janefranklin-16049 I love quiet little independent films and this one was more than I expected. So many well-known actors who must have seen the film as a labor of love instead of a big paycheck. I think it showed in their performances. Robert Carlyle had such a heavy sadness about him and watching him come out of his self-imposed solitude was one of the nicest things about the movie. There were so many sweet little moments and I've always liked John Goodman, his inability to correct some of the regrets he had in life would resonate with many of us. The scenes with the men together in group therapy were familiar to anyone who ever experienced the deep loss of a life partner. This movie contains both grief and joy too, which is pretty much what life contains if we are lucky enough to love someone and be loved in return.

drumax-759-417828 I am not a film maker or film student, just like movies and watch way more than I should. This is not the type of movie I would generally watch but because I like Robert Carlyle I gave it a chance. I am glad I did.I forgive the fact there are no great dancers in the film as it isn't about dance and most in the classes are students, children, older...in essence, they aren't dancers and most are probably not there to become expert dancers.It IS a movie that looks to tug at the heartstrings and manipulate the emotions but most movies are trying to illicit a response, an emotional reaction, of some kind. This movie did a good job.Personally I had a hard time investing emotionally in this movie but it gradually weakened my resolve and I started caring about the characters.Indeed it is an older short film encapsulated in an updated shell and secondary story but to be honest, the characters (and a few were real characters), anachronisms and all, were still just as interesting and was worked into the new overarching story quite well.Any weakness of this story, this project, was ably work around by a great cast that did seem to immerse themselves in their roles. Its not a perfect film, it overtly tugs at the heartstrings, sappy, some comedy. I recommend it but it certainly isn't going appeal to all.I wish they had credited 'freeway' the boombox button pusher...it was a funny touch, one of a few minor quirky characters both modern and flashback, little touches that added to the enjoyment of the movie.

paintbrush_2003 *Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.

turningworm This movie was savaged by every critic on earth, which pretty much confirmed my opinion that critics are all stupid. Yeah, it was kinda' sappy, but I thought it worked for the film. Contrary to many reviews, I thought John Goodman's performance was excellent. The ensemble cast carried the movie well. It wasn't "Becket", but it was totally watchable. You have to pay pretty close attention. They don't whack you over the head with exposition the way some films do. The one thing I will say is that there are a few plot and character elements that just seem to be thrown in there for no apparent reason. If you can get past that, the movie makes it's points well and clearly, if not completely originally.