The Relic

If you like cinema, then I recommend you not to watch this film. Why?Well, just because cinema is something that was created,fundamentally, for entertainment.Let’s take a look at the film: A story yet used in manyoccasions, a screenplay so predictable that you can leavethe theater one hour before the movie ends and you won’tmiss anything special, things like Dr. Green’s computer,that can indentify the percentage of the species presentin a sample by analyzing the DNA, and even the name andsurname if the species is Homo Sapiens… Perhaps if thisfilm was created 40 years ago I would have given a not sonegative commentary, but the fact is that the film was madein 1997….! Even if you’re just looking for visual FX,you’ll have to wait until the end of the film to see somescenes, and the FX are nothing to write home about.If you avoid watching this film, you’ll miss nothingand save some money.

I could have gotten more enjoyment from my $5 if I had just lit them on firewith a Zippo. The premise of mixing DNA and combining traits like that isinsulting, as is the whole story. Save your money and beat yourself with abrick if you feel the need for mindless suffering. Second worst movie of1997.

All I have to say is that this movie is practically a scenario where tons ofpeople meet senseless violence and death against a creature who loves to riptheir heads off. Throw that in with poor acting, terrible editing and alousy monster with poor FX and you’ve got something to laugh at. See it ifyou’re bored on a Saturday night.

The plot doesn’t hold together, the monster isn’t scary, the dialogue makesno sense. I saw this in a theater and was not scared. Putrid!

I rented this video expecting nothing more than simple entertainment, amonster movie that would be fun on a Saturday night. Boy, did I make amistake. This is a dreadful mess. There is little or no suspensedeveloped,the creature is unbelievable, and the last quarter of the film is soridiculous that it should be silly but is just tedious. This is one of theworst movies I have seen recently.

I thought that scary movies were supposed to be scary. This movie might aswell have the actors stepping physically out of the movie and dumpingbucketfuls of blood on you. For the gore-buff, this movie is perfect. But Ithought real horror movies held your interest within the plot as well as theF-X. This movie is nothing but gore and it didn’t hold my interest long.Probably the worst movie ever made.

When it’s done well, escapist cinema is more than worth its viewers’ time.But when it’s done poorly…

You get something that resembles this godawful mess.

Where to begin? There are SO many flaws here:

-Imagine a thrill-less version of "Alien" set in a really big museum thathas all of ONE exit through which escape is possible; there’s youruninspired plot.

-It couldn’t have hurt this film’s budget TOO much if they had purchasedsome LIGHTS so that you could see what’s going on. Whether or not you wouldwant to see what’s going on is another issue entirely.

-The ridiculous amounts of gore become nearly comical by the end of thisbloody mess.

-Monolithic plot holes and flaws in character logic. A significant portionof the plot concerns an attempted escape through a sewer. Right-O. THATmakes sense.

-The explanation provided for the origin of the "monster" here makes themutant cockroaches from the equally-insipid "Mimic" seem perfectlyplausible.

Rating: 2 out of 10. It’s unbelievably terrible, but it IS better than somefilms, like "Urban Legend" or "Batman and Robin." Films like this don’t evenhave to be GREAT, but they shouldn’t be insulting, as is "The Relic".

This movie is bad. Really bad. It’s like Die Hard in a museum, without anyof the fun you get in either Die Hard or a museum. Actually, sarcasm aside,there are some pretty awesome scenes in the movie, mostly as a result of theterrible acting. Carefully watch for the melodramatic scream after themangled swat-team visit: it’s worth a rewind. Throw in a scully wanna-be, asuperstitious ethno-cop, a hilarious riot where museum patrons go out oftheir way to run thru windows, a slimy sycophant, egregious overuse of theword `thalamus’, a monster evolved specifically to decapitate people and theclockwork decapitation of most of the people mentioned above, and there youhave it. Its bad, but you just might like it. Relic, I crown the king ofthe B movies. Long may you decapitate in peace.

Forget about this awful abortion of a movie. It bears almost noresemblancewhatsoever to the wonderfully frightening novel it was allegedly madefrom.The original story has been completely gutted, and the acting is terriblebysome people from whom we’d expect much better.

Ridiculous sci-fi horror tale about a monster running wild in a Chicagomuseum. Terrific special effects and well-rounded performances fromMillerand Sizemore elevate this to a highly entertaining popcorn film. Gory,fast-paced, and perversely funny at times, this is mainstream fare at it’sbest.

read comments (0)

The Saint

There are only two films that have become so unbearable I could not bear towatch them any longer all the way through. "Prizzi’s Honor" was one. This isthe other. I read the novelization of this work first (collecting moviebooks is a hobby of mine). I loved it. It was great. So what happens when Iwatch the real thing? Everything I loved about the novel is left onsomeone’s cutting board. The picture doesn’t seem to be so much created asthrown together like a tossed salad of nonsense with one scene suddenlyhappening right after another. It looks more like a film school student’sfirst production as opposed to an actual, honest-to-God movie. I have betterways of wasting my time.

The Saint stars Val Kilmer. You would be forgiven for forgetting this fact,however, as Kilmer spends most of the movie going crazy in the costumedepartment, thus rendering him unrecognisable for the majority of the film.The plot follows the story of a young boy in a boarding home that grows upto become the enigmatic ’saint’, who is the title character of this film.The Saint then goes on to become a spy and thief, and one that bows to thehighest bidder. The film really gets going when The Saint gets hired for ajob, one that will put him up to the $50 million mark (his goal forretirement). This job requires him to steal the formula for cold fusion froma young lady…but after he falls in love with her, will he be able to doit?

As mentioned earlier, Val Kilmer takes the title role. Val Kilmer proved hisacting ability with his complete embodiment of Jim Morrison in The Doors.This movie doesn’t require any acting ability of that calibre, but it stillallows Val to show his ability. At several points in the movie, he isrequired to pretend to be a different character, and that requires him toput on a different accent. This requires talent, not everyone can do that.I’m not saying that Kilmer deserves an Oscar, but he has an obvious talentfor acting. Also featuring in this cast is Elizabeth Shue, a lady whom moviefans might remember from the latter two parts of the Back to the Futuretrilogy. She doesn’t really impress in this movie; she does her job, but herrole doesn’t really leave an opening for to impress with. Aside from thesetwo, the cast of The Saint is more or less totally made up of lesser-knownactors.

For a film like this, you would expect basic popcorn entertainment, andthat’s how it should have been. Although the movie never really requires youto flex your brain muscles, it does have a rather complicated plot. I haveno problem with complicated plots, but they are out of place in a movie ofthis ilk. It should be fun, and therefore complex plots have no place. Themovie also doesn’t have much of a sense of humour about itself, and it isdirected almost humourlessly. This comes off rather badly as a lot of ValKilmer’s characters are people that you could laugh at, and the movie shouldhave capitalised on this fact more, as it would have made it a moreenjoyable ride. The movie does feature some exciting sequences, in fact itnever really gets boring; but had it have been better directed, and had ValKilmer’s character have been capitalised on more, it could have become theentertaining blockbuster that it obviously wants to be.

Although the movie is somewhat fun to watch, it could have been a lotbetter. It’s joylessly directed and despite the talent of it’s lead, itnever really impresses. It’s a shame as this could have been a hit, but dueto it’s flaws; I’m afraid that it gets an overall thumbsdown.

I can’t believe there are so many comments praising this film! What wereyouwatching?

I don’t really care that it’s nothing like the series, although I’m oldenough to remember it well (but why bother calling it "The Saint" atall?).I do care that it’s one of the most sloppily written, acted and directedfilms ever made. Phillip Noyce’s real interests lie in serious films like"Rabbit-Proof Fence" and I’m sure he knocked this one out in his sleep forthe money.

Val Kilmer delivers the same narcissistic, hollow performance he alwaysdoes- but this time he gets to do it in lots of different disguises. The scenewhere he acts as some kind of poetry-spouting bohemian (think of BarryGibbwith a French(?) accent) in order to seduce "scientist" Elisabeth Shueis -and I really, really mean this - the most embarrassingly awful 10 minutesIhave seen in any film, ever.

Life really is too short to waste 2 hours of it watching thisfilm.

i just watched this movie again for the first time in five years.fortunately, i was in a mood to revisit it. i remember from watching itthe first time a vague annoyance with elisabeth shue’s character, herrelationship with with simon and a kind of letdown by the ultimateresult of things. watching it again, i couldn’t believe just howlaughable the love affair was. actually it was kind of beyondlaughable. as a human being, i found it outright offensive thatelisabeth shue actually fell for simon’s ridiculous sleazy lines. thegirl makes a ridiculous scientist. her scientific speeches about coldfusion are like a little girl’s. even denise richards was moreconvincing as a famed science phd. the movie should have been made withless of an aim toward val kilmer’s vanity. less scenes of him talkingto himself would have been really really nice, especially since he’smuch duller than shue and the Russian mafia.

anyway, there were good things. i love seeing movies in Russia for somereason. nice change of scenery. also, nobody hates chase sequences.hearing some mid/late nineties music by underworld is always a plus.

the flick needed less romance and more chases. well, maybe more romanceif it was the good kind of convincing romance and not the blatantdrivel sent to us.

5/10

My dad recently gave me this movie because he said he and my step momdidn't really enjoy it, but I might get a kick out of it. I usuallylike the spy type of movies, they're interesting to watch and areusually exciting. But I actually really didn't enjoy this movie, itwasn't just the story, because over all it didn't seem like a bad idea.I think it was the cast, Val has a pretty crappy Russian accent, yougotta admit.

But this movie is about a guy named Simon named after the saint ofmagic, he becomes a spy of some sort and is spying on the RussianMafia. He ends up getting deeper and deeper when he steals a girl'splans about how she could save the world of pollution that the Mafiaalso wishes to get their hands on. He ends up of course falling for thegirl and she goes on the adventure with him.

Over all, I'd say this wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't my cup oftea, but I couldn't see why someone else might enjoy it. I think it'ssomething you have to judge for yourself. So, either you can take myadvice or just try it out, I guess we owe it to Val… somewhat.

4/10

So, what we have here to be loved ?

_(Elisabeth Shue) gets ready to make love with (Val Kilmer).

_(Elisabeth Shue) gives (Val Kilmer) a big kiss near the end.

_A line by (Elisabeth Shue) says "The difficult childhood makesinteresting adults".

_The great theme music by (Edwin Astley) with great arrangement by(Graeme Revell).

_The direction of the last minute of the movie.

And I hated what exactly ? It's simple : EVERYTHING ELSE !

P.S : if you have anything but the Bond formula (and looks better inanyway) then do it; Just a telegram to Hollywood producers.

'The Saint' came out a year before the 'Avengers' movie, and likewisealso proved a critical and commercial disaster. Of the two movies, Iprefer 'The Avengers' because, whether you like it or not, it at leastresembles the television series on which it is based. 'The Saint' triesto be 'Mission: Impossible' meets 'Goldeneye', and fails
dismally. Assoon as Kilmer's casting was announced, I knew it was doomed. SimonTemplar should never be played by an American. Kilmer was fine as'Batman', but all wrong for 'The Saint'. I wasn't convinced by theromance with the Elisabeth Shue character. Templar's disguises are sopatently unconvincing you wonder why no-one sees through them. JonathanHensleigh's script is mediocre compared to the John Kruse T.V. episodes'The Fiction Makers' and 'The Death Game'. It didn't help that theoriginal ending was deleted, and a lame new one substituted. Best thingabout the movie was Orbital's pulse-pounding arrangement of EdwinAstley's theme.

Val Kilmer is simply not the Saint and never will be. My advice to any movieproducers out there is to start again with an English actor and just forgetthe Kilmer film was ever made. The beginning episodes of this film, givingthe Saint a past and a reason for being, were ridiculous, overlong andunnecessary. The Saint doesn’t need a reason to exist other than the fact heenjoys the mayhem he brings into the lives of criminals. Also ridiculous wasmaking Templar a master of disguise. The whole point about the Saint wasthat everybody knew who he was, letting him attract business, women, thrillsand lots of money. If the Saint was such a master of disguise, how the hellwould anyone be able to find him, let alone get him into so much trouble?Sorry, Paramount, nil points, start again!

What a waste.

Val Kilmer on snooze control, a bunch of really bad accents.

Elisabeth Shue in an unpromising follow-up to her acclaimed performancein Mike Figgis’ "Leaving Las Vegas."

A bunch of really tired and boring clichés borrowed from a millionother sources, awful direction, weak scriptwriting; one predictableturn after another with some truly mediocre content.

Overall, just plain mediocre and that’s all I can think of to describeit. Another pointless and unnecessary TV-show-adaptation - let me ask,how many of these do we really NEED: or even WANT?

Certainly not any more like this.

2/5

I can’t stand Val Kilmer’s voice in this movie; it’s so stupid and I laughatevery scene in this stupid movie. I can’t believe he cut himself in theheadwhich doesn’t make no sense what-so-ever. The bad guys are boring too. Whycan’t they be enemies like "Dr. Evil" and "Mini Me"? But no, they areboring. The same with the good guys. Every body’s role suck in this movie.There wasn’t no great acting at all. I’ve seen much better acting inGodzilla. Don’t bother watching this one, It’s bad.

No Stars

read comments (0)

Titanic

this movie makes us all realize that things aren’t what they mayseem.the titanic wasn’t suppose to sink, but it did.and it changedhistory.it also shows us that your choices affect other people. maybenot this drastically but they do affect people.the captain said fullspeed ahead when he knew there were ice burgs. and Jack fighting forRose!this movie can show us that if u love somebody to keep fightingfor them and don’t let someone else take them away. there may be manyobstacles but u can get around them. Jack told us to take life a "deal"at a time.and we all should take what life throws at you.this moviechanges lives in more then one way: love, living, and choices!

This movie is complete rubbish. It is two hours too long and it hasterribleacting in it. The ship was the only thing really impressive and Katewinsletts boobs. But Leonardo Dicaprio was totally miscasted for the movie.The love story is pathetic. The sinking of the boat is also quiteimpressive. But Pearl Harbor has much better effects than this. This moviestole a whole bunch of academy awards.

I have a lot of respect for this movie, and not because of the lovestory or the actors. The level of detail Cameron achieved is trulyamazing: the opening sequence is footage of the actual wreck, and theship was recreated true to the original plans (tho’ scaled down, ofcourse). Interiors are exactly how the real rooms looked in 1912.

The sinking sequence have the best special effects I’ve ever seen; soseamless that you unaware of them, you’re just watching the ship breakapart and go down.

There are only two historical mistakes in the script, minor thingsreally. Have you spotted them? These days, it’s considered "cool" to becynical about this movie, but I consider it "cooler" to make up yourown mind. Perhaps watching it again will convince you that Cameron didan amazing job not only for lovers of romance, but for anyonefascinated with the historical event itself.

I really enjoyed this movie. It’s definitely worth the ticket price.The movie does a great job showing what life was like on the Titanic.The actors even looked like the people they were playing. Another thingI liked was the scene where the little boy is spinning a top on thedeck. It’s from a famous picture taken aboard the ship. The actor whoplayed Captain Edward J. Smith did an awesome job. That’s a veryimportant role in the story of the Titanic. I quite a few people wentto see this movie just because Leonardo Decaprio is in it. I was notone of those people. I’ve been reading about this ship since thirdgrade and when my dad offered to take me to see it, I couldn’t pass upthe offer. Any Titanic buff should see this movie. It’s the bestdepiction of the ill-fated maiden voyage I’ve ever seen.

First of all, with a name like Titanic, you would expect there to be alot of titties. But there were only about 3 or 4! And we're talkingabout a 3 hour movie. So 1 tittie per hour is not good. I don't knowwhat this movie was about…maybe a ship or something. But if thismovie was about a ship that sank, why didn't they just call this movie"The Ship that Sank and caused Everybody To Drown or Get Frozen"Titanic? This movie should have been called "Titless-anic!" If I wantedto see a religious film, I would just go fall asleep at church like Iusually do! The only good part was that very feminine lady actress whoplayed Jack Dawson.

TITANIC..one of my best favorite movie of all times..I watched themovie so many times..that i couldn’t count it anymore! I just love themovie..I like the love story of it..I can watch the movie over and overand over again.I just cant get over it..I find it verysweet..romantic..but yet very sad..I like every part of it..frombeginning till the end..Jack and Rose never left each other.. no matterwhat they stick together..but the thing I hate bout it Jack died..thatsthe only part I didn’t like its too sad…but other than that..its theBEST!!!! It’s very touching story..Every time I watch it..I feel likeI’m part of it or something…I find it very good..I got nothing elseto say bout it..but IT IS THE BEST!!!!

This movie is the king of the world, and it is, it really is. Peoplewho bash this movie have no idea what they’re doing. To start, yesthere are a **FEW** bad parts, but even few may be a harsh word. Insome parts, my attentions wanders, when the dialogue falls flat, butbesides that…

This movie deserves 12 stars out of 10. James Cameron is one of thebest directors in the entire world. For doing Ghost of The Abyss, T 1 &2, and many many more, New Line decided to give Cameron the budget ofdreams. $200 million?! I mean, what is that? That’s more then a lot ofmovies make for gross in North America! The effects in the movie aremore then great. They’re epic. When someones says the effects are bad,you want to slap them. You cannot get any more real then building theactual ship almost full size. One of the most haunting images of themovie is when the ship is about to break, and it’s stern is right up inthe air, and then the lights go out… the screams start.. and you herethe groans. That gives me the chills just thinking about it.

The music! The scoring in this movie is absolutely perfect. Before Iget to The Song, I will say it’s is very smart to have all classicalmusic in this movie. The part at the end where the band plays, and theslow-mo starts, like the couple lying in bed, and the woman reading toher children. I cry every time. Celine Dion’s song, My Heart Will Go Onis a terrific song. Oh sure, you may bash it now, but you weren’t doingthat when we first heard it over 6 years ago. One major factor of whyTitanic grossed over 1.8 billion worldwide is because of the song. Didy’all know the song was played around the world… 500 BILLION times?Yeah, so you can’t exactly call it a terrible song can you? Acting. Thetalent that is very very tough to find these days. Choosing people likeKate Winslet and DiCaprio was probably extremely smart. They’rewonderful in this movie. And yes, Kate’s odd, and albeit fake accentmay sound well, FAKE.. but that doesn’t matter.

Rarely has a 3 hour movie seen so short. It doesn’t just sail, itsteams ahead at 40 knots, with all the boilers lit, and with no icebergin the way. I love this movie, and always will.

So you flip through the cable channels on your remote. The same old musicvideos are running, and the reruns get tiring. Later, you find somethinginteresting. The evening news, Entertainment Tonight, 60 Minutes, VH1, andevery other network airs clips from this, the biggest money-making film inhistory. TITANIC emerges as a genuine Hollywood classic for the secondgeneration of American cinema. Never since GONE WITH THE WIND has there beenpowerful moviemaking with heavy genius from James Cameron. It’s more thanjust a love story. It’s an all-out disaster movie with style and vigorcombined with a creative instrumental music score. It even began the crazethat lured us into discoveries of the gigantic ship that never proved itselfwhen it sunk anyway.

Brilliant use of photography is what stands out the best. Imagine everysingle little piece of detail that wouldn’t fit on this message. Replicas ofthe engine room and the interior designs are highly crafted to maximize thefull experience of being on the Titanic while sailing on crisp, clear seawater filled with dolphins swimming with grace. During the night, one canlook up the starry skies while the bright lights shine. How tragic it is fora luxury liner to capsize in half, sinking miles beneath the surface, andshowing off the greatest achievement in motion picture special effects! Ajob extremely well done! Who will match this kind of excellence in the nearfuture?

As for the players, the pair of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are nowremembered as the Clark Gable & Vivian Leigh of the next generation. Bothar
e young, of course, and they really can ACT! Winslet should have takenhome the Oscar (what blasphemy of those Academy Awards judges!). Herperformance as "Rose" is a show stealer, as she did most of the incredibleacting far better than today’s young actresses. From smoking a cigarette, topossessing true beauty, to posing nude, to being a heroine, and to become asurvivor, this will be a role so hard to beat in Winslet’s future films.DiCaprio, on the other hand, also does magnificent as a "street boy" and a"troublemaker". The second half is the most important time to discover hisbest talents, including the end. Both are sensational in almost everyrespect.

Well, you can’t always expect a movie to be perfect. TITANIC’s shortcomingsare relatively minor. The "modernized" scenes don’t quite prove true to ahistorical masterpiece made with expensive sets and decorations. Mr. JerryGarcia Lookalike should’ve changed his shirt, instead of wearing the onewith "Happy Face" shot in the head. But Gloria Stuart as the old "Ross"makes up for the modern touch in telling and revisiting the Titanic storythrough her past experiences. It’s also important that we already know howthe disaster had become, and that the movie tells under a fictional basis.

Of localized interest: Diana Morgan was once a TV news anchor for an NBCstation out here. She has recently taken on an acting career playing therole of a news reporter, notably in BABYLON 5. You will hardly get to noticeher on that small TV set shown at the start of the film, but you can hearher voice.

Over three hours of powerful and unprecedented movie imagery. To date, itmay very well be the greatest film ever made.

The cinema viewer may well wonder whether there can be any real suspensewhen it is clear from the beginning of the film that the central character,Rose (Kate Winslet), will survive the disaster that befalls the Titanic. Butsuspense there is, not least because we don’t know whether her lover willmake it. There is also action, social (class) comment, drama, historicalnotes - not least several comments on the cause of the initial impact andwhy it was so disastrous - and good old fashioned romance.

Rarely has a three hour film seemed so short. It canters. The romance at thecentre of the plot develops quickly and my attention was held not only bydevelopments in this story but the events that, taken together, speltdisaster for the ‘unsinkable’ ship, and then the aftermath of the ship’scollision with that famous iceberg.

Kate Winslet was simply gorgeous and put in a fine performance, as didLeonardo di Caprio as Jack Dawson. The make-up of the older Rose (GloriaStuart) was one of the less convincing aspects of the movie, but it seemschurlish to draw attention to such a detail; in any case, it’s to beexpected that an 87 year old will need a fair amount of facial recontouringand war-paint to play a woman of 101.

Titanic is proboly the best movie I have ever seen. It seems so realand is very very moving.The first time i saw it i cried (which i hardlyever do in a movie)Jack and Rose are perfect together and it is verysad at the end when Jack dies. The whole movie taught me a lot. I wasvery glad i watched it for my first time when i was 11 years old now iam 13 and have watched it 6 times since then. And i never seem to getbored of it it is a one of a kind movie and i can see why it won somany Oscars. I really like the scene were Rose and Jack are at thefront of the boat and jack says "do u trust me" then he lifts her up so’shes flying’.The whole movie i rate 10/10 for obvious reasons.

read comments (0)

Trial and Error

This movie is not really a laugh riot. I’d say it’s a mix of other courtroommovies such as Dear God, or Jury Duty, but that’s not saying it all. JeffDaniels is the perfect part for this movie, but why Michael Richards, thatcrazy goof from "Seinfeld"? If critics give this a praise, were they payingattention? On the other hand, it was difficult to understand what was goingon. I couldn’t understand this movie, and it was far out too cheesy to me. Iwouldn’t recommend this to anyone, even if they were lawyers or judges. Ithought it would be a funny movie, but I was proved wrong, like I always am.I give it a 5.

Why in the world was this movie even in the theatures, it was so boring andun funny. I happen to be a huge fan of Michael Richards, and even JeffDaniels but in this movie, it just wasn’t happening. Ok, I admit there aresome funny parts, NOT MANY, but some.. The only thing is they are the onesin the previews. The bottom line… If you love seeing "comedies" which aremore boring than funny, and they show all the funny parts in the previews, Ithink you’ll like this movie..

This movie is tailored made for the physical antics of Michael Richards, andperhaps that’s where the problem lies. The first 45 minutes is a drag withthe poor chemistry between Richards, who plays an actor visiting his bestfriend, lawyer Jeff Daniels. (We have to stomach Richards do his Kramer-likeantics along the way) Daniels is a lawyer who’s going places and about tomarry the boss’ daughter. Richards arrival wrecks his friend’s life. In anunbelievable sequence of events, Richards assumes Daniels’ identity anddefends a con artist client. Michael Richards still suffers from theSienfeld hangover and looked very uncomfortable in his biggest starring roleto date. Daniels struggles to keep the movie going with an uninspiringperformance. In the end, the genial and heartwarming story is saved by theacting of Charlize Theron, who plays an endearing hotel waitress aching toput her heart for a man that will love her. Strike out for Michael Richardsand here’s hoping he does better again because he has so muchpotential.

It could have been so much better, if this lame courtroom comedy had adecent script and at least some inspired jokes. But as it is, lawyer JeffDaniels and actor Michael Richards accidently switch roles and have tohandle a difficult case and two female interests. The latter arecharminglyplayed by tough, but pretty Jessica Steen and gorgeous and likeableCharlizeTheron. And even the judge is played by comedian Austin Pendleton. ButJonathan Lynn, who was responsible for the hilarious courtroom comedy thatwas MY COUSIN VINNY doesn’t succeed here. Still, it’s not a total BOMB,andRip Torn is a funny bad guy.

This movie was one of the funniest I have seen in recent years, as Richardsand Daniels make a great team. True, it might get predictable, formulaic,and absurd at times, but what comic movie isn’t? I enjoyed watching it andguarantee that you will too.

*** out of ****

This was pretty much an effort to capitalize on the success of MichaelRichards from Seinfeld. It failed. Richards pretty much just does hisKramer character, and Jeff Daniels is funny from time to time, but thiseffort is nothing special. If you want to laught at Richards, watch someSeinfeld. (truly one of the best TV shows ever)

I’ve always been a fan of Michael Richards, Jeff Daniels and who doesn’tlove Charlize Theron? I couldn’t dare say this movie anywhere near the top10 funniest movies I’ve ever seen, but it’s got some really good stuff init. If you’re a fan of Charlize Theron like I am, than you really don’tneed to know anything else other than the fact that she is in thefilm.

The only real complaint I have about the movie is the way that Jeff Danielsgets detained from court in the first place. I thought they could have comeup with a better way of getting Michael Richards in the court room thanhaving Jeff Daniels get in a bar fight and then taking too much medicine togo to court the next day.

Anyhow, if you have the time and like the actors in the film, then go aheadand see it, but I wouldn’t recommend going out of your way to see it. Thanks for reading.

-Chris

This movie does not know what it wants to be, is it a slapstick or romanticcomedy?

Michael Richards’ character can’t get away from the Kramer character. Is hethis oddball or a serious actor? He flips back and forth between the two. And in the courtroom, one second, he is fooling everyone with his acting,then the next, he becomes a complete dimwit w/o the ability to improvisethrough anything.

I’m not sure why the prosecutor would even phrase so many arguments so thatit would be constantly objected, given that she has all the legaltraining.

This one took me by surprise. Being as it co-stars Michael Richards, andthe tag line is "THE 2nd MOST OUTRAGEOUS TRIAL OF THE CENTURY," younaturally expect this to be one of those "wacky, zany" movies. It isanything but.

The main focus is on Jeff Daniels’ character, and the personal catharsishegoes through. Michael Richards’ performance is surprisingly toned-downandcomplex, and Charlize Therone adds the perfect romantic side-story.

Nothing earth-shaking here, and Oscar nominations weren’t in the cards,butthis is a really engaging little gem.

Thoroughly entertaining performances from Richards, Theron, and Torn can’tsave this movie from its sub-par direction and formulaic predictability. Richards delivers his lines with the same quirky mannerisms that I foundhilarious in Seinfeld, but if you didn’t like it there, you won’t like ithere. Theron shows promise though she has to create her performance as sheis given nothing by the material. Perhaps the funniest moment in the filmcomes when Torn tells his sob story after he puts himself on the stand. Igot the impression Jeff Daniels wasn’t trying very hard in this film, butyou can’t blame him given the tired storyline and studio-oriented vision. The script was most likely written by a computer, or more likely adesperate, soulless, sellout of a hack with a talent for gag suppression. For diehard Michael Richards fans only.

read comments (0)

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie

Turbo: A power rangers movie: 2.2/10? This movie wasn’t awesome but itdeserved more than 2.2/10. The only thing that REALLY bugged me was thatthere wasn’t a fight scene until half way through the whole movie. And Itsays non- stop fantasy action/ violence. It should say non- start tillhalfway fantasy action.

More like ***(out of 5)

I was thinking it would be good too see a second Power Rangers Movie. Isaw the first one and it disappointed me that the show did not followthe course of the movie but Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie really does. Ido like the Idea of them bringing Justin to take Rocky’s place, Whatwould you have done if you were in Rocky’s shoes? You sure couldn’trisk Justin telling everyone about what he saw so it was a greatstrategy bringing in Justin to take Rocky’s place. The actors JasonDavid Frank (Tommy, Now back in Power Rangers Dino Thunder), CatherineSoutherland (Kat), Johnny Yong Bosch (Adam), and the others are verycool but I think the character that steals the audience’s hearts isBlake Foster (Justin). I give the movie 7 out of 10 stars.

In my opinion this is really bad..

I watched Power Rangers ever since the first episode (Day of theDumpster) came out on ITV.. GMTV in the UK at 8.55am on a Saturday.

I enjoyed it although some of the scenes were obviously pathetic. Afterwatching all of the episodes up to ‘white light’ in episode 2 I wasgetting more interested with the introduction of the white ranger.. Iwas always fascinated with the green ranger.

After a while the scenes got over used and it seemed the same washappening with the same boring action sequences. When the new powerrangers came I was interested but losing the attraction towards powerrangers.. Then the first movie came!!

I loved it.. the effects.. the costumes.. it seemed that a lot of careand attention that was never put into the episodes was put into it. Iloved the computer animations allowing the zords to move fast as afuturistic megazord would. I loved seeing the interaction between thepower rangers showing them as friends and the relationship between Kimand Tommy. Well that’s the first one..

I watched the episodes ‘power rangers ninja’ whatever.. with that bluething.. ninjar or something.. I was expecting to see something good butagain it was the same as the episodes.. Really dragged out..

Then a new movie came.. I was excited.. was I going to see everythingthe first movie showed or even better. As I watched the scenery.. thewords they used.. it was pathetic.. there was no thought in this.. justanother stupid screw up of a money making scheme clinging onto theoriginal movie.. The good thing indeed was the injection of the oldrangers but there was nothing good in this movie that could even standup to the original.. come on..

dressed up guys trying to look like zords with no detail andrepetition?

or

computer generated zords interacting with detail?

The original Power Rangers TV show was a fun, much loved, admittedlytacky, but often enjoyable series. The first movie was similar indescription, but I think it surpassed the show in several ways. But bythe time Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie came along, I realized that itwas just going on nothing. The film has one of the stupidest titles Ihave ever heard, and from that, we get more bad things. The actors arebad, but they were bad in the show too. The villains are the lamest andblandest in the entire long running series. And the turning a boy intoa ranger. Blech. Why did they bother? It has redeeming features. Tommy,Adam, Jason and Kinmberly, my picks for the best power rangers are inthe film (Billy, who is absent, is my fifth pick). The monster Maligoreis bloated and lingually challenged, but cool. And…well, that’s it.See the first one. It’s also on the bottom one hundred, but it’sconsiderably better than this.

I remember why I went to see this movie. For one I was a Power Rangers fan,#2 it was hiliarious when Kimberly (Amy Jo Johnson) on the ad commercialseemed to be evil and went "pink is out" to the Pink Turbo Ranger. I hadirregularly watched Power Rangers ever since ZEO came out, but let me say -this movie is way better than the first Power Rangers movie. This onereallyflows and you can see an improvement in the acting of course. Not tomention, the original Pink and Red Ranger are back in this movie (not asRangers but as their alter-egos Kimberly and Jason). I especially liked thescene when Jason was fighting Tommy (Red Turbo Ranger) because it alwaysseemed on the show that when Tommy came (as Green then White Ranger), hestole Jason’s thunder as leader of the Power Rangers. Anyway, if you wanttosee a good piece of Power Rangers history, I recommend this moviehighly.

I liked the movie because of all of the action andmartial arts. I also liked it because they were trying tosavean orphanage shelter from closing. There was one thing that I did not likeabout the movie was the foul language they used.

This was shown on TV on Sunday and I don’t really knowwhyEverything about this film was just stupidly dialogued and with cheapospecial effects. The control room with that annoying little "ay ay ay"robotwas just so lazy it was beyond belief. The evil guys were stupid and thecostumes were ridiculously over the top. Then theres that fat furbylookingthing! How can anyone care for that thing! The actors that played therangers themselves looked ridiculous talking to it in a soft voice and itmade it hard to watch. I can’t remember much about the series but i hopethat it was no way as near as bad as this trash ridden piece of junk.Whatdo you expect from a cheap hollywood script and untalented actors and anextremely low budget. Apart from that it does have one good thing aboutit.It makes any other film look like a master piece!!!!!(If you can’t tell already, i hated it with avengeance!!!!!!!!1

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie (Power Rangers Movie Part 2) is anther ofmy favorites Rangers movie. It take place when Rocky DeSantos (SteveCardenas) had been hurt after fell off the Karate fighting ring. So theother 4 Rangers been call to the Power Chamber by Zordon (WinstonRichard) at the same time as Justin Stewart (Blake Foster) was hidingunder Rocky’s bed. The Rangers went to the Power Chamber to see whatwas up & help a alien name Lerigot (Jon Simanton). Jason & Kimberly waskidnap by Divatox (Hilary Shepard). Now the Rangers have to saveLerigot & his family, As well as Jason & Kimberly too with the help ofthe new Blue Ranger-Justin Stewart (Blake Foster). They have stopDivatox & Maligore (Michael Deak) from distorying the earth. Maligoreis gone but Divatox want to stop the Rangers for distorying him.

Power Rangers Turbo (season 5): Divatox want to get earth for her nexttarget. The Turbo Rangers save the day in "Power Rangers Turbo" TVseries.

I personally loved Turbo, most likely because, for reasons I have yet todiscover, I am completely and irrevocably stuck on the show. I believe itis safe to say that, if you like the show, you will almost definitely wantto see this movie.

I saw it multiple times in the theaters, purchased a copy as soon as it cameout on video, and never get tired of it.

I just wanna say that I am already 12 and I am a HUGE power rangers fan.This movie, along with the other movie and the rest of the series, rocks. Ilove it sooo much I watched it over and over again. If you watch the movieattentively, you will notice there IS a plot.

read comments (0)

Turbulence

Ray Liota offers up a god-like performance in this high-altitude thriller!The big R is simply amazing as the creepy Ryan Weaver. Why this movie wasnever in contention for some serious awards I will never know. This classicgood vs. evil film is the type of movie that any good red-blooded Americanshould love. It has the big R, babes, and a classic, yet unpredictable plot.I’ve flew in quite a few military aircraft during my service to our greatnation, but my favorite has always been a 747 cargo conversion. They aresuch sweet planes - how they gracefully fly through the sky like honeyacross hot toast. This makes the 747 the ideal choice for a mid-air terrorflick. Lauren Holly sizzles in this epic as the sultry flight attendant, andthe other supporting superstars such as Jeffrey Joseph leave their mark onthis incredible epic as well. Chances are, if you like this movie you also:1. Love beer and cheese-filled hot dogs. 2. Use a small black comb to combyour hair instead of a brush with one of those comfort-grip handles. 3. Owna patriotic dog like a Pharaoh Hound or Golden Retriever. 4. Don’t care ifyour vehicle only gets 9 mpg. 5. Know all the words to every Whitesnake songever released. 6. Hate turkey bacon and salmon cakes. 7. Don’t spend a longtime looking for a perfectly clean public restroom when you have to go. 8.Would rather have noodles than rice. 9. Can bring yourself to believe thatBritney Spears is not actually as talented as everyone says she is. Andlast… 10. Attend patriotic services on memorial day. This movie is anAmerican experience. Billy Drago might have been able to improve this moviebut only if he pulled out all the stops and gave his very finestperformance.

Turbulence, What can I say, my hat goes off to Ray Liotta in this film,its not often you see him play this sort of nasty character, Oh maybeoncebefore this one but im sure thats it.

Like i’ve always said im a big fan of thriller movies, and this was a verygood one, I would stronly suggest you watch it.

8/10

This movie is not as bad as people think.. i really liked Ray Liotta inthisfilm… he was very entertaining. I am not a fan of Lauren Holly but shewasalright.. i think halle berry would have done better.. I just dontunderstand why this movie had a sequel… you would think 1 is enough…this movie isn’t bad but Most of Ray’s other film are a littlebetter.

"Turbulence" is one of those movies where you can pretty much figure outwhat’s gonna happen next. You’ve seen it before. But sometimes the ride isnice.

In this case the ride is with one of the all-time great psychos, Ray liotta.One of the few guys who can play these kinds of roles, and not boreyou.

He’s had lots of training in these types of roles, "Something Wild,""Unlawful Entry," and here, he’s at the top of his game. Ray’s really havinga good time in this role. It’s easy to tell.

Along on this ride you’ve got the spunky heroine, Lauren Holly, who does agood job. Some of her early scene’s with Liotta bristle with intensity.Particularly when he asks her about her first sexual experience.

All in all if you want to be entertained by one of the most underratedactor’s in the business, and not mind that the plot is fairly predictable,and you just wanna have a good old time, "Turbulence" is foryou.

"Turbulence" is one of the most implausible movies I’ve ever seen. But atthe same time it’s also one of the most entertaining. It’s about a 747 jeten route from New York to Los Angeles on Christmas Eve that just happens tobe transporting two criminals. When the criminals break loose, all hellbreaks loose. Soon before you know it, shootouts commerce. All the marshalswatching the two criminals are killed as well as the two pilots. The onecriminal who broke loose is eventually shot by the other criminal (RayLiotta), and proceeds to lock the other flight crew and passengers in a roomon the plane. For the rest of the flight, it’s mano-a-mano between thecriminal and a plucky but not-so-bright stewardess (Lauren Holly) who triesto land the plane with help from the control tower in L.A. and a pilot whoattempts to talk her down. But very bad weather lurks in the skies ahead,and the flight becomes one killer ride. There are several scenes in"Turbulence" that are very hard to believe, but I was literally on the edgeof my seat while watching it. Liotta (from "Goodfellas") has a blast as theserial killer, while Holly is just adequate as the stewardess (she wouldhave been better if only her character hadn’t acted so dumb in a couple ofscenes). There are other supporting roles in the film featuring HectorElizondo, Catherine Hicks, Rachel Ticotin, Brendan Gleeson, and Ben Cross."Turbulence" is silly and unbelievable in some spots, but for the most partI found it to be a very exciting and very entertainingaction-suspense-thriller.

*** (out of four)

This movie is to be watched with your brain in a big metalbox.The plot’s a mess the performance’s over the top but all the better forit.

Liotta a very brilliant actor really relishes this role probably because herealises how bad this movie is. Holly could do with 1 putting on someweight and 2 learning to act.

The affects arent bad but theres 2 really cool scenes1 when a gun is fired and the bullet goes through all theseats.2 when the plane turns upside down.

All in all brainless fun.

9 out of 10

An excellent work, with a sensation plot line. Turbulence is a high flyingthrill ride from take off to landing. I give it two thumbs up, at 35,000feet. Ray Liotta and Lauren Holly hit it off from their first encounterandwith the addition of Hector Elizondo and others, Turbulence fullydelivers.

I saw it for the first time on TV because I couldn’t make it on thetheater.Well, it’s not a magnificent film if you analyze it from the point of viewof the "screenplay building".Anyway, if you are found of thrilling and nerve racking stories, don’tblink. I mean, you won’t blink from the first second the aircraft is goingthrough the most dangerous times.

Going back in time, it’ll remind you of the classic catastrophic films ofthe Seventies, such as Airport and Tower Inferno.

My rate (for the fun of it) is 9/10 or ****

After many years of tracking him, Lt Aldo Hines finally captures theserial killer Ryan Weaver who targets young women, woos them and killsthem. Because he has been brutal in the past, Hines is grounded whileWeaver and another criminal, Stubbs, are escorted on a near-emptyairplane to a secure location. However, Stubbs breaks free and killsthe marshals before getting shot himself, leaving Weaver the loneprisoner on the plane. When Weaver finishes off the pilots and thepassengers it leaves the stewardess, Teri, at the controls as theaircraft heads into a powerful storm. With Teri locking herself in thecockpit, Weaver tries to get to her and rape her while also threateningto crash the plane into Los Angeles while the people on the ground tryto work out how to get the plane.

Just like fellow reviewer Theo, I too looked at the TV guide on 20thJune 2004 to find that Goodfellas was on one channel while this was onanother. I thought it funny that two very different films with RayLiotta should be on at the same time (one his best, the other not –I’ll let you decide which is which). With work the next morning Idecided to tape Turbulence simply because I had reviewed Goodfellasalready and seen it many times. Suffice to say that this is pretty muchwhat you expect it to be – a silly ‘airline in trouble with a twist’film – it’s just a real shame that it is far too contrived and forcedto really engage or hold the viewer (well, maybe hold in a stupor butthat’s about it!). Heck, I like this type of movie (Die Hard being thefilm I’ll always come back
to) but this central weakness just spoilsany vague value it may have had at some stage. It is hard to describebut the plot is simply so daft and uninvolving that it just makes anytension vanish and the end result is a film that is just a noisy mess.I was in the mood for a bit of a veg before I popped out to watch theEngland match in the pub and even I found this to be silly – that saysa lot, that even my low standards weren’t met! To sit and point out thepoints in this film that are a) illogical, b) stupid, or c) stupid andillogical would be too easy and just take up way too much of my time soI won’t but trust me when I tell you that the writers just keptthinking of daft ways that a stewardess can be put in peril in anairplane by a killer to make it last about 100 minutes. I never gotexcited or entertained by this film once and the plot was a major partof this – yes it has a few nice bangs but your standards need to bepretty low to call this anything more than passable.

In fairness to the cast, they merely respond to what little they haveto work with and they all put in very routine and silly performances.Liotta starts interestingly enough with an ambiguous character but veryquickly goes into hyper mood with a performance that should be glazed,cooked in the oven and served with a few pineapple rings – even by thestandards of the genre, this was a massive piece of ham! Ignoringprotests of being framed, Weaver just about becomes as much of a silly,OTT villain as I have ever seen – it’s almost as if Liotta was playingit for laughs and I couldn’t understand why he had pitched the suave,rather creepy, unsure air he had had about him at the start – maybe theaudience just needed a big bad wolf to see as a threat as opposed tosomeone who would make them think. Likewise Holly is about as bad andis practically used by the film as opposed to acting. She finds herselfin situations that she must have known were dumb and is graduallystripped down to her underwear as the film progresses (I’d like tothink it was a Die Hard homage but it’s more likely to be a cheapthrill device). She is unconvincing and she totally failed to get me toeven care about her once. The support cast features quite a fewwell-known faces including Brendan Gleeson, Hector Elizondo, Ben Cross(taking the money for standing up once!) and Rachel Ticotin. Grand L.Bush has a minor role and may have been another nod towards Die Hardbecause he played Special Agent Johnson (no, the other one) in thatinfinitely better film.

Overall this is trash and it is doesn’t even really do the job done bymany video thrillers of the genre by being entertaining – the plot isjust far too stupid and contrived to really engage and, worse thanthat, it’s sheer OTT nature means it actually makes the film harder tojust accept at face value. The performances don’t do it either; manyare flat and obvious and even that guilty pleasure (the hammy OTTperformance) managed to be fudged by Liotta – often the knowingly hammyperformance is fun but here it is just part of the film being too sillyto be enjoyed. There are a few nice bangs if that’s all you want butyou need to be pretty desperate to accept this as your evening’sentertainment.

Sure, there ARE a few boring, pointless scenes in this movie, but that isnothing compared to the wonderful effects and such great acting! To me,it’sone of the best action films of the 1990s! I give a 10/10 to the movie’sgreat success into making a plane as a "weapon" for a sex-thirsty murderer,something that has never been done on a Thriller Movie before (as far as Iknow).The plot is very simple, and a little (yawn) boring… but it goes likethis:SPOILERSTwo convicts, Ryan Weaver (Ray Liotta) and Stubbs (Brendan Gleeson), caughtin New York City, are moved on a commercial plane by 4 marshalls (MichaelHarney, Grand L. Bush, Richard Hoyt-Miller and Michael Francis Kelly) boundfor Los Angeles, where both shall be quietly executed. Now, one of thestewardess Terri Halloran (Lauren Holly), has just canceled an engagementwith her boyfriend, so things aren’t going nicely as the plane takesoff.Okay, after only a few hours after the plane takes off, Stubbs,surprisingly, breaks free and kills 3 of the marshalls, and is then killedhimself by the smooth, charming "Lonely Heart Strangler". From then is overan hour of non-stopping action and suspense.

While this film brings nothing new to the airline disaster/hijacking genre,it’s a fairly entertaining suspense thriller. That comes about partlybecause of the performances from Liotta and Holly. He swings from thecharming ladies man who claims he was framed, to the raging lunatic andLiotta hams it up when he gets to that stage. Holly, on the other hand,plays the frightened woman who pulls together enough strength and couragetodo what she must to survive. Sure, the movie’s dumb, but accepted on thatlevel, it has enough audience pleasing moments to keep viewers from gettingtoo bored or thinking that they’ve seen all of this before (which theyhave,but here it seems somewhat fresh).

The movie scenes, which I found more funny than terrifying, is when thementally disturbed Weaver runs around the plane, chasing the sexuallyunprotected Terri. What he said and did, you’ll have to find out bywatchingthe movie.

While this movie doesn’t contain a lot of blood, there is an EXTREME — andI mean E-X-T-R-E-M-E — amount of violence. Also, the use of profanity isDAMN HEAVY. There are 21 "F" words in it, and it is used not in a carelessway like in most movies of to-day, but in a crazy, insane way — Weaverusesthe "F" words A LOT when getting mad or insane — or both.

Okay, okay, okay… there are, obviously, BORING scenes in the movie likewhen Bowen teaches Terri how to fly the plane. This is where all thesuspense goes, and Terri looks like she is enjoying a nice sunny day! And,at the beganing, when she receives a ring from her boyfriend/ when Weaverisarrested. Zzzz…. And at the end of the movie, too! Hey, how does Terriknow what Captain Bowen looked like? They’ve never met — how does Terrieven know what the Captain looked like? Suppose, the Captain describehimself to her through the headphones in a cutted-out scene orsomething…… if you like movies with plenty of action (watch out! there are somesoppy, dumb scenes in the movie), rent this movie and there is a 50-50chance you’ll love this film!

Bye!Sharee

read comments (0)

Ulee’s Gold

Peter Fonda as Ulee did his best to recreate his dad Henry in thisfilm, and was nearly as effective as Henry would have been in the samerole. Peter does not have Henry's fiery blue eyes that displayed aninner fierceness that belied his outward calm so Peter, with hismother's looks and his very laid back personality, has to workharder(without appearing to do so) to have a similar Fonda impact buthe did it so well here and better than I thought he could. This rolewas a perfect fit for him and he was terrific in it, and he is a creditto the great Fonda name as a result. Ulee's Gold might have been aOscar instead of the honey he made as a bee-keeper(Peter was nominatedbut did not win).

As a reclusive and introverted Viet Nam vet with a painful wardisability, an extreme family dysfunction, and a declining butbackbreaking bee-keeping business that's rapidly facing extinction,Ulee has a lot of hard work and stress interfering with his taxingefforts to just get by from day to day. When thrown into a deadlyfamily crisis caused by his criminal and convict son, he reluctantlygets deeply involved in trying to solve it and almost gets killed forit.

Many viewers may think this film was paced too slow, but mostfilmmakers trying to portray a rural story set in the South get thepacing all wrong, as city boy filmmakers never understand why Southernfolks move slowly and seem to think slowly, thereby appearing stupidand/or lazy, so they try to speed up the story and ruin it by doing so.I was a country boy early on and understand that carefully-paced, ovenhot-country behavior very well and was pleased that Ulee's Gold waspaced just right, which to me was the critical factor in making thisfilm believable, along with the spot-on acting of the lead characters.

Pat Richardson of Home Improvement was terrific as the helpfultenant/eventual love interest, as her character's basic human goodness,calmness, and sweet motherly nature showed again an example of perfectcasting, as that is Pat.

See this good story with lots of tension and realistic Southern pacing,and great acting in the leads. Plus, very interesting visuals ofbee-keeping details made this one of my favorite films set in theSouth.

There is no doubt that Nunez is one of the sharpest new directors around.His visual sense is amazing, this movie, like his previous "Ruby inParadise", is peppered with gorgeous compositions. He also has a knack forgetting a lot out of his actors, and bringing some depth and meaning towhatotherwise would be fairly generic stories.

What a pity it is then that he seems to refuse to get help with thescript.It is laudable that he eschews the standard Hollywood formulaic approach(which produces a number of small surprises in the plot) and there isnothing wrong with his quiet, understated approach, but to pull this offrequires two things - a strong narrative and engaging dialogue - both ofwhich seem to be well beyond Nunez’s capabilities.

One of these days Nunez will come up with another interesting story andshoot it beautifully and hire a good writer. The result will be a GREATfilm. Until then, for people who enjoyed "Ulee’s Gold", I might suggestrenting another movie with a different story but many other similarities."Running on Empty" has a great director in Sidney Lumet and sparkling castin Christine Lahti, River Phoenix, and Judd Hirsch, in a slow moving,taut,family drama that is worth seeing.

P.S. As a former beekeeper, I can vouch that all of the stuff about beesiscorrect. It might bore a lot of viewers, but I loved it!

I’ve always liked Peter Fonda. I liked him when he was young (THE TRIP,EASY RIDER), and I like him now (THE LIMEY, ULEE’S GOLD).

I basically rented this movie to see his Oscar nominated performance, andwas not disappointed. Why he never got to be a huge star is somewhatpuzzling to me, as I thought he was just as good an actor as Big Sis’ Jane,and has as commanding a screen presence, in his own understatedway.

While this movie is pretty slow and there really isn’t as much to keep youinto the plot (compared to something like THE LIMEY), check it out anyway ifyou’ve got a couple of hours to kill. Peter’s performance is worth thetime.

In this movie, Peter Fonda absolutely stamps himself as a great actor. Therole he plays generates an aura and strength, similar to some of the greatand powerful performances of Gregory Peck.

This is the tale of a simplistic man who struggles with several familycrises when his troubled children return into his settled and hardworked-for existence.

The viewer is absorbed by his predicament. Ulee’s strength finally winsthrough. His values permeate, and he eventually wins his children over. (andthe viewer)

Ulee’s gold is obviously not just his honey.

This would be an excellent movie for secondary school students to study.

I rate this movie 10 plus out of 10.

A truly amazing piece of film this is! This is an American film with no bigstars, no action, no overbearing sentimentality and no clichés. Just astrong story about a family in trouble. Peter Fonda along with the rest ofcrew did a great job. You don’t get the impression that they’re acting atall, it’s like they all lived the film. After seeing the film first time itseemed to me that making a great film like this couldn’t be toocomplicated.But if it is so easy why is this film so unique then?

1st watched 7/19/1998 - 10 out of 10 (Dir-Victor Nunez):Excellent slow-moving tale of a beekeeper(Fonda) trying to keep his familytogether and out of trouble. Tremendous character in Ulee(someone you’dalways like to have around). He does what he hasto do for his family and takes the grief and pain that comes with it as ifeven the hard times were just everyday occurrences. The movietreatsthe situations just as Ulee takes them. Unique movie in today’s otherwisefast-paced world.

This is a superb film with extraordinary performances and a lot of movingscenes. It proves once more that it doesn’t need explosions, fist fights,car chases, etc to keep one’s interest. For me, the happy ending ruined everything. Examples: a drug addict recoverscompletely after just a few days in the country, a woman who spent her lifein bars and on the street returns into being a loving mother, and animprisoned son asks his father "you’ve got to kill them, dad" one day - andpromises to return back to a normal life just few days later, saying "hopeI’ll remember how to work, dad". Top on this list is the surname of Ulee’s love interest. Her name is ConnieHope. Anyhow, I strongly recommend this movie to anyone interested in good storieswell told.

ULEE’S GOLD (1997) **** Peter Fonda, Patricia Richardson, ChristineDunford, Jessica Biel, Vanessa Zima, Tom Wood, Steven Flynn, DeweyWeber, J. Kenneth Campbell. Nominated for Best Actor, Fonda gives theperformance of his career as Ulee Jackson, a reluctant grandfather andOrlando, Fla. Based beekeeper who faces a sudden turn in his tranquillife when his imprisoned son asks him to find his drug addicted wifewith only trouble brewing for all. Fonda delivers a well rounded,implosive study in human emotion running the gamut with a decidedlyrelaxed and steady-as-she-goes performance shaded in solemn sadnessevoking a character one truly cares about. Expert direction by VictorNunez who also wrote the smart, canny screenplay. One of the year’sbest films and a true gem of a sleeper film.

Victor Nunez’s film "Ulee’s Gold" is a rarity. It is a family dramathat is intellectual enough to turn in a different direction when you areready to pounce on it as trite (if you don’t know this feeling, watchanything on "Lifetime"). "Ulee’s Gold" never states the obvious, and like aFrench film it lets you piece the story together bas
ed on conversations andconfrontations.

The story follows the slight Ulee Jackson. He has been rumored to havebeen a little radical back in his day. This is understandable, as he facedbattle in Vietnam and lost his wife not long after they started a family. She took care of him and the family more than it seems he realized. Shekept him in balance and in line and the love must have been extremelystrong, because years after her passing he still seems like he hasn’tcompletely come to terms with it.

He works as a beekeeper and tells one of his daughters how the bees andhim take care of each other. Keeping busy with them takes him out of thisand other grief. The bees seem to be a sort of replacement for his wife andthey keep him in check. Even though it seems like he is still dealing withthe tragedy, he lives a rather peaceful and serene life in a niceneighborhood and house by a swamp. Soon, a storm comes.

His imprisoned son calls him out of nowhere one day. Theirrelationship was shattered somewhere along the way, and mistakes kept Ulee’slove away. He is desperate with a crisis involving his wife, who isperpetually stung out and hung on drugs. She is in the custody of dangerouscriminals who demand money for a theft gone awry which her husband wasinvolved in and jailed because of. This large catastrophe falls in Ulee’slap and soon becomes a hazard for the welfare of his family.

Enter the help of the maternal neighbor, Connie Hope, played byPatricia Richardson who escapes her dull image of TV mom (from "HomeImprovement"). She provides relief and help with this intricate situation,as well as slowly reshaping the man Ulee has become.

"Ulee’s Gold" is as understated as its title character, thanks largelyin part to Peter Fonda’s beautiful performance. He brilliantly manages toconvey a man’s emotions that could boil over and melt him down at anysecond, but are always kept deep under the surface.

"Ulee’s Gold" is a near-perfect masterpiece of human emotion, sonimbly directed with atmosphere that it has the feel of what Ulee’s mindmust be like- fragile, almost dilapidated and overwhelmed with personalstorms.

Since this film is from a regional independent director, typically itwill tend to stride away from Hollywood norms. Allow me to quote theauthor of CInema of Outsiders– Emanuel Levy, "Highbrow criticscontinue to complain about Nunez’s restrained, unexciting filmapproach, and, indeed, its easy to overlook the qualities of Ulee’sGold in today’s over-hyped market… Ulee’s work is silent, repetitive,and undramatic, and so is the film." So, perhaps the reason that thisfilm seems slow is because Nunez purposefully directed it that way. Agood taste of regional independent cinema.

read comments (0)

U Turn

My American Lit professor commented on this film, he said to us one dayduring a lecture. "Sometimes, I wake up covered in sweat in the middle ofthe night, wondering what Oliver Stone REALLY meant by’U-turn’."

That’s when this movie began to unravel its secrets to me. Oliver Stonemakes movies that strike at the jugular of American culture. All of hismovies have done that and it’s tempting to think that he’s taking a breakwith this one. But I believe that this movie might just be one of the mostpowerful and insidious ones he’s made thus far, and truly one of the mostimportant movies of the decade.

On first viewing, I was merely impressed by the overall atmosphere that wascreated by the acting and technical virtuosity of the filmmaker. True, itreminds one of Red Rock West, but doesn’t that movie ‘remind’ you of everyother cockamamey thriller out there? Oliver Stone proved that he couldbeatanyone at any genre. He delivers violence and sex thicker than any you’veseen in a slew of movies that show gallons of more blood and miles of moreflesh. But there’s a lot more lurking beneath the surface in thismovie.

All the characters that inhabit the town here are familiar to varyingdegrees, and all of them are identical in one way, none of them seem toknowhow to leave the little town. Everyone seems to want to, notably theJennifer Lopez and Clair Danes character, but really, they either don’tbelieve that there’s anything out there to go to, or they are so divorcedfrom any reality outside their own (remember Jennifer Lopez charactertalking about Disneyland? Could you imagine her character in Disneyland?Andthen what?) and their every action invariably results in pulling everyonefurther into their spiralling black-hole of deceit and intrigue throughviolence and sex, which ultimately has no real purpose outside of the actitself.

The town seems to draw its strength from constant, even cyclicalre-enactments of sex and violence, there’s even a character who’s stillpre-occupied with re-enacting the European rape and destruction of theNative Americans. And all this is not quite unlike what a little insular,oblivious and culturally bankrupt country (Lethal Weapon 4? give me abreak)called the United States is preoccupied with. Ask anyone in an Indianreservation, they’ll tell you in no uncertain terms that they’re stillgetting ***ed up the a** on a regular basis.

The Sean Penn character is the only person that I could relate to. Whatwith his Movado and his fancy car, here’s someone who speaks the languageofthe real world. But it doesn’t take him long to get caught up in the thickof it. It doesn’t take all that much: a little sex, a little violence, alittle money trouble, and he’s in and he fits into that little town like hebelonged there. Sure he might have more money and he might have ‘bigger’problems than those that the townspeople have, but essentially, it’s allthesame.

If you think about it, this country is actually made up most substantiallyby those little towns or some versions of it than metropolitan cities.Truly, the heart and minds of this country is still very much created inthose home towns. One would like to think that those little towns arestillholding strong the virtues that made this country great. But when youstarthearing about Columbine and gangbangers in Arkansas and how the Mid-West isfalling prey to drugs, you begin to wonder. I’m sure we’ve all seen Fargo,need I say more?

Well, I could go on and on but rather, how about the next time you watchthis movie (if there is a next time) you try it with the assumption thatOliver Stone is trying to map the current address of this country, and Iguarantee than things will start falling into place. It is his Americancinematic rendition of T.S. Eliot’s ‘Wasteland’. I am aware how mycommentscould sound a little pompous but if you can’t see past that, you can’t seepast this movie.

Oh man, this movie was so hard for me to stay interested in. The storyhad potential to make a adequate drama/thriller, if only it had beendirected right.

A lot of times you hear people say, such and such movie "took itselfway too seriously." Well in this case I don’t think this movie tookitself seriously enough. I felt detached from the movie the instant myear drums vibrated as that RIDICULOUS soundtrack made way into my head.Every moment where it had the chance to build a little bit of tension,this goofy music would kick in, or a wacky Looney Tunes type soundeffect would "boing," or do something similarly zany, totally leavingme uninterested. I don’t understand why they would go for that type ofcomical atmosphere with a story like this. It’s not like the storyitself was clever enough to be able to pull off being told in such amanner. The tone of the movie and the tone of the soundtrack conflictedwith each other, not a good thing. The one part of the soundtrack I didlike was the hollow, ambient type of music they played in many of thosedesert scenes, that created a good mood I thought.

A random point- Remember the scene where Jennifer Lopez almost gotpushed off the cliff? Ask yourself, would a normal person react thatcalmly, or make such a quick witty comment about their situation, whentheir life hangs in the balance??

If you like love and friendship and kittens and you enjoy at least someof your precious time on this earth, you will avoid this movie like theplague that it is. This is my vote for the single worst movie evermade. Oliver Stone…you are a bad man. Everyone involved in this moviein any way shape or form is getting a one way ticket to Hellville, USA.J-Lo is just not hot enough, Sean Penn is a total freak,Billy-Bob..somebody please stop him, he is a menace to south central.There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this abbhorent piece ofpooh.

Please, for the love of love…do not see this movie. It was truly oneof the most unpleasant and painful experiences of my wonderful life.

If you have not seen this movie, do so. This movie is for anyone whothinks they have bad luck. Now, this is definitely a "Murphys’ Law"movie. Anything bad that can happen to poor Sean Penn, will… Thismovie was first showed to me by an ex-boyfriend. He knew I was a moviebuff, I love Stanley Kubrick and Oliver Stone and John Waters, and hementioned the movie U-turn. I never had seen it. And now I am thankfulI dated that jerk because he turned me onto a great movie. This is howJ.Ho, i mean, J.Lo should be. This was her before the many marriagesand media frenzy. If you have not seen this movie, check it out. Trustme, it’s worth it! My favorite person in this movie is Billy bob… butyou have to look out for him in this. They do some great makeup onhim… Enjoy, I did!

I thought this movie was a blast to watch!! Strange, twisted, yes, butwell-written, hilarious ending, superb acting, star-studded cast…andall-around hilarious irony!!

what do you get when you put together a great story, a great director, greatactors and a perfect setting? Right, U turn (maybe the title refers to allthe plot twists). I loved it from beginning to end, and I was especiallysurprised by Claire Danes. I thought she was a lousy actress (ever watched"Romeo+Juliet"? Yuk) but here she did a great job, although her role wasvery small. I also liked the camera close-ups used, I had never seenanything like it and it gives you a total new look on what can be done inthe world of movies. Sean Penn is great ; everybody thinks Jennifer Lopez isterrific, I think she has got a lot to learn, here she’s very mediocre ;Nick Nolte is just the finishing touch. Go see it, now!

Sean Penn starts off in character as the typical jerk he is wont to portray,but his acting skills are so good that as the character develops, you becomemore and more sympathetic. By the end, you are standing up and rooting forhim. Penn gets great support in the efforts of Nick
Nolte and Billy BobThornton, but I was disappointed a bit by Jennifer Lopez’s acting (butcertainly not by her looks!).

The only real negative is Stone’s distracting use of MTV-like editing andcamera cutaways (which, thankfully, are not nearly as over-used as in hisdisaster, NATURAL BORN KILLERS).

Having enveloped himself with American history in ‘Nixon’, it’s no surprisethat Oliver Stone wanted something a little lighterfor his next project. The plot and screenplay are adapted from John Ridley’snovel by the author himself, and Oliver Stone uses his camera playfullyover incredible acting by people like Sean Penn and Nick Nolte.Similarities can be drawn between this film and John Dahl’s ‘Red rock west’,but that is strictly in the plot, and you shouldn’t see this film for thestory anyway. Watch it for another example of Oliver Stone’s magnificentdirection, to see how he uses the screen as a canvas with such distinctionthat I’d actually suggest coining the word ’stonesque’.

This could have been an excellent movie, if it had been directed by someoneother than Oliver Stone. It’s really much more of a dark comedy than adrama. It’s the story of Sean Penn’s really bad day. Penn, Nick Nolte, andJennifer Lopez turn in good performances. In fact, the whole cast was verygood, with the exception of Billy Bob Thornton playing way over the top.However, I’m sure that that’s what Stone asked for. To me, a movie iswell-directed if I never give a thought to the director. Stone is apparentlyso full of himself these days that he feels the need to force you to noticehim. The entire film was filled to the brim with irritating director tricks.Stone has, in the past, allowed good actors with a good script to simplypresent a compelling story, e.g. Wall Street, Platoon. This film is full ofthe sort of director megalomania that ruined Natural Born Killers. (Althoughnot quite as badly. How could it?)

I enjoyed it but I feel the ending was just too much of adrag.Sean Penn really was not a bad guy, only a guy driven to insanity by andinsane small town in Arizona. I sat rivetedand was constantly being bombarded by rights and lefts and intermediatejabsfrom the plot. I just could not predict ANYTHING. Yes, ‘Red Rock West’ wasthe forerunner and was superior, but that plot still is untiring. I lookforward toanother Stone adventure. He is so unpredictable.

read comments (0)

The Pest

I find this movie very funny. But I’m also in Highschool. We recentlyread a story called. "The most dangerous game" I find that this storyresembles the story. Where an eccentric millionaire who has his ownlittle private island hunts down humans since animals aren’t achallenge anymore. This is a good movie to watch if you want a goodlaugh. John is a great comedy actor. I would watch this movie once ayear, but I wouldn’t say it’s one of my favorites. If you want to seeJohn in a more serious role. You can try Romeo+Juliet (1996) version.Most of the other actors in this movie I haven’t seen in other roles. Iwouldn’t be able to recommend anything else.

This is a terrible movie, don’t waste your money on it. Don’t even watch it for free. That’s all I have to say.

This was playing at the local movie theater I worked at about three yearsago. During our lunch, we were (ahem) "allowed" to watch the movie. Afterten minutes of "The Pest", I decided I’d rather go back to work. Noredeeming qualities whatsoever, and stupid, insulting humor not worthy ofAndrew Dice Clay, let alone John Leguazamo. His role as Luigi in "SuperMario Bros." had more dignity (and laughs) than this.

This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script(was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor.Justplain horrible.

I had seen ‘The Wishmaster’ a couple weeks before this movie and I thoughtit was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw ‘The Pest’and suddenly ‘The Wishmaster’ didn’t seem so bad at all.

Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.

Obviously, this one doesn’t aim for the brain : the so-called"humour" is based on farting and every cliché about any ethnicgenre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as theyare not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, JohnLeguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such aself-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point intrying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? "The Pest" of thetitle could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman’sfinest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused

The sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because ofJohn Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another secondrate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it.His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sellit.

I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on"House of Buggin’" (an "In Living Colour" clone), were his tip-top. Thereisa fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we’ll just say that Leguizamocrossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous andcrazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I’ll say that he tried too hard.Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can’tsay I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you’d try as hard ifyou could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr.Leguizamo…

The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the "racecard", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks,Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind areamong those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too muchtries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takesall of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.

When you have a film, and you’re going to bypass plot and reality forcomedy’s sake, just make sure it’s funny, or all you have is 90 minutes ofsenseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo’s "Pest" quitenicely…

I am almost tempted to demand my money back from the videostore.This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completelyunwatchable.I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thoroughwaste of celluloid.My vote 1/10 (it would have been zero).

What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawnwasthe worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types ofcomedyfrom stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is apiece of trash.

Ok, I’m normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a goodside to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is anexception.

I won’t waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along thelines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all ofthem and you won’t be far off.

The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racismthat was evident throughout. The general theme of latino/black guys = cool,white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but whenthe same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration bythe way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.

I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamofor this film. I had almost given up hope when the ‘My VH1 Awards’ werescreened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rarefeat of a comedian bombing on stage. You’d have to be a complete sadist tolaugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Small time con artist Pest is into the Scottish mob for $50K. When a caseof mistaken identity leads me into the employment of German hunter Gustav heis offered a simple proposition – be hunted for 24 hours. If he lives hegets $50K, if he loses he will be beheaded and mounted on Gustav’s wall as atrophy of the Latino race.

This film is about 80 minutes long but you don’t need to watch that long tofind out if you’ll like it or not. In the opening credit sequence Pestdances , sings and does impersonations in the shower – if you laugh oncethen this film is aimed at your mentality, if you hate it then you’ll hatethe film. I hated it…..

I thought this would be funny. I didn’t realise that it would be a cartoonOTT film that tries for laughs by putting lots of `wacky’ sound effects inand filling the rest with crude fart jokes. The plot is a copy of HardTarget (not a great movie itself) however this made me realise how much Ienjoyed Woo’s first US film. The comedy is puerile and mostly comes fromthe mistaken belief that Leguizamo mugging and being `wacky’ is hilarious initself.

I didn’t think I’d ever see Leguizamo give a worse performance than he doesin Spawn – however here it is. He simply overacts the whole waythrough……and expects this to be enough to carry the film. From the openingcredit scene (the shower scene) to the end credits (the shower scenerepeated) this he is terrible – even if the material had been funny, hisperformance would have killed it. It’s even worse to see Jeffery Jones playa German with a terrible accent – he’s been in some good stuff and deservedbetter.

The film is offensive throughout. Not only is the idea that someone thoughtthis would do as my evenings entertainment insulting but most of the film istoo. Running across the whole film is a raft of racial stereotypes – allbases are covered, white, Latino, African, black, Jews, Germans. It’samazing that Leguizamo makes lazy comedy of such crass stereotypes – whatwas he thinking?

Overall this is one of the worst things I have ever seen – and I’ve neversaid that before in a review. If I had to list my 10 worst films, thiswould definitely be there. No laughs, no plot, no enjoyment and the mostirritating, childish and stupid performance ever from Leguizamo. Uttertrash.

read comments (0)

The Peacemaker

I’ve read quite a few comments on the movie, and I don’t understandwhat all the excitement is about.

The single word I can come up with is: CONTRIVED.

Some movies you "buy it", where the characters and plot are at least alittle believable, and some (like this one), you don’t! If a characterthat’s written like Kidman’s is a realistic portrayal of our governmentintelligence officials, then we’re all in trouble.

Clooney is the stereotypical, CIA-is-evil, U.S. is responsible for allthat is bad in the world, military hotshot. Not to many of our troopsfeel the way his character does. It’s very one-sided.

Chase scene towards the end where Clooney and Kidman ducked for coverin the alley, then sat there as the villain runs away (a good block orso, by the look of it) was completely unrealistic and ridiculous. It’sthose small things that add up to me not "buying it" in the end.

The opening sequence was brilliant, I’ll give it that.

The score was obnoxious and misplaced, like it wasn’t even for thismovie but they decided to use it.

Wouldn’t want to watch it again.

Egads! Putrid.

Mimi Leder fails to translate to cinema with this hog. After thiscompletely useless exercise in banality, she needs to be excommunicated tothe Land of Lifetime Movies for Women. It plays like a bad Roger MooreBond- without the campy fun (the, sometimes, only saving grace of his lesserefforts - see "Live & Let Die"). Played with a strained straight face tothe hilt, long after you’ve stopped caring (I eventually tried to take anapin the theater on its opening day!).

Two things: this is when I decided that Clooney apparently only has onerolein him, and since this was released he’s done nothing to prove me wrong.He’s ‘Ross’ in every damn movie he’s ever been in, even the stupid vampireflick. Also, I AM SICK OF MODERN SCREENPLAYS USING COMPUTERS IN THE PLOTLIKE A PAIR OF CRUTCHES. In films like this one, it is inherent that atsome point (or at many), characters will sit at a keyboard and make thatterrible key-clicking noise for five minutes while they come to somerevelation. Brings the movie to a screeching halt like a pointless sexscene.

I can’t (and won’t) begin to list the cliches that have piled up in thisthing. If I hadn’t been in the Navy at the time of this film’s releasedate, and completely sick of the endless shipboard re-runs of movies like"Dumb & Dumber" and "Turbulence," I would never have laid down the $4.50fora 10 am screening in good ol’ Sand Dog.

I could have put that dough to good use.

Peace.

Hard to imagine how so many stereotypes gathered in the same script.Feminism vs. machoism, ethnic terrorism, post-cold war but stillfull-of-uniforms Russia, military force can solve all, etc… All seemsincredible in this action script, excepting of course the idea of amega-terror act in Manhattan, which now looks like kind of a pre-monition(the movie was released in 1997).

This is a disappointing thriller movie. The action and good acting of GerogeClooney cannot compensate for the flawed script. Nicole Kidman ismis-casted, she looks too young, too beautiful and (sorry!) not enough smartfor the role. The rest of the characters are an amalgam of different nationsterrorists and spies, the mix does not make much more sense than the rest.

It’s easy summer entertainment, but not above the average and probably belowthe level some of this summer’s releases.

For those who think Nicole KIdman never made a bad movie must watch this. Infact, you are wondering how director Mimi Leder got two actors like Kidmanand George Clooney for such a movie! Okay in the case for Clooney he was intouch with Leder as she has directed some episodes from ER. "The peacemaker"(the title alone let me puke) brings two nuclear experts (guess who theyare!) to Bosnia and Russia to stop some corrupt colonel who wants to tradesome nuclear weapons to Iran, and later as you will see one bomb goesdirection…New York…not that far away from the WTC.(not that you canaccuse them of being cheap as this film was made years before 11thSeptember). This movie has some very weak points that spoils everything…the first 30minutes in Russian were a typical cliché like you only could have found inold cold war movies (and was it really necessary to seek the most poorlooking place in Russia?) and secondly this movie tried to be hard to be aJames Bondmovie (without the same budget or actor cos after all Clooney isjust Clooney). The scene with the bulletproof Mercedes were ace andsometimes Kidman tries to lift up the film but in general this movie wasvery poor.

This is an underrated summer blockbuster. The plot rattles along itspredictable rails at such a pace that you may find your disbelief leftsomewhere down the track by the time the credits start to roll.

Nicole Kidman and George Clooney put in a businesslike "Odd Couple"performance as the Suit and Loose Cannon and they are well backed up bythe rest of the cast. The stand-out performance comes from Romanianactor Marcel Iures as a revenge-obsessed Bosnian suicide bomber. Iuresis very effective at showing his character's grief and steelydetermination. The rest of the cast do things pretty much by thenumbers, so it sometimes feels like Iures has walked in from adifferent film.

Now the downside. Iures's character blames the USA for providingweapons to the warring states of the Former Yugoslav Republic, which iswhy he wants to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. But hang on, theSerbs, Bosnians and Croats got their supplies from Yugoslav Armystockpiles which were made in various Soviet states.

The movie therefore makes an unfounded criticism of American foreignpolicy, as well as portraying US troops (on an incursion into RussianFederation territory to capture stolen nuclear warheads) as the World'sPolice. No one in the film seems to give a damn about the supposedsupply of weapons to the genocidal butchers of the FYR, but the idea ofnuclear weapons being driven into Iran on a truck has everyone jumpinginto helicopters, dying heroically etc etc. The motive for the bombattack on New York is sidelined until it is merely an excuse for Kidmanand Clooney to jump on a plane and fly back to save the USA.

The climactic scenes, where Kidman and Clooney have to try and disablethe dirty bomb in a New York church, are pretty laughable. I'm nophysics expert but I'm pretty sure that exploding a nuclear triggerwon't wipe out 10 city blocks. It will spread deadly plutonium dustover a wide area but it won't be a nuclear explosion. Therefore thefilm ends on a bum note.

If you can suspend disbelief for a couple of hours and be swept alongby the great action sequences, "The Peacemaker" is good entertainment.If you tend to analyse as you watch, you may wish to give it a miss.

Kidmans acting in this movie is deplorable. The scriptwriters and thedirector should take some of the blame however as mostly her characterwas a waste of space and unrealistically involved in the action.firstly she was at least 20 years too young for the part and secondlyas a supposed expert she didn't seem to know a heck of a lot, thirdlydespite the ridiculousness of some of her lines she delivered them withno conviction or believability whatsoever. The story itself wasentertaining and Clooney does a good job playing the cool strong manbut the character Kidman played became overly involved in situationswhere her character had no place being and it removed all credibilityfrom the whole movie. what could have and should have been a very goodmovie turned out to be an annoying failure. i have given it 4 pointsfor the story but 0 points for Kidman and she was damn lucky this didnot resign her to the scrap heap of bit parts and an extra

Yet another All Americ
an World Saving film. Not only is 90% of thisfilm predictable with renegade terrorists not sticking to plans,ex-regime Generals looking to give the finger to Democracy and only oneman (and woman in a bathing suit) can stop them as usual with an arrayof unorthodox tactics.

From the outset the film lacked a convincing story which seemed tofollow a formula. Take "Broken Arrow" for example, its basically thesame except no Stealth Bombers.

If you want to watch a film with some substance then this is definitelynot the film for you, if anything it will just anger you with theamount of rubbish that is being displayed.

On the other hand Hanz Zimmer's soundtrack is very gripping andstirring, especially the mens choir work, very nice indeed.

I sat down expecting a pretty boring movie with crummy acting and a stupidplot. What I got was a half-way decent movie, decent acting, and plot wehave seen before.The movie is nothing to get overly excited about. George Clooney, as TomDeVoe, somewhat redeems himself after his last few fiascos. Theplotlacks originality. How many times do we need to see:’terrorists’ take control of nuclear weapons & threaten tousethem, wealthy fiancier makes demands, Innocent people get killed toemphasize demands, this plot has been overplayed. Something new please.Overall, The Peacemaker is an entertaining movie, but I would only give it*** out of *****.

First of all I liked the movie. Very entertaining, nice actors. Too bad thatArmin Müller-Stahl dies so early.B-U-T !!!There are a few things which might be over the top:What about the action sequence in Vienna. They ruin the whole inner city forhalf an hour with their cars and not a single cop shows up? Give me a break.

This is not a little continuity mistake in the movie. As an audience, I feelinsulted. Somehow this seems to be a trend. (i.e. Lethal Weapon 4, tonsof that careless action). I mean action is nice and entertaining, but itshould make a little sense.Another one:Near the end of the Manhattan chase when they have the shooting in thealley. Clooney and Kidman just jump to cover when the bad guy shoots backafter the other one gets hit. Cut. Both bad guys can escape (one badlywounded). Cut - Clooney and Kidman running to chase the two guys. Did I misssomething. How long does it take to crawl out of their cover. Did they stopat the Starbucks inbetween?Also, keep the make-up artist under control - please. If Clooney has ableeding wound on the side of his face and two minutes later you see him ina close-up with nice make-up and foundation. No-Way.

I don’t trash action movies, I like them, but don’t treat me as a dumbaudience. With budgets up to $100 Mio you can’t affort to besloppy.

There are so many loose ends (unbelievable situations) you could

fit a peacemaker in them. Fairly good acting and plenty of

action, but I just couldn’t believe most of it–I can suspend my

disbelief as long as the next person, but when you come to the

end of this film and realize that you are not going to get

anything in return, it leaves a pretty dry taste in your mouth.

What are the ingredients for that peacemaker drink?

read comments (0)