Nonureva Really Surprised!

Cortechba Overrated

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

decroissance Plenty is one of my top ten favorite movies. It juxtaposes the main character's years as a resistance fighter in WWII with her later life in the frivolous, self-indulgent world of upper-class postwar Britain. She despises this world, and tries to convey her need for meaning to those around her, but they don't understand her emptiness. Everyone around her seems fulfilled with parties, social climbing, amassing wealth, and consuming as much as they can. Streep's character desperately wants society to care about things that actually matter. She falls into despair when it becomes clear that she's alone in her need for meaning.The scene where she throws open the doors and cries, "There's plenty!" sums up the disillusionment, futility and isolation she feels in the midst of people who live for nothing.The movie flashes back to her resistance days in France to illustrate the difference between a world where people risked their lives to stop the Nazis, and a world that has lost any substantive reason for its existence. I related to the character's despair completely.

nomorefog Plenty' is one of those films that is difficult to like, even though you may feel obliged to admire it. It represents an allegory of some kind or another, which is something that I read about in a newspaper review. Well, I must have read about it somewhere, because as I was watching it, I didn't understand what it was supposed to be about and needed some assistance when it was all over.The deadly weakness of this film is that Meryl Streep plays a woman that any sensible person in the audience would want to strangle, because she is so completely selfish and bloody-minded. By the end of the film she has become mentally unhinged and I would challenge anyone to feel any sympathy with her plight. It may have been a good career move for Streep to play, at least on paper, such a non-standard type of female character, but for those of us in the audience, it is a bit difficult to make the connection to her. She literally appears out of nowhere at the beginning of the film; she appears to have no family; despite being middle-class to the backbone and having a good job, she is disoriented, mentally unstable and continually whining about how boring life is. She marries a man from the diplomatic service and takes a downward slide towards either schizophrenia or psychosis, I'm not sure which. They move to another country and she remains unhappily sedated for the rest of the film, after attempting to have a relationship with a working class lad and it coming to a bad end, apparently a dilemma indicative, according to many reviewers, of the inability of the post-war Atlee government to organise a truce between the classes in England. Personally, I was not convinced.The supporting cast is actually quite impressive, but they seem to have little purpose other than to stroke Streep's colossal ego. Sam Neill plays her contemporary during the French Resistance; Charles Dance is her sympathetic and put-upon husband, Tracey Ullmann is her best friend (and I didn't envy her the task) and Sting is the working class lad she cons into sleeping with her.I don't mean to sound so smug but I was not convinced by a word of 'Plenty' and disliked the experience. Basically, it's far too cold and cerebral for a commercial venture that has been presumably made to attract an audience. The story, if it could be called that, is contrived, and what the film is meant to be about is obscure. Streep is insufferable in an impossible role and I found the entire thing nasty, unconvincing and totally lacking in any entertainment value whatsoever.

MusicalMagpie The kid was at a sleepover. Ahhh....for once we could watch a grownup movie. What about that Meryl Streep film I picked up the other day, the one with the glowing accolades on the cover: "one of the greatest performances of her career"... "brilliant"..."fiercely intelligent"... sounds like another "Sophie's Choice"..... but no. It turned out to be a waste of a good evening. After reading many 10-star reviews of this film, I can't help wondering why my husband and I got absolutely nothing out of watching it. It did not engage us in the least. The movie is obviously adapted from a stage play, as the scenes are static and episodic. The transition from one scene to the next is often unclear, as the story jumps ahead in time and moves all over the map. One minute Susan is sharing a cramped flat with her girlfriend; the next minute she is in a comfortable apartment. Now she is dating diplomat Charles Dance. Now she is trying to make a baby with a man she despises - but who bears a marked resemblance to her long-lost airman. But wait - now she is married to Charles Dance. When and why did this happen? (this is not explained until much later in the film).The dinner party scene is awkward and Susan's outbursts (and language) seem out of character. While John Gielgud's performance is delightful (and he has some of the best lines), his relationship with Susan is never really developed - so why is she so upset when he dies? We are great fans of Meryl Streep, but we were puzzled and disappointed by her performance in this film. It was difficult to understand what she was trying to do with her character. Madwoman? Selfish bitch? Disillusioned idealist? Her extreme swings of mood - from passivity to scenery-chewing - were not believable (I do not buy the "bipolar" theory for a minute); nor was her friendship with Tracy Ullman (whose role vacillated between free spirit and wise woman).I found myself longing for "Postcards from the Edge" or "Sophie's Choice" or "Death Becomes Her" or even (God help me) the mess she made of Miranda in "The Devil Wears Prada". At least with these roles you knew where she was going.It has been suggested by several reviewers that the key to liking this film is repeated viewings. Frankly, I am not willing to sacrifice another evening for the experiment.

crap-47 This has to be the single worst movie I have ever seen. The story is poorly constructed, the acting is dismal, it's simply a waste of time. Set in post war Europe the story had potential especially with the main character fighting with the affect of working as an undercover agent in the war.But it never lifts off. The plot is thin, the characters are not convincing and are poorly played. And Streep never acts well at all. Very very disappointing.I have been wrecking my head for days trying to find out what went wrong here but am afraid I have to give up.Don't even think about watching it.