Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

gavin6942 True story of a transatlantic business correspondence about used books that developed into a close friendship.Roger Ebert somewhat humorously wrote, "Miss Fiske was the librarian at the Urbana Free Library when I was growing up. She never had to talk to me about the love of books because she simply exuded it and I absorbed it. She would have loved this movie. Sitting next to her, I suspect, I would have loved it, too. But Miss Fiske is gone now, and I found it pretty slow-going on my own." That Ebert was a funny guy. As he notes elsewhere in his review, this movie is built on a very thin premise. And that is its ultimate downfall. While the movie is fun to watch, it has so little going on: basically two people corresponding about books to order. It's nice for a book lover like myself, but it did begin to wear after a while.

GeoPierpont There were three things I deeply appreciated from this film: how one can love a book, the kindness of complete strangers, and how well the letters were crafted. I have a passion for reading and a dire need to write, hence the education I received in this film was priceless. Since I am of the mindset that very little impresses me, it was fascinating to be reminded of that great hope and excitement of entering new territory completely unawares.I understand her complaints of Chaucer and the Anglican bible translation, but found myself wanting to know how this uneducated woman had such a desire for acquiring these many treasures. That is an exceptional characteristic, NOT weird my dear....I thought of all the kind gestures I have made over the years, typically to friends, colleagues, wanting to impress, and not exactly for the noblest of reasons. How the pay it forward concept was manifest in just a few simple lives, but made such an impact on so many others.My writing skills, albeit a published technical author, is so very lacking in refinement and humorous expression. Yet another work and lessons in progress.I was extremely fond of the lead performances and the capture of just the right sights and sounds of a busy New York City apartment. Mel Brooks is the last person I would assume to produce this type of film. I thank him for taking that chance to bring it to an audience who has the patience and sentimentality to cherish every moment.

James Hitchcock Charing Cross Road is a street in central London, running between Trafalgar Square and Oxford Street. (Rather confusingly, Charing Cross Station does not actually lie in this street). It is a centre of the London book trade, renowned for its bookshops (Foyles being the most famous), selling both new and second-hand books. 84 Charing Cross Road was the address of the antiquarian booksellers Marks & Co, although the firm no longer exists. (The building, which now bears a different address, is today a restaurant).Helene Hanff's book "84 Charing Cross Road" was one of the unexpected publishing successes of 1970, even though it is only a compilation of letters passing between Miss Hanff herself and Frank Doel, the manager of Marks & Co. The book was later turned into a play, which in its turn served as the basis for this film.The story is a simple one. In 1949 Helene Hanff, a voracious reader of all types of literature ("except fiction"), is unable to find a number of classic works of British literature in her native New York City. She notices a newspaper advertisement placed by Marks & Co and in desperation writes to inquire if they can supply any of the missing titles. Doel writes back to say that they have most of the books in stock. Hanff continues ordering books from the company and over the years her relationship with Doel evolves into a long-distance friendship. They correspond about all manner of topics, not just about literature but about family matters and current events. Hanff cherishes the hope that one day she will be able to visit London and see the bookshop for herself, but she is unable to afford the fare until 1971, by which time Doel has died and the shop closed.Both the leading actors, Anne Bancroft and Anthony Hopkins, are excellent. They dominate the film; all the other actors, including its third "big name" Judi Dench as Doel's wife Nora, have comparatively little to do. Hopkins is sometimes regarded in specialising in forceful, flamboyant or monstrous characters such as Hannibal Lecter or Captain Bligh in "The Bounty", but in fact he can be equally good as quieter, more restrained individuals, such as Dr Treves in "The Elephant Man", the butler in "The Remains of the Day" or C S Lewis in "Shadowlands", and Frank Doel is another similar character.And yet, despite the quality of the acting, this has never been one of my favourite films. When I read Hanff's book (admittedly a long time ago) it never struck me as a naturally dramatic story, so I was surprised when it was adapted for the cinema. The film's rather static nature betrays its origins in a stage play, and I was not surprised to learn that the director, David Hugh Jones, was a well-known theatrical director with little experience of working in the cinema. (This was only his second film).I think, however, that the fault lies not so much with Jones's direction as with the nature of his material. The eighties saw a number of distinguished adaptations of stage plays for the screen, such as Willy Russell's "Educating Rita" and "Shirley Valentine" or the Dustin Hoffman version of Miller's "Death of a Salesman". None of those dramas contain much in the way of physical action, but they do contain plenty of dramatic conflict, what might be called emotional action. There is nothing of that in "84, Charing Cross Road". Hanff's book is little more than a record of two nice people being nice to one another over a period of two decades. Although she can occasionally be sharp-tongued when a book she has ordered fails to meet her expectations, she is really very kind-hearted, something shown when she sends food parcels to Doel and his colleagues, suffering from post-World War II austerity, and he always comes across as the perfect English gentleman. Their relationship never generates enough dramatic tension to make this an altogether successful film.On a final note, I have never understood just why Helene Hanff found it so difficult to find the books she wanted. It might have been more understandable had she been living in a remote small town, but were New York bookshops in the forties and fifties really so badly stocked that they did not carry the works of such major British authors as Chaucer, John Donne, Pepys and Jane Austen? 6/10, largely for the quality of the acting.

Catharina_Sweden I just finished watching this film, and I must say I am disappointed and cannot really understand the very high marks and good reviews it has got. Especially as I _ought_ to have loved it, as it is about two things that have always been very important in my life: books and pen-friends. Love and letters! Not to mention Anthony Hopkins, whom I have loved in so many movies: "Shadowlands", "The Remains of the Day", "The Edge"... Therefore, I was a bit disappointed that it was not more to it.I know very well from my own experience, that pen-friendships with people of the opposite sex very easily spark love feelings and fantasies - although of course you never mention this overtly in your letters. Because you do not _really_ want to destroy his marriage - or your own - and cause great havoc for everybody.Or - worse, to be honest - you have the fear that the person you have a secret love relationship with in your imagination, will turn out to be someone quite different in reality. This is also my sad experience from the times when I have met my pen-friends (of both sexes) in reality: people who read and write a lot and are good with words, are often not so easy to get along with in real life. This is of course the reason why they have turned to the books and corresponding: it is the only way for them to reach out to other people and try to break their loneliness.With this in mind, it does not have to be at all wrong that Anthony Hopkins was a much less interesting or attractive character than he usually is in movies. It is in fact quite appropriate, that he was grey and insignificant. And the same goes for the American woman who was even worse: too loud and unfeminine and not sympathetic at all - certainly not a character I could or would want to identify myself with. Maybe they _were_ both supposed to be people who were not popular in real life, and therefore turned to this correspondence for solace..? ...but of course when you watch a movie, you do not want your hero to be grey and boring, and your heroine unwomanly and unlikeable! You want to see beautiful, charming people that you can identify with and love and admire... Otherwise, the movie could never become a great movie and a favourite - at least not to me. (Maybe this proves me shallow..?) I wish it could be remade with Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson in the leads! And also that the love fantasies between the couple could be stated more clearly. They were now too much understated, and that also contributed to the boredom of the movie.