Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

From my favorite movies..

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

books, love, letters and two existences. more important, extraordinary cast. it is difficult to present impressions or verdicts about a film in which Anne Bancroft, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Judy Dench creates the soul and the flesh of a touching-seductive story. the flavor of antique store, the emotions of characters, the joy of life, the bitter pieces, the dialogs and the silence, the words to the public who is, in fact , the other, the charm of old story who remembers cookies of childhood, all is perfect, delicate and comfortable. if you love one of the actors from cast, must see this film ! if you are one of nostalgics who has the soul in 1980 years , must see it ! if you are romantic or only small bookworm, you must see 84 Charing Cross Road ! and the after this exercise, all becomes clear. Pleasant viewing !

This is a rare movie.There's no plot really. There are no explosions. No chases, that would make Dirty Harry's day. No death's that involved gore. No sex even mentioned, let alone witnessed. There's not even so much as a chaste kiss between the two main characters. Would you believe that two of the highlights was nothing more dramatic than poetry read by people who knew how to read it? Would you also believe that the plot revolved around the delight of a reader of English Literature, and the slow mutual regard that developed between reader and bookseller? Would you be as entranced as most of us who wrote reviews were as we listened to these two exchange the simple pleasure both enjoyed in the other? And yet it's a remarkable movie that many people rated as a ten, including me.I thought it was a ten because everyone spoke like people.The movie was not only about books, and literature and poetry. It was about how people helped each other through difficult times with little acts of kindness before the term was even thought of.While the main point of the correspondence between these two concerned books, the humanity of one American (the character played by Anne Bancroft), and the proud dignity of one Englishman (Anthony Hopkins) was really a celebration of what is best in all of us. That is what made the movie so touching.It is also what made it worth its ten.

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.

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.