Shanj

Supes it sounds like an awful lot of yuck to put up with for the sake of one character well acted and a little bit of ballet. I like to feel a film is worth the effort of going out.

"It could have been a compelling expose about the world of competitive ballet, .."

Yes that's the impression I get. I was really excited that a great ballet film was on the way. It's an extraordinary world that makes for fascinating human drama, let alone the dance.

But the more I hear about forced vomiting, masturbation, a lesbian scene, self harming a muppet horror puppets the more I'm turned off.
Sex on the screen has become crude and boring over the last 10 years nothing like genuinely good sex which can only be suggested not portrayed.
Similarly giant close ups of wounds and vomit do not convey dramatic tension. They are just yucky.

It's difficult to resist going because it COULD be so great and Portman as this review says does well. But then again it really does look like a low grade crowd puller, not a ballet film and not sensitive drama. Smash you in the face with lumps of human ugliness hyped up. Not.

Haven't seen it but read a lot of reviews while I dither. The heroine sounds like good acting and there's a bit of ballet in it - pluses.
But it sounds like there's a lot of boring sleaze chucked in to pull in the morons. Self harming YUCK Self starvation YUCK Monstrous visions - from the video clips pretty plastic YUCK Masturbation YAWN YUCK Lesbian scene SO WHAT YUCK

Pity. Could have been a great film about the real strains and drama of ballet. Plenty of amazing stuff there. No need for all the B movie horror and plastic sex.

Daveactor I can't see what you want - I said "dragon is good" - "liked the 1940s clothes and settings and I liked the Narnian clothes and settings even more." - "best bits is the character of Eustace who starts out with a wry humour and a critical intelligence. Once Aslan gets at him he becomes boring and pious." - "both the best and the worst come from the original Lewis story because the film is faithful to it." - lack of development of the animal characters - "a lighthearted evening in a fantasy land."

Since I've covered derivation, plot, characters, clothes, settings, religious controversy, genre - what did you mean you want more on the film aspects?
I'm not a techno reviewer so unless special effects are stunning or deplorable I don't cover them.

What else is essential do you think?

Disagree with a lot of what you say.
First Jolie and Deep were NOT both good. Jolie is very limited, given no chance to show what she can do and she CAN act (ref Changeling). Depp is superb though.
You didn't like his long hair. I don't think you were meant to! It was a way to make him look a lot less attractive. He acts well as a very anti-hero, a shy man with an overwhelming woman. Cute stuff. Quite hard to do to convert himself from dashing sexy superstar into a mild inoffensive chap in the background. At least that's him for a while ... But only a real actor could have done what Deep does by giving up his star image.

As for the plot not going anywhere it was nice and clear who was who after the first 10 mins. Not always the case by any means.

I think the main problem comes out right at the start of your review. You expected an action film and The Tourist is not. It's a romantic spy drama in a classic traditional style.
It doesn't rely on crashing special effects. It moves on characters and settings and wit. As such it shows us some sensitive exploration of its characters, especially Depp but there are some others there.

If you kept waiting for explosions I can see why you'd be bored. This is a much more grown up film which sadly has been misunderstood. Not that it's grown up as in stuffy. Far from it. It's funny and sweet and has enough complicated techno to keep it up to date.
But its centre is its people. Have a great night out. I'd recommend it.

Disagree with a lot of what you say.
First Jolie and Deep were NOT both good. Jolie is very limited, given no chance to show what she can do and she CAN act (ref Changeling). Depp is superb though.
You didn't like his long hair. I don't think you were meant to! It was a way to make him look a lot less attractive. He acts well as a very anti-hero, a shy man with an overwhelming woman. Cute stuff. Quite hard to do to convert himself from dashing sexy superstar into a mild inoffensive chap in the background. At least that's him for a while ... But only a real actor could have done what Deep does by giving up his star image.

As for the plot not going anywhere it was nice and clear who was who after the first 10 mins. Not always the case by any means.

I think the main problem comes out right at the start of your review. You expected an action film and The Tourist is not. It's a romantic spy drama in a classic traditional style.
It doesn't rely on crashing special effects. It moves on characters and settings and wit. As such it shows us some sensitive exploration of its characters, especially Depp but there are some others there.

If you kept waiting for explosions I can see why you'd be bored. This is a much more grown up film which sadly has been misunderstood. Not that it's grown up as in stuffy. Far from it. It's funny and sweet and has enough complicated techno to keep it up to date.
But its centre is its people.

Disagree with a lot of what you say.
First Jolie and Deep were NOT both good. Jolie is very limited, given no chance to show what she can do and she CAN act (ref Changeling). Depp is superb though.
You didn't like his long hair. I don't think you were meant to! It was a way to make him look a lot less attractive. He acts well as a very anti-hero, a shy man with an overwhelming woman. Cute stuff.

As for the plot not going anywhere it was nice and clear who was who after the first 10 mins. Not always the case by any means.

I think the main problem comes out right at the start of your review. You expected an action film and The Tourist is not. It's a romantic spy drama in a classic traditional style.
It doesn't rely on crashing special effects. It moves on characters and settings and wit. As such it shows us some sensitive exploration of its characters, especially Depp but there are some others there.

If you kept waiting for explosions I can see why you'd be bored. This is a much more grown up film which sadly has been misunderstood. Not that it's grown up as in stuffy. Far from it. It's funny and sweet and has enough complicated techno to keep it up to date.
But its centre is its people.

The dragon is good, we really liked him and so refreshing not to have a dragon as a villain. Some of the other story twists are good as related in the book.

I liked the 1940s clothes and settings and I liked the Narnian clothes and settings even more.

One of the best bits is the character of Eustace who starts out with a wry humour and a critical intelligence. Once Aslan gets at him he becomes boring and pious. But you can't blame the film for that it's in the book.

If you really like fantasy and you like Narnia you'll like this. If not think about it.
Perhaps both the best and the worst come from the original Lewis story because the film is faithful to it.
That means Aslan is as stuffy and pompous as ever but makes a great fluffy toy. Girls are definitely pre-feminist longing to be pretty above all things. Action is fun but not gripping.
One thing that really bothered me was that there are animal characters but apart from the mouse and the lion the story is carried entirely by humans. Animals firmly in support roles but I guess that's Christian stuff.

Controversy is being whipped up on whether Lewis' Narnia should be allowed to carry a Christian message. Of course it should be allowed any message it likes bar the obvious not promoting child abuse etc If you don't like Christianity you won't6 like the values in this but that's the risk the film and the book takes. They're free to include them though even if it does slightly pull the work downward.

Have a lighthearted evening in a fantasy land where girls are feminine and boys clash swords, a dragon is heroic and realistic, and there's a big fluffy lion. Just don't take it seriously.

If all you want from a film is a lot of violence without any reality to it, without any relation to the actual context of the film, and with all the characters ending up offed - go see this.

The profile of the hero is of a mighty man of the underworld. He says not but gets a major party when he gets out of prison. You only get that if you're a crimelord.
Everyone except the biggest crimelord then treats him with fear and trembling. He does little to show why and them gets killed in a casual way by a kid. Hardly matches his big buildup.

London gangland is nothing like this. Real crimelords run peaceful patches or people don't sign on with them. This is nothing but a neurotic wet dream of violence.
Women are of course few and far between and just there to get their knickers off. Sex scenes are boring.

Over all this is an immature piece of dickwaving testosterone messiness without interesting characters, without plot power, without style or taste or wit or sexiness.

If violence porn is your thing go for it. You won't get anything else from it.

What weird reviewers! This is a great film.
Not great as in "great literature" but a lovely night out.
Depp is well up to form with an excellent character interpretation.
There's lots of humour. We were belly laughing quite a lot.
It's got style and visual appeal.

The plot is good with a witty double tail twist. In fact you can actually understand what is happening which is refreshing. Partly due to a soundtrack where you can hear what they say and the wisecracking is not so mumbled to be inaudible.
Violence is there but implied rather than crassly shoved in your face - perhaps the critics missed their usual helping of gore.
Romantically it's cute, it has two chases and some interesting tech stuff.

The one real downer is that Angelina is given piss poor opportunity that cramps her. I know she can act, saw it in Changeling. But here she's limited to smiling as the mystery woman and being a clothes horse. Shame.

But Depp is as much a delight as ever with joyfully subtle changes of expression and body language which are the best part of the film. As always he's quite different in this film from all the others.
Add in some good secondary characters, a wonderful Mr Ugly Bad Man and a smoothly wicked Brit police boss ... and you've got a great night out.

RECOMMENDED

Sigh. Yet another boring film with only one woman and a whole lot of men.
Where are all the women? It starts to look really weird and distorted.