like Jeremy Northam and especially liked him in "Gosford Park"...that is another I have thought of purchasing. I enjoy that film and have seen it several times now. I think it is unique.

[Idril]

Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries, 9/10
Wes Anderson's Rushmore8/10

[LadyWentworth]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 10/10

Arguably the best film made over the last decade or so. The confrontation of Ford's childhood dreams with the stark reality of his adult life, epitomized by the downfall of his hero and model, Jesse James, is absolutely heartbreaking. Affleck deserved much more credit than he was awarded for his performance. The directing and cinematography are perfect and the soundtrack kicks ***, of course it does, it's Nick Cave. Deakins' work on this film was far better and more innovative than on Old Country For No Men.

Thank you for this! As I stated before, this is simply just a brilliant film all the way around. I am glad to see that we agree on that soundtrack. I loved it. I loved the film. But I don't think I need to stress that fact anymore than I already have.

I have not seen "Maurice" but now you are the second person who said they loved it. I must see it. It is not listed as cheaply as I would like on Amazon but it is in my "wish-list'

It took another person to convince you to finally look into "Maurice", huh? Well, the price is that much because there are 2 discs. Since you like your extras, this is a good DVD for you. There are a lot of deleted scenes on it. As this is one of my all-time favorite movies, I had seen it a lot of times before I ever bought the DVD. So, these deleted scenes were very interesting to me. There is one small scene that I wish they wouldn't have cut out. It is really small, but there is something about it that I get a kick out of. Then there is a little bit from a scene (that is still in the movie) that was cut out. I wish they would've left that in because there is a line that the character Maurice says that I really enjoyed.

Anyway, I still think you should read the book, too. The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful. I was just listening to it the other day, in fact.