question: Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks give it their all, but their solid performances aren't quite enough to compensate for The Next Three Days' uneven pace and implausible plot.

numbered reviews: 1. Haggis struggles to make his presence felt over ludicrous thrills, but Crowe is superb and the entertainment factor high.
2. full review at Movies for the Masses
3. Rock solid thrills and spills. Don't get comfy - this is edge-of-the-seat stuff.
4. Okay, but it lacks conviction.
5. Hats off to Paul Haggis. He's got to be the first person to do a Hollywood remake of a foreign movie that turns out to be MORE waffly.
6. Haggis skilfully writes and directs, using a sleek visual style while smoothing out the original version's plot holes
7. A kind of escape procedural, with director Paul Haggis delivering a host of interesting details about lock-picking and the faking of passports.
8. Paul Haggis ('In the Valley of Elah') manages to make this American adaptation of Fred Cavaye's 'Pour Elle' an engaging film
9. A laborious thriller that lacks wit, intelligence, and, most unforgivably, thrills, The Next Three Days continues the steady decline of Crowe's career.
10. The Next Three Days is perfunctory fare that seems to last almost as long as its title.


question: An exquisitely designed and performed melodrama, Far From Heaven earns its viewers' tears with sincerity and intelligence.

numbered reviews: 1. Pulls you in on the strength of its pathos while delighting you with the retrofit boldness of its technique and conventions.
2. Innumerable moments of pure genius
3. The best reason to see Far from Heaven is to watch Julianne Moore give one of her finest performances.
4. An ignorant, false, bigoted, boring, pretentious film that could have been made by Eisenstein in the Kremlin under Joseph Stalin in 1938.
5. This is easily Oscar caliber work and absolutely Ms. Moore's best to date.
6. Exultant in both its artifice and its cruel honesty, it's a movie Sirk would make today - and, as such, it's quite brilliant.
7. Moore is simply...wonderful.
8. The film confronts the eraв(TM)s intolerance with regard to gender and race relations, but it should be noted that Haynes films without a trace of irony. The actors offer similarly genuine performances.
9. An accomplished marriage of elaborate style and content.
10. An obsessive triumph of design and tribute, beautifully acted ... but this stuff was somehow more fun in the '50s.


question: Smart, well-acted, and uncomfortably prescient political satire from director Barry Levinson and and all-star cast.

numbered reviews: 1. Definitely a labor of love for all involved.
2. The story is good, the comedy is goofy but still solid.
3. Absurd and convincing at the same time.
4. Wag the Dog could have been a one-joke scenario, but it's consistently rescued from monotony by a smart script.
5. Wicked, poisonous fun.
6. One belly laugh after another.
7. Wag the Dog nonetheless makes a perfect bookend piece for Network.
8. As a cautionary tale, Wag the Dog may find itself somewhat in the position of preaching to the converted, but the pews will radiate with the sounds of laughter.
9. Hoffman, De Niro and Heche all seem to have fun with David Mamet's screenplay, as do supporting players Denis Leary, William H. Macy and Willie Nelson.
10. A bright idea well realized by director Barry Levinson.


question: Well acted and suprisingly funny.

numbered reviews:
1. Doesn't know when to quit while it's ahead.
2. Dramatically weak.
3. The film seldom displays much in the way of directorial hallmarks.
4. Primary Colors is the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington of our jaded era.
5. Like its politicians, the movie is savvy about using whatever it takes to achieve a goal.
6. A hilariously entertaining movie.
7. The best and worst of Hollywood in one package.
8. Despite the political milieu's rampant cynicism, the movie remains optimistic -- no mean feat.
9. A first-rate satire.
10. A surprisingly moving story.