Conference bookie::movies

    How can you rate a movie without SEEING the whole thing ??!!! Ha!
    Its getting released shortly and I think it will probably
    be a good movie.  Hanks and Ryan are usually good together and
    the movies previews looks funny and romantic. It will be a
    nice change from all the action movies we're getting bombarded
    with, although Cliffhanger and Jurassic were good.
    I really hope Sleepless is as good as the "clips" look.

    RE: .1
    
    > How can you rate a movie without SEEING the whole thing ??!!! Ha!
    
    If you read the note again, the author stated that they had seen a
    sneak preview of this movie (i.e. the whole thing).
    
    - Dave

    Re: -1
    
    Thanks, Dave. I thought "sneak" would be understood that I saw the whole
    thing. I just said I wouldn't _about_ it -- the movie has to be seen
    for the full impact.
    
    Oh, BTW, this movie is rated PG -- not even PG-13, which means it's okay
    for kids under 13 (according to the MPAA). Not a cussword (that I
    remember hearing), nudity, drugs, sex, violence....Ah, yes, a return to
    the movies of yesteryear....
    
    
    Catherine
    

    Can't wait - but I can't decide if I want to go with my husband or with
    a girlfriend.  I know - we'll go to a theatre with JP and the guys can
    see that while we see SLEEPLESS.
    
    What a plan!
    
    -sandy
    

Just to clarify: the PG rating was for "some language", so there must
have been something, but the fact that you don't remember it means that
it probably wasn't gratutitous.

Great movie. Despite the revieweres calling it a "female" movie I didn't find
it so. It's not even close to the sunday death of the week type movies that I
classify as "female" movies. 

I laughed as much with this one as anything I've seen. The humor is different.
It's not slapstick like a Naked Gun movie, it's not aloof like a Woddy allen
movie it's just funny situations and characterizations of the differences
between women and men. It's not obvious differnces like "he said, she said"
it's the subtle wirings that make the sexes different.

All the side jokes in reference to "An affair to Remember" were great and the
transistions between locations were done well.

If you liked "when Harry Met Sally" you'll love this one as well. It's also a
Nora ??? film. They are very similiar but very different. 

Metz

spoiler maybe but more like an indictment against movie critics.


every critical review of this movie has harped on the great chemistry between
Meg Ryan and Tom hanks. How can there be great chemistry between two stars when
they are only on the screen together for 3 scenes totalling 10 minutes of a
movie and most of that is the last 10 minutes of the flick?  There was no
opportunity for them to have great chemistry in this movie but once 1 critic
writes it the others feel some need to include it in their reviews as well...

  I saw this movie over the weekend and I was really disappointed. Considering
the hype and good reviews it's been getting I went expecting to see a candidate
for picture of the year but ended up wading through an implausible story that
for me just didn't work.

  There was some good acting by Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, and several of the minor
characters, especially the two kids, and there were some moments that were
really funny, but it comes way short of being a great film. Sleepless in
Seattle never really wakes up.

  **,
  George

  The reason I wasn't crazy about it had to do with details that some might
not want to hear in advance, so ...

SPOILER ALERT


  For me, a romance only works if there is great chemistry between the two
romantic figures. More than that I have to feel that romance myself. Here, as
one previous note pointed out, there was no romance at all. The major romantic
figures didn't even meet until the movie was over. 

  Actually, this seemed more like a kids movie since the plot really revolved
around the boy who was trying to get the main characters together. It was more
of a "Home Together II" than a romantic film. The chemistry between the boy
and his girlfriend worked much better than the non-existant romance between
the adults.

  Now having said that I realize that some will say that she felt the romance
even though he didn't and that they had made a point of it being a woman's
movie, or at least the characters were following the path of an old woman's
movie staring Carry Grant. Yeah, Ok, maybe.

  One note on that count, Patty didn't like the movie either. She said she
couldn't get into the romance because she couldn't imagine any woman being
nuts over Tom Hanks.

  I guess the movie is best summed up by two lines from the film, one in which
someone said "It rains in Seattle 9 months of the year", and the other which
came from the little girl, "H.G. ... Hello and Good-by".

  George

    re: Nora "?"
    
    
    It's Nora Ephron.
    
    
    FWIW,
    
    kim

    I thought this was cute, funny, and romantic...a nice movie, but not a
    great movie, by any means.  There are some very good lines (because
    Nora Ephron is a good writer, however, I think Rob Reiner is a much
    better director.  He directed When Harry Met Sally and Nora Ephron
    wrote it, and I think that was a lot better.)
    
    The acting is good, especially Tom Hanks.  Meg Ryan is appealing as
    ever, although I'm beginning to think she plays the same rather
    charmingly off-beat character in every movie she's in.  I *like* the
    character she always plays, but still it does seem to be the same.
    
    I need to see it again to get a better idea of what I really thought of
    it.
    
    Lorna
    

I thought one of the funniest parts of the movie was  when Hanks and his
Brother in law? were talking about Jim Brown and Richard Jackael in The
Dirty Dozen.

Barry

I know, it brings tears to my eyes

    
    Chick flick.
    
    - acp

Great soundtrack.  Film had me smiling through the
whole second half.  Laughing when appropriate, of
course, but just sitting smiling with pure enjoyment.

    Speaking as a non-chick, I thought the movie was fairly enjoyable. 
    Actually, one thing that did annoy me was the way the movie played up
    the sexual stereotypes about what constitutes a "woman's movie".  It
    was very unimaginative, and it reminds me of a scene from the original
    Bob Newhart show, in which Emily Hartley was relating the plot of
    "Cyrano de Bergeac" to Jerry Robinson; as she described the tragic
    parts of the play, he repeated back to her what she said and started
    crying.  It was really hilarious; it would might have been funny if a
    woman had done the same thing, but I doubt if it would have been *as*
    funny, precisely because in this case it was a man who was crying over
    the tragic elements of a work of art.  "Sleepless in Seattle", on the
    other hand, showed (in my view) a lack of comedic imagination in the
    way it used sexual stereotypes for humor.  That being said, I still
    enjoyed the movie.

    -- Mike

    After reading some of the replies I just HAD to put my 2 cents worth
    I thought this movie was   dreadfully lousy.  The soundtrack was
    AWFUL, the movie was TRYING TO HARD to bring you to tears....
    
    I hated it. 
    
    It was just too stupid (especially Meg Ryans character) 
    (but I liked When Harry met Sally ..refer to a previous note in 
    this section)   Sleepless was a stupid waste of money and time  
    ESPECIALLY after the big build up.   
    
    There...I feel better now 
    
    M*

    Also, Who in their right mind would fly all the way across country
    to meet someone  (as Meg Ryan did in the movie)  get there, see
    Hanks from across the street  giving a hug to another woman, 
    walk up to him and say hi  and then the next scene is Meg Ryan
    was back home!....this is all too retarded to comprehend.
    She should have at least stayed around after flying all that way
    to actually find out that the woman he was hugging was NOT 
    his girlfriend..
    
    A few girls I work with and myself included  cried ALOT at the
    end of Indecent Proposal  NOT stupid Sleepless in Seattle....

I didn't confuse real-life with movie any more than 
I did when seeing "Jurassic Park", so I was able to
enjoy it for what it was -- fantasy.  Totally 
manipulative Hollywood fantasy.  A "Pretty Woman" for
the 90's (i.e., politically correct, almost).

dcl

    Reply to: dcl
    
    manipulative is right but it was almost  offensive   it being
    classified as a   womans' movie.....I generally don't like
    movies "purposely" advertised as   a   "weep along, womans
    movie"   Does this woman director think all woman are as
    idiotic as her Meg Ryan character...ugh   I don't think so
    
    
    
     

  As I think I mentioned earlier, I seemed to like the movie better than my
girl friend did. So much for it being a woman's movie. She couldn't understand
why any woman would have romantic feelings about Tom Hanks. 

  As for the fantasy I can accept that. The problem had more to do with the
fact that it would laps into boring scenes at times and the fact that I didn't
really feel anything between the two major characters. 

  So what about it, is Tom Hanks a heart throb to movie going women in general
or are Patty's feelings more main stream? 

  George

Tom Hanks is not heart throb in my book, but I don't
have to be personally attracted to him to enjoy the 
story.  I don't go to the movies looking for reality. 

I'm not particularly sentimental, 
nor at all "idiotic", but I still enjoyed the film.  I
enjoyed "Pretty Woman" in spite of the fact that it
was completely ridiculous as well.  

The audience around me didn't seem to respond to it 
as "chick flick" (now THERE'S a label that annoys me);
the men and the kids enjoyed the film too.  Maybe 
the women were more comfortable with the emotion 
generated?

I didn't find it offensive to Women.  Certainly 
I know people who are as wet as the characters in
this film.  That doesn't mean that all the men and 
women that I know in real life are like that.  The 
correlation that a character in a film is xxxx 
is a stereotypical slur on ALL real people so 
categorized eludes me.

Each to her own taste.

dcl

    I enjoyed the movie, too.  I've seen it twice now, and I enjoyed it
    more the second time around.  I want to see again, too.
    
    At first it bothered me that the movie was not really realistic.  What
    are the chances of this really happening in real life??  Pretty slim, I
    couldn't help thinking.  And, yet, I had to admit, that given a choice,
    I would sure like to have it happen to me.  Like it or not, it's what I
    *really* want - true love with a wonderful person like Tom Hanks'
    character.  It *is* a fantasy.  It may never come true, but it's
    certainly no more unrealistic than cloning dinosaurs, or the average
    guy on the street dreaming about becoming Top Gun or Mel Gibson's
    character in Lethal Weapon.
    
    I, also, couldn't help reflecting that no wonder we have problems
    between the sexes when the average woman's fantasy is Sleepless in
    Seattle and the average man's fantasy is probably 9 1/2 Weeks!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Very average - a renter for sure.
    
    One of the things that really bothered me was the way the movie
    resorted to stereotypes to manipulate you into believing that the two
    leads actually belonged together.
    
    For instance, the woman Tom Hanks' character dated and Meg Ryan's
    character's finac� were both absurdly cliche.  Why did the movie have 
    to burden otherwise decent characters with such farcical affectations?  
    Why couldn't they just be "normal" people that didn't click?  Why were 
    we forced to be "turned off" by them?  If there were real chemistry 
    between the leads, it wouldn't have been necessary.
    
    - Sean

    re .22, oftentimes, though, I find that when I've dated people that I
    didn't hit it off with, there really *is* something about them, such as
    an annoying personal habit, that really *does* turn me off.  
    
    Some people really are allergic to a lot of things, and some people do
    have weird laughs and it would be possible for a date to be annoyed and
    ultimately turned off by them.  
    
    Lorna
    

RE reality problems 

  It seems that most people are overlooking the fact that this is a "romantic"
comedy. By definition, romance is not realistic, it's romantic. 

  In reality Romeo would probably have not poisoned himself and Juliet probably
would not have stabbed herself in their respective situations. In fact they
probably would not have bothered to continue their relationship but then it
wouldn't have been romantic. 

  The unusual nature of the Sleepless romance and the improbability of it all
was probably the strongest part of the film. Problem was, they just didn't pull
it off since no chemistry developed between the main characters. 

  George 

    The problem with romance in the real world is that people are made of
    flesh and blood, they have foibles, they have annoying habits, and they
    aren't perfect.  The irony of Tom Hanks explaining to his son that
    dating consists of people trying each other on for a while is that this
    process of "trying on" *didn't* occur between Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan at
    all, thus illustrating just how unreal the "romance" between them was. 
    It was a pure fantasy, and what made it work as a fantasy was precisely
    the fact that the two characters never had a chance to learn that the
    other person laughed like a hyena or had some other equally annoying
    trait.  The reality is that I liked the woman the Tom Hanks was dating
    and I found myself feeling sorry for her because I knew that she was
    going to be dumped.  One reason I liked her is that I got to see her
    interacting with Tom Hanks's character, in real flesh and blood
    interaction, which we never really saw between him and Meg Ryan.

    A lot of romance has to do with superimposing one's ideal image on top
    of another person.  Reality comes crashing down when you get to know
    them and find out that they aren't that ideal after all.  If you never
    interact with them, then the idea can't be dissolved.  The movie ends
    only when they finally get together, so we will never see what happens
    once they get to know each other.  But for them to get to know one
    another would be to spoil the romance, so in that sense this movie
    captures the essence of what romance is all about--fantasy rather than
    reality.  Of course there was no chemistry between Tom Hanks and Meg
    Ryan--that would have spoiled the romance!  And romance and fantasy is
    what this movie is about.

    -- Mike

    re .25, interesting that you liked the woman Tom Hanks was dating,
    because *I* found myself liking Meg Ryan's fiancee.  :-)  What was his
    name?  Walter.  I liked Walter.  I thought he seemed like a very nice
    person.  He was handsome (better looking really than Tom Hanks), he was
    kind, he had a sense of adventure (meeting in NY, dancing on New Year's
    Eve), he had a sense of humor (finding her in the broom closet), and he
    was romantic (the beautiful diamond).  I found myself feeling sorry
    for him, even as I felt glad for Annie and Sam.   I think a lot of
    women would have been happy to have Walter, and I thought it showed
    that Meg Ryan's character was a bit spoiled, that she didn't.  
    
    I didn't like Tom Hanks girlfriend's hyena laugh (who could?) :-),
    but I thought she was nice, except for that, and I really felt bad
    about the way the kid treated her.
    
    Lorna
    

I enjoyed this film a great deal. I agree with previous replies that this
(and almost all other films for that matter) is fantasy. I don't watch films
for realism, few people would. The film industry was built on and continues
to operate as an escape from, and complement to, reality. I think it's the
best film I've seen this year. Romantic comedy isn't as easy as it looks.
It's very seldom done this well anymore and I'm grateful for one that gets
it right.

re .7

>or at least the characters were following the path of an old woman's
>movie staring Carry Grant. Yeah, Ok, maybe.

Come on George, I'm neither old nor a woman but I enjoy _An Affair to Remember_.
:^)


Randy

Does anyone know when this film will arrive in UK, or did I blink and miss it?

Thanks,
Scott

Finally say "Sleepless" last night.  Excellent film.  Tom Hanks is a great
actor; he portrays the full range of human emotion in a simple, accessible way,
without losing realism, that really draws you into his character..  Meg Ryan...
well, I'll meet her on the Empire State Building any day :-)

To people who find flaws in the plot or characters I say show me a movie that
doesn't have flaws, you've obviously missed the point of "Sleepless"

To those men who say it's a woman's movie, I say you're not real men :-)

***** out of **** (yup, 5 out of 4 :-)

Scott

    
    I would agree with the opinion on missing point by pinpointing the
    flaws in the plot and characters.
    
    The film is about fate. Yes, you could have a real-life love-fate story
    where someone decides to by their cat food at the local corner store
    rather than the supermarket just for a change. He falls in love with
    the checkout girl, and gets married 18 months later. Oh, and they can
    have 2 kids...  It's not a killer story, is it?
    
    Yes, the "Sleepless" is an exaggeration in the extreme, but every film I
    watch doesn't need to be a true to life dramatisation. More often than
    not, the real life scenes are too subtle and you don't pick up all the
    points. Exagerate the points, and you are more likely to realise where
    you're going wrong in your own life...
    
    Graham.

RE If you didn't like this movie you missed the point. 

  A bit of advice. If you want to go the pretentious route, pick a work with a
bit more weight. 

  The "point" about fate was very obvious. In fact I remember wondering how
they would bring two people a nation apart together and I was disappointed that
it ended up depending so much on coincidence ... ah excuse me, fate. 

  There have been countless works of literature over the ages based on fate and
Romeo and Julliet, this was not. 

  Nor do I think McBeth need worry about the young pretender for pretend be
their fate when fate they do pretend. 

  George 

If you are going to go the pretentious route, at least
spell their names correctly.

    I'll go the unpretentious route and admit that I liked Sleepless In
    Seattle a lot more than I did either Romeo and Juliet or MacBeth! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I did enjoy this movie very much. And I also got the point. However,
    the point was not made with particularly good artistry; was rather
    hamfisted, actually.
    
    For instance (spoiler)
    
    the way in which Annie was chosen to be the woman for Tom Hands was
    totally without drama. "Hey, Dad, we got this letter from somebody
    called Annie, she sounds real cool." It was established that he got
    *hundreds* of letters. Why should this one stand out? Maybe if that one
    letter out of hundreds had fallen behind the dresser, to be found a
    month later and read whimsicaly by Tom Hanks, would be a way of showing
    that "fate" intervened.
    
    Can you imagine a not overly affluent woman flying across the country,
    finding the object of her search (without a lot of difficulty, mind
    you), locking eyes with him, then just scampering off? If this were a
    real R&J kind of story, the love would have happened there.
    
    And look how quickly Annie's fiance just rolled over and played dead,
    right after treating her to a great dinner and giving her a beautiful
    ring. Movies have a history of treating the other personin someone's
    life somewhat cavalierly when they interfere with the main romance of
    the story. Overall, the writing for this film could have been better.
    
    Again, I enjoyed this flick, and I couldn't help comparing it to "When
    Harry Met Sally". And of course, the latter film wins hands down.

>    the way in which Annie was chosen to be the woman for Tom Hands was
>    totally without drama. "Hey, Dad, we got this letter from somebody
>    called Annie, she sounds real cool." It was established that he got
>    *hundreds* of letters. Why should this one stand out? Maybe if that one
>    letter out of hundreds had fallen behind the dresser, to be found a
>    month later and read whimsicaly by Tom Hanks, would be a way of showing
>    that "fate" intervened.
    
	When Annie went to her parents with her fiance, her mother said "and
    I just knew". Annie asked "Knew what?" That was the point. Fate wasn't
    only about being drawn together, but the knowing that it had happened.
    
    Graham.

RE           <<< Note 226.35 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "so why can't we?" >>>

>    I'll go the unpretentious route and admit that I liked Sleepless In
>    Seattle a lot more than I did either Romeo and Juliet or MacBeth! :-)
    
  Did you really feel Romeo and Juliet was all that bad? It's one of my top 10
favorite movies ever. In fact, it's near the top of that list.

  And as for MacBeth, the image of the forest creeping forward seemed like a
much more vivid example of fate then some kid stumbling on a love letter. Also,
I don't think "HG ... Hello and Good-buy" will hold up nearly as well over the
centuries as "Double bubble toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble". 

  George

Saw this last night. I'd give it 2.5 out 4 stars basically for it's
lightheartedness and somewhat entertainment value. It will make a good Sunday
night T.V. movie. Glad we only paid $3.50. The movie was just too unrealistic 
and predictable for my liking. I found Meg Ryan pleasing to look at so the 
movie kept my interest otherwise i'd probably find myself yawning...I totally 
disagreed with the way Meg's husband to be reacted when she told him she 
was leaving. I don't know anyone that would take such a serious matter so 
non-chalantly and with such calmness. I don't really know what she found 
intriguing about the few words Tom spoke on the radio show, either, certainly 
not enough to break up with her fiance for. I mean just because the guy has 
allergies? Weird...

You also would of thought the movie would of come out closer to to Christmas 
since that was the time it was taking place. The mood would of been better, 
too. Seeing holiday decorations this time of year just doesn't do it for me.

Anyway, it is a refreshing change to watch a movie without any violence for 
once. 

/james

I don't think Annie (Meg Ryan) split up with her fiance because she specifically
wanted Sam.  It was just the presence of someone else, and particularly the
unconventionalness (!) of the whole thing that made her realise her fianc�
wasn't the right man for her.  Right at the beginning, Annie's mother refers to
"magic" in a relationship, and you can see Annie realise she doesn't have that. 
Then she hears Sam say "magic" on the radio (in reference to his relationship
with his late wife), which provides the initial attraction, or rather curiosity,
to find out more.

As for Sam's son just happening to choose Annie's letter by "fate": he gives a
reason why he chose it - Annie likes the same baseball team/player as Sam and
his son.  It's the sort of thing an eight year old would pick out.

To answer an earlier comment, I didn't say "if you didn't like it, you missed
the point".  I said that to pick apart the logic/realism was missing the point;
of course there will be plenty of people who get the point but just don't like
it.  The film is supposed to be a modern-day fairy tale (which is probably why
it's set around Christmas / New Year / Valentine's Day.  It would be like going
to see "Sleeping Beauty" and complaining that no-one could really sleep for a
hundred years and then be woken by a kiss...

Scott

    >  It would be like going
> to see "Sleeping Beauty" and complaining that no-one could really sleep for a
> hundred years and then be woken by a kiss...
    
    Oh, that's believable (depending on who is giving the kiss ;-)
    
    The merely physically impossible doesn't bother me. How people react in
    improbable situations is a different story. Give me a story with
    princes turning into beasts and I won't flinch, but show people
    reacting to situations in a way that doesn't seem convincing, and I
    have a real problem. And there are several places in this otherwise
    charming story where I just wasn't convinced.
    			Jim B.
    

  I have no objection to fantasy like stories. My complaint here was that for
me the magic didn't work. 

  If they had found each other through a wizards orb and flown to never never
land on a flying carpet it would have been fine as long as I was convinced that
they felt something for each other and wanted to ride on the same carpet. 

  I am not at all convinced that their relationship would work. They didn't
even know each other and I felt nothing between them. It's not that the romance
between them was fantasy, it just plane didn't exist. 

  George

    re .38, I don't think Romeo and Juliet was a bad movie, but it wouldn't
    be in my top 100 movies of all time, and I liked Sleepless In Seattle a
    lot better.  For me the magic in Sleepless worked.
    
    The major problem I've always had with Romeo & Juliet is that I think
    it's stupid for teenagers to commit suicide over a romance.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .45, personally, I think it is mean spirited, as well as not in keeping
    with the spirit of valuing differences, to make fun of
    other people's entertainment preferences.  
    
    For your information, I think you and your friends sound like a bunch
    of pompous snobs for laughing at me because I liked Sleepless In
    Seattle better than Romeo & Juliet.
    
    I read the play in high school and I saw the movie when it was out in
    1968, when I was 18 yrs. old.  I thought then and still think that they
    were both stupid to kill themselves.  Maybe they killed themselves from
    grief, but they grieved because they were in love, which is romance, so
    I don't think it's inaccurate to say they killed themselves for
    romance.
    
    In real life when teenagers commit suicide people consider it a
    horrible tragedy.  I don't think many people would be happy to have
    their teenage sons commit suicide if their girlfriend were to die, so
    why glorify it in this play.
    
    Also, Romeo & Juliet doesn't have any immediacy for me at this point in
    my life.  I'm a middle-aged woman and have a difficult time relating to
    teenagers who commit suicide because their boyfriend, or girlfriend
    dies.  It doesn't speak to me.
    
    Sleepless In Seattle, on the other hand, is very immediate for me.  As
    a single woman, I would like nothing better than to find my own Tom
    Hanks on top of the Empire State Building.
    
    In any case, I'm not going to lie about my preferences, just so you and
    your stuck-up friends will consider me an intellectual.
    
    Have a good laugh if you want.  You may consider my tastes plebian, but
    I consider you rude.
    
    Lorna
    

    OK, folks, please take a deep breath and back off a little. 
    
    While it may be traditional for movie critics to pan the taste of those
    who disagree with them, it's not required, and even if one does think
    that people who like "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" are infinitely
    more sensitive than those who like "Citizen Kane," it's possible to
    make one's opinion known without being an <bleep> about it.
    
    On the other hand, this is supposedly an entertainment-and-information
    conference, and no opinions expressed herein, however pompously or
    pedantically put, can possibly be considered Holy Writ. [Except for
    mine.] So I'd hope that people won't take things too seriously.
    
    Finally, I'll continue to make room here for as many viewpoints as
    people want to provide, in hopes that the whimsical and the pompous,
    the purple-prosed and the monosyllabic, the frivolous and the stern,
    may all live together in peace and harmony. Amen.
    
    [We now return you to your regularly-scheduled review.]
    
    -b-the-moderator

  Fine, I'll delete my old note and rephrase my criticism removing anything
that could possible be considered a personal references. My deepest apologies
to anyone whom I might have offended.

>    The major problem I've always had with Romeo & Juliet is that I think
>    it's stupid for teenagers to commit suicide over a romance.
    
  It is just plane factually wrong to say that they killed themselves for
romance. They killed themselves out of grief. And like all of the Bards
tragedies, in spite of not being aware of the politically correct standards of
today he was was not glorifying suicide, rather he was showing a flaw in human
character, in this case the impetuous tendency of youth. 

  Romeo & Juliet is a great play, probably the greatest romantic story ever
written. The characters are powerful, the plot is expertly crafted, the theme
extends far beyond romance and grief showing the power of human love over
politics, prejudice, and hatred. 

  The intensity of the love between the two main characters is overwhelming.
The work has has set a standard for romantic literature that has stood out as a
masterpiece for 400 years. The writing is superb containing some of the most
treasured poetry ever written in the English language. 

  By contrast, Sleepless in Seattle has an implausible plot, no discernible
theme, addresses no issues beyond simple speculation as to who might be fun on
a date, has little humor, a completely undeveloped relationship between the
main charters, and a story line that made no sense in spite of a map quite
literally thrown in the viewers face.

  Romeo & Juliet has stood as a landmark of English literature for four
centuries and will probably continue to influence all forms of theater for
centuries to come. Conversely, no one will remember Sleepless in Seattle once
the decade has run it's course. 

  George 

    Re .48: Uh, okay - but what does that have to do with whether somebody
    likes SiS better than R&J? I got more enjoyment out of "Caltiki, the
    Immortal Monster" than I did out of "Citizen Kane," but that doesn't
    mean I think it's a better movie - or that somebody's telling me all
    the fine points of "Kane" will change my opinion... ;-)
    
    [Maybe I'll go see SiS one of these days, so I can find out what the
    fuss is about. Alas, I've had little movie-going time lately, and there
    are so many movies out now that I really want to see...]
    
    -b

RE                       <<< Note 226.49 by DSSDEV::RUST >>>

>    Re .48: Uh, okay - but what does that have to do with whether somebody
>    likes SiS better than R&J? 

  For me, a lot. I like a quality story with great characters, superb writing,
a well thought out theme, and intense relationships between the characters. I
dislike stories that are thrown together with cartoon characters, dime store
themes, characters that don't relate well and that come across as unlikeable.

  If someone else likes something else, then fine, write your own review.
That's what being a movie critic is all about, different opinions sometimes
expressed with great passion sometimes expressed with humor, sometimes not.

  George

Well I like them both. _Sleepless in Seattle_ is certainly not deathless
profundity but then it's not intended to be. I wouldn't accuse a snake of
being a bad animal because it doesn't resemble a bear. Neither would I say
that, say, _My Man Godfrey_ is a poor film because it isn't _Anna Karenina_.
A film, or any other work of art for that matter, should be judged in light
of it's intentions. What was it trying to do and how well did it acheive 
that? In that light I think SiS is an excellent film.

By the way, all these mentions of "the Romeo and Juliet movie" might want
to specify which one. There have been around half a dozen "straight" english
language versions and countless take offs.


Randy

  For the benefit of those who joined the discussion late, no one I know of is
criticizing Sleepless in Seattle because it is not Romeo and Juliet. 

  Someone said something that came across as "if you don't like Sleepless in
Seattle it's because you don't understand the use of fate" to which some of us
replied, "yes we do understand those types of things but it's been done better
elsewhere (i.e. Romeo and Juliet)."

  Someone else then said something to the effect that Sleepless in Seattle was
better than Romeo and Juliet which brought about the comparison. This seems to
have been followed by a flood of comparisons of various movies to Romeo and
Juliet for reasons that are not at all clear. 

  I don't believe anyone has taken the position that this movie fails only
because it doesn't measure up to the standard set by Romeo and Juliet. It seems
to fail on it's own, even if you understand their use of fate as a plot device.

  George

    re .52, George, I never said that Sleepless In Seattle was *better*
    than Romeo and Juliet.  What I said was that I *liked* it better,
    by which I mean I, personally, enjoyed it more.  I never claimed that
    Nora Ephron is a better writer than Shakespeare!  :-)  I will leave
    that exercise to English professors.  However, I do maintain that
    nobody else can tell me what I should enjoy most.  If I enjoy something
    I just enjoy it, in the same way that I enjoy lobster and chocolate ice
    cream.  It's a natural reaction to pleasure.  It's not an academic
    exercise.
    
    Perhaps when I said that I liked or enjoyed Sleepless In Seattle more
    than I, personally, enjoyed Romeo and Juliet, you took it to mean that
    I thought Sleepless In Seattle was better in an artistic sense.  That
    isn't what I meant.  I simply meant what I said, that I liked Sleepless
    In Seattle better - not that it was better.  There is a difference.  I
    don't care which is artistically better.  That isn't the way I look at
    the world most of the time.  
    
    Lorna
    

  Fine, what ever. I just wanted to point out that no one is going around
saying that movies should be criticized on how they measure up to Romeo and
Juliet which seemed to be implied both here and in the note about Tina Turner's
movie. 

  That line of debate was brought on by a specific issue and was meant to be
discussed within that context. 

  George

    re .54, I really think the first person to mention Romeo and Juliet in
    the Tina Turner movie topic was just joking.  I know I was when I
    replied.
    
    Lorna
    

  That's what I thought.

  I was only trying to help others who might have been confused by the
reference.

  George

    WE'RE NOT CONFUSED!!!!

  That's a relief.

  George

    Finally saw it....
    
    One nit about the "Why did Annie's letter get chosen" behind FF
    
    
    
    It stood out for a few reasons
    1) it arrived much after the other letters
    
    2) Annies's letter was addressed to both Sam and Joshua (whatever the
    kid's name was)
    
    3) It was wrinkled ('casue Annie had crumpled it and thrown it away then
    (Rosie Odonnell character) smoothed it out and mailed it *and* Annie
    mentioned a baseball player they both liked.  
    
    So there were several reason's why Annie's letter stuck out.
    
    All in all an enjoyable movie....had me laughing in some spots - but
    definitly not a weepy tear-jerker for me.
    
    Jt

    Anyone know when this is out on Video (a friend of mine wants to see it
    and for a whole bunch of reasons can't get into a cinema) ?
    
    Mike

    Yes, it is out on video - that's how I watched it!  Great flick!
    
    Barb

I finally saw Sleepless in Seattle and after reading all the discussion about this film
I just had to add my own opinion: To be honest I just don't understand where all the
commotion was about. I found it a very boring and predictable 'end-of-the-year christmas
feeling' like movie. Maybe it makes a difference when you see it in another season. Only
on Meg Ryan I have to agree with the writer of reply 31. I'll try to be there first...

Donald.

To be the first to reply: Of course I don't have anything against the christmas feeling.
I only have some doubts about the Hollywood interpretation of these feelings.

Donald.

     I was rather underwhelmed by this movie when I recently saw it, too.
I suspect that the massive hoopla about it had my expectations far too high.

                                     Greg

    I just rented "Sleepless in Seattle" this weekend and saw it for the
    first time.  I wasn't certain I really wanted to see it, kind of 
    expecting a predictable, sappy, sentimental movie with little real
    substance.
    
    Well, that's what I got but I liked it anyway.  Go figure.  Maybe 
    its the holiday season but I really enjoyed the sappy scenes with
    the women crying over movies and the sweetness of the kid trying
    to find his father a new wife.  Meg Ryan was charming, though I
    had trouble figuring out why she wanted to marry her fiance in the
    first place.  I especially liked the relationship between Tom Hank's 
    character and his son, and their struggle to deal with the wife and
    mother's death.
    
    The whole concept of magic in a relationship, wondering what makes 
    a relationship worth a lifetime, and knowing when to take that chance, 
    all felt nice and warm and even thought provoking.
    
    A sweet movie, I give it *** out of ****.
    
    Karen.