SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Chris_Kalhoun I take no issue with the casting or how an old person could be with a young one or white with black or poor and rich, all of those relationships are believable but there isn't enough screen time and writing to show the believability in this movies relationships. The biggest issue with this movie is the screenplay and how poorly sewn together the subplots are to make any clear point with the movie. The director tried to do too much with too many subplots and ended up watering down the storytelling of all of them leaving the viewer to not understand the overacting. The performances are great but unjustified when there isn't enough time built in to there conflicts. Jumping around in time and not showing a clear enough connection to the subplots only helps to complicate the point of the story. Why did Anthony Hopkins character go to Gary Sinise out of the blue ? In the end, as good as the acting is, the characters are too weak for me to care about them, the story doesn't go in any particular direction and jumps around too much losing its audience and the main point and plot is dull and boring unless you like pain and misery.

xerxesqarquebus-34598 One of the fundamental themes of this movie is America's obsession with ethnic identity. It is a little unfortunate that it very effectively undercuts itself by proving, as if proof were required, that the concept is absurd. I won't explain more, since that would give away too much. The other fundamental theme is a love affair between Anthony Hopkins, a professor of classics, and Nicole Kidman, a cleaning woman, conducted in the teeth of the community's disapproval and, far more seriously, despite the presence of Ed Harris as Kidman's deranged and dangerous ex-husband. This is completely credible as a May- December romance but honestly, Nicole Kidman as a cleaning woman in rural America? Sorry to point this out, but in reality such people are as big as houses and do not look like Hollywood stars. Similarly insane Vietnam veterans, such as Harris's character, do not have perfect Hollywood teeth. They are on show in close-up after close-up and are so bright as to be distracting.

Bob Sporker While reading the book I remember thinking it would take a lot of work to make this book into a movie because each character is a movie on their own, and I guess I was right. The movie focused mainly on Silk's past and his story, and Silk is the main character but is equally as interesting as Les Farley or Delphine Roux, which the movie failed to portray.I think the movie was exceptionally smooth which I thought would be hard to do considering how the book would go from past to present numerously, but I wish they could've given each character from Roth's novel their well-deserved screen time.The movie was beautifully shot and the acting was great, but it needed to be longer to take in the full plot.

Elvis Mantegna A rape of a genial novel. Poor Philip Roth. Even though is hard to adapt such a complex novel, more could be done to highlight the introspection of characters, which has a dominant role in the book and it's totally forgotten in the movie. awful choice of actors/actresses. Delphine should be half her age, as well as Nathan, while the choice of Nicole Kidman, even though her well-known acting skills, should have come together with a facial plastic or the use of special effects of "make-up", which seems to lack in every other character. screenplay odd, wonder if director and screen player actually read the novel, for sure they're not P.R.'s fans and reader.