The Replacement Killers

Yun-Fat Chow ( John Lee) and Mira Sorvino(MegCoburn)(Paul Sorvino’s daughter and former star of "The Guiding Light TVSeries ‘52) burned up and exploded the entire film without even taking offtheir clothes. The photography was fantastic, showing scenes of Chineseculture in San Francisco’s Chinatown along with a boat ride down SanFranciso’s Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge and the container shipyards. Meg Coburn had her phony passport business blown away and her skirt seemedto get shorter and shorter in each scene. There was a great scene in a CarWash with all the brushes spinning and plenty of bullets flying all over theplace. This is a NO STOP ACTION FILM, which is just what you are going tosee, there really is no room to be critical about this film, just sit backand try to keep up with all the action if you can!

…. Though I guess that really shouldn`t be taken as a terrible criticism .After all John Woo appears in the credits as executive producer so you knowwhat to expect , you know that the man walking through the disco floor inthe opening sequence is going to get into a shoot out and you know what typeof shoot out he`s going to get involved with . That`s right one of thoseshoot outs where he flings his coat off , turns 360 degrees fires his gun ina ridiculously held manner , throws it away ( Even though there`s no wayhe`s used up all the rounds ) pulls out another gun and kills even more badguys

As I said it`s not really a criticism but like a Jerry Bruckheimerproduction I do get bored with these type of balletic choreography actionscenes rather quickly . Impressive first few times you see them , boring bythe time you get to the millionith time , and as you can imagine everythingis style over substance with people running around in slo-mo dodging bulletsthat seem to explode with everything they come into contact with

I will give the producers some credit for making a serious revenge flickthat tries to paint the characters as something more than just onedimensional cyphers , but like I said I`ve seen too many of these type ofaction sequences to still be impressed by them

Now I’ve seen some of Chow Yun-Fat’s Hong Kongese movies and I canunderstand why he’s so popular there. Some of his movies are really good.BUT this. What the heck was this movie anyways. The worst movie I ever sawin my life. It had no plot, no real story, just something even I couldhavemade up in 5 minutes, no good action , no acting, NOTHING. It sucked. Ifyoulike PURE action and nothing else. And I mean ‘nothing else’ then watchthis.But let me warn you. I’m very tolerant with movies. I love many actionmovies with no meaning at all, but this movie sucked too much. And theaction scenes also sucked. IT SUCKS.

The Replacement Killers is an average action movie. I happened to like it alot, but upon reflection, it is not the movie, but the stars, Chow Yun-Fatand Mira Sorvino, that make this movie so likeable. Sorvino is a highercalibre actress than most action films can boast. She is an oscar winner fora reason.

But Chow Yun-Fat!! I know that he has better films to his credit, but thiswas my first time to watch him and I watched this film three times,virtually back to back. He is the epitome of cool. I will see his otherfilms (John Woo’s "The Killer" is next on my list), but if nothing else, TheReplacement Killers has introduced Chow to moviegoers, like myself, thathave yet to see him act. I have a new film idol. And he is cool.

Lousy, worthless, dull, stupid, meaningless, insipid, weak, childish,wasted…. there are many ways to label this movie. But the most importantone is: meaningless. This film has absolutely no point whatsoever - at leastnot an intelligible one. I feel like I’ve seen most of the action a milliontimes, there is NOTHING special about it, and there are lots of films wherethe action is a hell of a lot niftier and cooler. And with that said, thisfilm becomes really, really, really bad.

It wouldn’t have gained publicity at all if there weren’t the possibility toslap a "John Woo"-label on it, and the lengths one has to go to, to actuallysee anything worthwhile in this film makes one wonder: is there a specialplace some movie directors go as pilgrims to learn How To Make John WooFlicks or is this just another piece of trash that should’ve stayed onpaper? If this Woo-school really is, well then this film sure is afreshman’s job.

When the baddest of the bad guy’s bad guys can’t kill the good guy, theycall in the "replacement killers" which makes them even badder. Of course,the hero then proceeds to "take out" the "replacement killers" and presto;he’s now the baddest dude on the planet. In "The Replacement Killers", Chow,the hero, teams up with Sorvino to take on a few regiments of assortedpock-marked faced villains in a series of fire fights with pauses in betweenwhere the meager story telling happens. Stylish, slick, and packing a magnumwallop, what this flick lacks in story it makes up for in spent brass andhot lead. A good action watch but don’t expect any major stunts,pyrotechnics, vehicle chases, sex or nudity.

When police officer Zedkov kills the son of Chinese crime lord Terence Weihe becomes a target of professional hitman John Lee. However when facedwith having to kill Zedkov’s seven year old son, Lee backs out and preparesto flee the wrath of Wei. Going to Meg Coburn for a passport is the settingfor an ambush where Lee and Meg escape together, both targets of Wei’s associates. The stakes are upped when replacement hitmen are brought in tokill Meg, Zedkov’s son and Lee.

Already a global star due to the iconic films and choreographed violence ofJohn Woo films, Chow Yun Fat came to America, had English lessons and wasput in a film that copies the formulae that had made him a huge success. The plot here is similar to that of The Killer, in that a hitman is crossedby his employers with the end result being gun fights a plenty. However thethemes running through that film are absent here and noise and actionreplaces them. That doesn’t mean that the film isn’t good, but rather thanbe different it feels like an average retread of the Hong Kongformula.

The action scenes are good without being great, lacking the flair of his HKwork. Partly this can be put at Fuqua’s door. Even with Woo as executiveproducer Fuqua can match the master for this sort of stuff. They areexciting but where in the same way that Woo’s first US film (Hard Target)felt like it was watered down, so too does this film feel like HK actiondone for a teenage American audience.

Fat is an excellent actor of great range but this film seems scared to havehim do anything beyond diving around with guns. His English dialogue islimited to a few lines at a time and any more detailed scenes are carried insubtitles. However in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Fat could not speakmandarin and had to learn his lines phonetically – he can speak English hereso why not trust him enough to speak it. Sorvino is OK but her character isa little bit of a cliché and is a tough chick side kick at best. Rooker isalright but lacks screen time or a character to speak of. Likewise Prochnowis just a bad guy sidekick with little to do.

In HK Fat had great roles in ultra-stylish violent ballets with Woo. In hisfirst American film he has a standard American actioner which owes a lot toHK but never reaches the impact of those films at their best. Worst thanthat he is not allowed to act beyond limited dialogue and gun play. Is thisfilm bad? No, it is just quite average for anyone who has seen any of theWoo/Fat collaborations from HK although for an American action film this ispretty good value for 85 minutes.

Chow Yun-Fat stars as John Lee an assassin who bulks at killing a kid for amobster (Kenneth Tsang) who becomes
a target when the replacement killerscome to finish his job, he teams up with a forger Meg Coburn (Mira Sorvino)while they run for their lives in this sub par and empty actioner. I guessmy mistake was expecting much more from CYF’s American debut, because Don"The Dragon" Wilson could star in the movie in CYF’s part, and the moviewould have turned out the same. Too much style and not enough substance makeThe Replacement Killers a movie better left replaced.

The Replacement Killers is as mindless, senseless, tasteless, worthless amovie as you will ever watch on the big screen. It consists essentially ofone huge shoot-out which is interrupted a couple of times in order to givethe characters the opportunity to walk from one building to the next or toexchange a few comments on the last shoot-out or the one that’s going totake place within a couple of minutes. If you love the sound of machineguns, this is definitely your movie. If not, beware!

This movie has almost no plot, and so it relies on an almost endless seriesof shootouts to make up its hour and a half length. Don’t get me wrong, Ilike a good action shooter film, but this just isn’t one of them. Thetrailers for the film touted Academy Award winner Sorvino, but her actingcontribution is non-existent. This one isn’t even worth arental.

read comments (0)

The Rugrats Movie

Why did they have to do this? The Rugrats show is past it’s prime and themovie is pushing the popularity to the limit. The movie itself was prettysub-par to my taste. The characters were thin as a biscuit and the idea ofa movie is horrible, and the stupid song scenarios are indescribable horror. The humor is crude, c’mon babies urinate and make a rainbow, and I thoughtwatching Big Daddy was horrible seeing a man and a child urinate together. This movie does nothing but to further the lifetime of a TV show that’s pastit’s prime. It should end at the new millenium. Trustme…

THIS MOVIE WAS DISGUSTING. THE BABIES TALK ABOUT GOING TO THE BAThROOM ANDHAS UNPLEASANT scenes of a baby urinating everywhere. horrendous. It wasalso ludicrously unbelievable: babies drive away in a mechanical cart getlost in a forest, get attacked by psychotic russian circus monkeys, crossariver, and they can’t even talk(to adults). Somehow, they manage tosurvive.The babies’ voices are irritating, the show which i have seen a few timeshas no annoying dialogue. but hey the movie got nick a load ofmoney

Don’t ask me why I ever went to see this movie. Stupid me, stupid me,STUPID ME!

I can’t stand watching this movie, less so the TV series. I think a tenyear old can draw better than the animators of this film. There are somereally dumb points in this show (SPOILERS!). First of all, how likely is itthat the grandpa falls asleep and the movers just take a package therewithout his consent? They just say ‘have a nice day’ (in court if I catchyou). And that dragon mobile thing is not a three year olds toy! Hello, weare talking about mechanics here that can cut fingers off. Of course, anydiehard Rugrats fan can guess what the ending is. BORING! I’ll maybe giveit one star for the fact the younger audience liked it (toddlers maybe,thats it though).

The sequel is just as awful as this one. There are better things to watchthan this.

The series is mediocre at best, but this movie is pretty decent andentertaining. The plot was pretty good and it didn't seem like the TVshow now that they reached the big screen. The plot was pretty good,and the idea of babies getting lost in the woods, that's just a verygood idea unlike the mediocre episodes of the series.

The adults were pretty smart in the movie in trying to rescue the kids.Some okay CGI here and there, and the scene where they tear through thesuburban with a vehicle Reptar.

Overall, it's a decent movie that kids can enjoy and adults can watchit with them. A 7.2 out of 10.

"Rugrats", a Nickelodeon show which ran from 1991-2004, is said tocurrently be the second longest running cartoon series in televisionhistory, with only "The Simpsons" ahead of it. Personally, I can recallwatching some episodes of the show when I was around ten years old (theshow had been running for a few years by then), and never exactly gothooked, but I think I found it mildly amusing at the time. It has beena long time since then, but I recently watched "The Rugrats Movie".Knowing it was more for kids, I wasn't expecting to like it a lot, butthought I might still get SOMETHING out of it, which didn't happen.

Tommy's life changes when he gets a new baby brother named Dil. Afterthe birth of his new sibling, Tommy finds that he isn't getting verymuch attention anymore, has more responsibility, and Dil seems to bespoiling his fun. Stu has recently invented a small vehicle called the"Reptar Wagon." The Rugrats gang believe that Dil should be taken backto the hospital, so they manage to sneak out of the house and set outon a trip in the Reptar Wagon, taking Dil with them. However, while onthe trip, the toddlers don't make it to their destination. Instead,they find themselves lost in the forest with Tommy's newborn brother,where danger awaits them!

Since I didn't watch the TV show a lot during my childhood, I barelybecame familiar with the characters, and when I watched this movie, Icouldn't remember any of their names. Consequently, around thebeginning, I found the movie a tad hard to follow. (Anyone else who isnot that familiar with the show but is planning to watch this movie, Ifeel I should warn you about that.) In addition to that, I found thestory very boring, and a couple gags early on in film may have made mesmile or snicker, but for the rest of it, I didn't find any of the gagsthe least bit amusing. I may have even found some of the excretion gagssomewhat annoying. I'm not even sure if my 4/10 rating is enough totell you how much I disliked this movie. However, I'm sure I would havethought differently of "The Rugrats Movie" many years ago.

Now, obviously not EVERYONE whose childhood has passed them by wouldthink the same of this movie as I did. I suppose you could find SOMEfun in it. However, it's certainly not for just anyone who likesanimated family movies. While it may not be strictly for kids, itdefinitely has more for them than it does for anybody else. Regardlessof your age, it also might help if you're a big fan of the TV show,which means you're familiar with the main characters and their traits.However, it appears that even some fans of the show have beendisappointed by this movie, so even being a fan doesn't guarantee thatyou would like it, though it's probably worth a try. I wouldn't expectthis movie to be a family masterpiece, but I'm sure many kids wouldlike it, and probably certain people in other age groups as well, eventhough it didn't do anything for me.

I believe in walking into every movie open minded. I always try my hardestto review a film that I gave the benefit of a doubt to. After all, wouldit be fair to allow my expectations to take over my personal liking of amovie? I don’t think so. But is it really fair to expect a person like mewalk into a sell out performance in which every one of the boaster seatsoutside the doors are occupied somewhere in the theater, which is ninetypercent engrossed with crying babies, whining children, screaming juvenilesand restless kids, and think for one minute I am not going to massacre thisfilm to no end in my review? No, there isn’t any thinking to the question.Sitting though "The Rugrats Movie" was like being trapped in a little dungeonin middle of an infant nursery. I was thinking to myself "HELP ME, PLEASE."

The movie is based on the Nickelodeon television series called The Rugrats,aimed at very small children. The program, which I have viewed manyunfortunate times, isn’t my favorite, to say the least. What it does is takea pile of elements that regard pre-schoolers and younger children, presentsthem on the screen and expects people to care about a bunch of one-year-oldsdoing baby things. For example, I once saw an episode where the "Rugrats"had to find their pacifier. Another where they experience potty trainingfor the very first time. Are you starting to see where I’m coming from. Noone cares about what’s it happening to the profoundly annoying characters;the Rugrats.

The movie, which certainly has the same quality as a fifteen minutetelevision program, not surprisingly details the lives of five babies,Tommy, Phil, Angelica, Chuckie, Will and a brand new addition to the family,Dill. They live in a small standardized town with standardized parents and astandardized dog.

One day, under the supervision of their sleeping grandfather, they decide togo on an adventure in the wilderness, which causes a bunch of boring andliterally agonizing commotion that lasts and lasts and lasts…for over 80minutes.

As bad as the story, characters and interest were in this movie, themusicals were ten times as bad. They spoofed the light rock song "One Way orAnother," funk and rap melodies. The new born babies at a nursery sing, theRugrats sing, monkeys sing, all in an a
rray tormenting sequences that,literally, forced me to walk out and take a long visit to the bathroom.

I want to end my review by telling you that "The Rugrats Movie" is a verybad movie. Not that I have anything personal against the Rugrats themselves,but I know something depressing when I see it. I walked in to the theaterwith a frown on my face. I walked out in a madder of joy. Not because Ienjoyed the movie, but because it was finally over with.

Seeing as this was a Klasky/Csupo production, I was hoping to see acartoonreminiscent of the Duckman TV series also produced by Klasky/Csupo. Alas,this Rugrats dribble is a far cry from the comic genius of Duckman.

To think anyone would subject their children to this sort of nonsense isbeyond me. Cartoons are supposed to be funny and provocative, not justso-soanimation in vivid colour or a plot that never goes beyond a really badlywritten episode of Lassie.

I remember when the rugrats movie came out in 1998, i went to see this filmat the cinemas and i thought it was brillant, it made me laugh, it was fullof excitement, full of Laughter, full of hunor and full of fun, i liked thenew arrival character, DIL, he made me laugh when he said the word poopingand then he trumped, that made me laugh alot

Why do filmmakers find it necessary to try to turn cartoons into musicals?I found the many star-studded music numbers irritating, and a poor attemptto appear "cool" to the adult viewers. The entire plot element of thetrain-wrecked monkeys added nothing to the film, and seemed senseless. My 7year old son enjoyed it except for the singing. The TV show isbetter.

Rugrats movie is an excellent addition to the animated series. Unlike othersuch attempts such as the Teenage Mutant Turtles. This movies seems to keepthe atmosphere of a cartoon episode, but in an extended form. It also keepsthe excellent point of view from the toddler’s side of life. Overall it is agreat movie. If you enjoyed the animated series, go see itnow.

read comments (0)

The Thin Red Line

Less than five minutes in and this film had disappeared entirely up itsown a**hole. I've never seen a more pretentious, indirect attempt atmaking something seem so much more important than it actually was. Whenyou boil it down, the movie was merely trying to say what a thousandother movies have said - war is bad. The problem is that the movie goesabout saying it in these smug, overblown, misguided little verbalvignettes that sounded more like Gomer Pyle deconstructing Nietzschewith a butter churn than the profound statements the conceited writersof this film tried to make them out to be. These simple soldiers wouldhave conveyed much more emotion by just saying things directly like menof this caliber would say in real life - ironically much like thedirect route they were ordered to take up that first hill on theisland.

Don't even get me started on the "performances". So many of my favoriteactors here, thrown away and reduced in a pathetic sea of stilteddialogue and hackneyed action scenes. They make attempt aftervainglorious attempt to make you feel empathy for these characterswithout actually laying any of the groundwork to justify it. The moviewas chaos. It tried to "firework" into all these little sub-storiesheld together by a common, overriding theme yet only attempted tosupport that huge endeavor by randomly injecting celebrity rolesinstead of concentrating on a solid story that actually builds uponitself and makes the viewer emotionally attached to at least ONEcharacter. Abandoned story leads, no quantifiable discernment ofnarrative along with random scenes with clearly different filmedelements made it even more patchwork.

If you enjoyed this movie I truly feel sorry for the people in yoursocial circle.

I think it is ok to compare this film with Saving Private Ryan, or with anyother film for that matter. Together they show something about war but evenmore about typical, grand Hollywood productions. Where Spr tries to tacklethe visual side of ww2, Trl goes for the more thoughtfull aspects. I feltthat Trl was better of these two large, war spectacles that in my opinionshould have done more in order to achieve any kind of place as classics inthe more intellectually enlightened world of today.

With Trl I occasionally felt that Malick would have done right if he had nottried to tackle all the characters from the novel, sometimes it is not theright way to go. The film could not ultimately take the story and the themefar enough to make me genuinely appreciate it. If there was a lot of footageshot that did not make the film it would be nice to see it included in adirectors cut or a tv version, I’m sure that would give a more fullerpicture.

Right then let me first start by saying, all of those people who think thatSaving Private Ryan is the best war film of recent years should eithera)take another look at this or b)stop following the hype. The reason thatSaving Private Ryan is rated higher than the Thin Red Line was that it wasreleased earlier. However for pure brilliance nothing can touch the Thin RedLine. The cinematography is some of the best ever and the story line isimpeccable. Looking at the trials of a few men in a platoon and seeing howthey get through the horrors of war, as the tag line says ‘every man fightshis own war’.

Also unlike Saving Private Ryan the Thin Red Line does not need to rely onthe shock factor (e.g. people getting bullits through the head in all itsbloody detail). I’m not saying that Saving Private Ryan doesn’t have a moralto it (war isn’t fun) but it goes a little over the top at some stages. TheThin Red Line has the gore but uses it to maximum effect, and only whenabsolutely necessary. Finally one other point to make is the acting, for anon starring cast in the lead roles I don’t think I have seen muchbetter.

The Thin Red Line had all the ingredients to be the BEST movie-no not bestWAR movie, but best MOVIE of all time PERIOD. BUT, the creators of thismovie committed a fatal error…the very error that is committed at leastonceevery year in some movie. That error is the mistake of focusing the movieonsymbolism rather than focusing it on plot or substance.

It’s too bad, as this movie contain exceptional cinematography, and awholeslew of capable actors. But too many scenes of someone looking at a birdflying overhead and other "movie cliches" make this movie seem a littlelonger than it really is. Again, it’s really too bad. A little less onsymbolism and a little more focus on an actual storyline (which this moviedoesn’t even have), i give this a 9 or 10. I gave it an 8, and that isonlybecause the potential was there. But because in all honesty the moviebeginsto stumble onto a path already well-traveled by previous war flicks, itonlyreally deserves a 7.

"The Thin Red Line" is a philosophical look at the horrors of war. Itrevolves around the men of Charlie Company who are assaulting the island ofGuadalcanal in the South Pacific. Although it could be argued that thetitle "The Thin Red Line" refers to the front line of war, I find it easierto believe that it refers to the line between sanity and insanity, as JimCaviezel (Pvt. Witt) has pointed out in an interview.

A quick overview of my opinions on this movie: I consider it to be in theTop 10 movies of all time, for my money at least. It is a deeplyphilosophical movie, depicting both the horrors of war and the beauty oflife. It has the ability to mesmerize you with the splendor of nature, andin the same instant disgust you with the terrors of man. This movie givesyou a deeply personal look inside the minds of the soldiers and we feel asone with them as we walk the thin red line. I hope to attempt to analyzeall aspects of the movie that I can in a relatively shortpiece.

Lets start by meeting some of the main characters of Charlie Company. Wehave Pvt. Witt, Sgt. Welsh, Cpt. Staros, Pvt. Bell, Pvt. Doll, and Col.Tall. These are just some of the men we meet in the movie, but I amfocusing on them because we get a deep look inside their experience withGuadalcanal.

Each man seems to have his own way to escape the war: Pvt. Witt literallyescapes to a Melanesian Island when he goes AWOL, and finds the love offamily and the serenity of true peace there. Pvt. Bell escapes with thememory of his wife, with her love. Cpt. Staros escapes the horrors of thewar through his love for his men, which he considers to be his sons. Pvt.Doll, who seems to almost be our narrator, escapes into his own mind, as hepoetically looks at the good and evil of the war and tries to resolve itdeep inside himself. Col. Tall escapes by focusing on his career and allthat his family and his men have sacrificed at his orders.

The audio and the visual aspects of this movie are absolutely stunning. Thecolors are vibrant and sharp, the music soft and melodic. During thebattles the skies are bright blues, the grass is green, the sun seems tomelt across the landscape like a warm wave. However, the soldiers, theirgear, and everything unnatural and part of the war is in muted browns andblacks, no color their. Almost as if these monochromatic men were nothingmore than chess pieces, and they obviously do not belong on this beautifulboard. We also noticed that the Japanese soldiers, too, have no color tothem. They appear almost no differently than the Americansoldiers.

The musical soundtrack to this movie reflects this as well. It is almost asif the music is the exact opposite of the scene: during a tense, horrificbattle we hear the soft, beautiful melodies of strings serenading us in thebackground. The beautiful music carries a lilting, mournful tone, as if toboth decry and mourn the horror that is going on around it. The starkcontrast between the beauty of the music and scenery and the ugliness of thewar leave us feeling even more disjointed and askew withreality.

As we proceed through the film, we are put in the posit
ion of an anonymoussoldier who is along with the rest of the men. The camera tracks low on thegrass as we crawl, jumps erratically as we run, and pauses to look at thesunlight filtering through the canopy in a rare, unguarded moment of beauty.We feel one with the men and are treated to a rare look at their deepest,darkest and innermost thoughts.

As they wrestle with the philosophical and moral issues of what they aredoing, we hear it all. We are there when they realize with horror that theyare no different than the men they kill. We are there when they come to theunderstanding that with a roll of the dice it could have been them dead onthe ground or beginning for mercy. We learn through their eyes that thereare no winners in the war, that everyone is a victim.

As each of the men try to escape these horrors in their own way, we see thatall of the escapes revolve around love: for Staros, it is the love of hismen. For Witt it is the love of that other world he once saw. For Bell,the love of his wife. For Welsh, though, it is the love of the hope thatWitt carries within him. Welsh himself has been too jaded with the war tofeel the same things that Witt feels, so instead he escapes vicariouslythrough Witt, a man he almost treats as a brother.

In the end, however, we learn that the war takes all of their escapes:Witt’s Melanesian family turn on him in fear, Bell’s wife leaves him for anAirman. Staros is relieved of his command; Tall sacrifices the love andtrust of his men for his career. Doll never seems able to resolve his moralargument going on deep inside him. And Welsh loses his escape when Wittlost his.

In the end, Welsh realizes that to survive the war each man must findsomething that is his own and hold on to it. This may be the closest thingto an epiphany that this movie has. We learn through him that the thin redline between sanity and insanity is razor-sharp, and it may be impossible towalk it in war without falling off.

As the survivors of Charlie Company leave Guadalcanal they are treated oncemore to a view of its beauty. It’s as if everything they saw had beennothing more than a terrible dream to be forgotten and swallowed up in thebeauty of nature around them. But each man also leaves with somethingburied inside them that only they and we privileged few will everunderstand.

"The Thin Red Line" is a beautiful and deeply philosophical movie that pullsyou in and leaves you feeling lost at the end. If you are lucky, you comeout with a small understanding of the true cost of war. I highly recommendthat you watch it many times.

There is so much negativity towards this beautiful film that it makes mecringe. Released shortly after Spielberg’s "Saving Private Ryan," manypeople seemed to think that THE THIN RED LINE was a "ripoff" of theformer.Yeah, that’s something I really heard someone tell me. A ripoff. Eventhough the two were in production at the same time and dealt with totallydifferent topics (the only similarities being that they both were aboutsoldiers in World War II), people called The Thin Red Line a ripoff.Unbelievable.

And if it really is a ripoff (which it isn’t… I still laugh thinkingaboutreferring to it as that), what an incredible ripoff… I mustsay.

The people who didn’t like this movie didn’t like it because it wasingenious. It is based on an ingenious novel of the same title by JamesJones (which I have read, it’s fantastic), and of course it can’t comparetothe book, because few movies can. People have blasted Terrence Malick onhisadaptation, and while I admit many parts are different than the book, manyparts that should have been included were left out, and some were poorlyrecreated, the film on a whole is brilliant.

The World War II generation was not afraid to fight, is what I’ve read.Butthe World War II generation is not every single man… of course therewerethose who were afraid, those who didn’t want to fight. No matter how smallapercentage these kinds of men were (and I’m sure that what I’ve readdoesn’tlie, I’m sure it really was a small percentage) they did exist. And thisfilm shows it. There is Private Witt, who goes AWOL in order to avoidfighting. There is Corporal Fife, who’s so scared he can’t even standstill.There’s Private Doll, who’s eager to kill a "Jap" but when he finally doesbegins to regret killing a human being. There’s Private Bead, the youngguy,whose death is one of the most emotional in the entire film. There’sCaptainStaros (Stein in the book… I still can’t figure out why they changedthatfor the movie) who has become so close to his men that he is afraid tofollow any order that might get too many of them killed.

But then of course there’s those characters who remind us of what theotherkinds of men were like. There is Sergeant Welsh, who knows he’s got a jobtodo and does it without hesitation. There’s Lieutenant Colonel Fife, whoorders something and expects it to be followed no matter what. There’sCaptain Gaff, eager to fight but also concerned about the health of hismen.There’s Sergeant Storm, who stands in the middle of a field at nightscreaming, "Why don’t you shoot me? Come and get me!"

So many different characters, and while a lot of people think thevoiceoverswere lame and corny, I actually think they blended those characterstogethervery nicely. The battle scenes were well-paced and althought the movie wasslow at some points, I never found it to be boring. It was disappointinghowGeorge Clooney and John Travolta were advertised as main stars and eachwasin it for about thirty seconds.

I love this film. And the book.

THE THIN RED LINE - 10/10

The Thin Red Line is a war movie that would rather look at the effects ofwar in a philosophical sense and in an environmental sense. The film is farfrom perfect, but there is just so much greatness to the film, it’simpossible to ignore. Wonderful performances, gorgeous film, and thoughtprovoking. A good war film that can hold its own with manymovies.

Many believe the film is superior to Saving Private Ryan. I myself havealways like Ryan better, but I find Three Kings and Black Hawk Down to bothbe superior.

Yes, this is a very underrated film. In my opinion it is one of the bestwarmovies ever made. It is not only visually stunning, but soulful andmoving.This is not your average war movie. This film has a deeply emotionalundercurrent that many people did not pick up on. This film is not for themasses. But those of us who appreciate it know how great it reallyis.

I enjoyed this movie and later went back and read the book. The acting wasvery well done with a fine cast. What this movie conveys is the confusionand waste that is war. I saw this just before 9/11 and thought about themovie as the US forces went into action. In most cases the books are betterthan the movies but in this case I liked the movie better. 8 out of 10stars for me.

Terrence Mallick’s unconventional war film is at times almost too harrowingto watch - rarely can a film have more accurately depicted war as amechanism for taking live people and making dead ones. Mallick’s use ofmusic, imagery and voice-overs is hardly subtle, but the overall effect ishighly unusual, eschewing conventional narrative to concentrate instead onsome very un-Hollywood concerns - the futility of individual valour, and theimpossibility of even defining what makes a good man in situations such asthese. Well worth watching for all of us fortunate enough never to havebeen asked to fight for our countries.

read comments (0)

The Truman Show

Oh,come on!Take one of the greatest actors in the world, Create a crazystory,put ‘em all together & waddayagit? a very not funny,notunderstandable,& unentertaining film. This may be the worst movie I’ve everseen.Sure it’s got Jim Carrey in it,and it’s about a guy who finds out he’snothin’ but a TV show character, But I could bareley keep up with what wasgoin’ on!It was so uh, unenjoyable I left in the middle of it!Pleaseexplainwhy they created this garbage.Now I like fantasy movies(who dosen’t) andI’ma big fan of Jim Carrey,but this is an exception 2 both!Sheesh.

Truman is a truly Boring, Overrated, Pompous Movie that is not worth yourtime. People rate this high because they think we are supposed to. If wedon’t then we are not getting it’s point and we are lacking. Jim Carreydoes do a good job. However, Ed Harris’ character is ridiculous, He’s justnot believable. The main reason this movie fails is the storyline isridiculous; it’s just to far fetched. Society isn’t so cruel that we wouldallow let alone watch a show like Truman. Celebrity Boxing and SurvivorSure. But the premise for The Truman Show is Cruel the main character is nota voluntary participant. Basically he’s Innocent and being violated and weare supposed to think everyone thinks it’s ok.

The Truman Show wants to be taken seriously and thats not possible withthis weak, far-fetched story. The idea was good, but this movie stinks evenwith the talented actors starring in it.

I disliked the movie it wasn't an interesting movie i found it boringeven though Jim Carrey played the part well the movie was boring.

The main characters are Truman Burbank(Jim Carrey),Meryl Burbank(LauraLinely),Marlon(Noah Emmeron),Trumans father(Brian Delate),Trumansmother(Holland Taylor),Young Truman(Blair Slater).

I think the director was trying to get the idea across that you have toadventure to find out things about your self.I think that the film hasits funny moments but it is hard to put in a genre because it was aweird movie unlike nearly all of Jim Carreys other movies like The Maskand fun with Dick and Jane.

This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in a long time. Thelack of a storyline in the beginning and the slowness of the movie provideda very boring movie. By the time the storyline became evident, I wasfalling asleep and then had trouble keeping my eyes open for the remainderof the movie. I was told that the end of the movie was the best part.However, if you cannot get through the beginning, the movie is just notworth watching. Jim Carrey’s role was a good one, but it would have been abetter character if they had casted a more talented actor. I feel that themovie could have had great potential, but bombed out due to lack of actingand a weak storyline.

Jim Carrey plays Truman Burbank, a man who’s life has been watched by thepublic ever since he was born. His wife and friends are all actors. His homeis a studio. Cameras follow him around everywhere. All that and more, soeveryone can watch ‘his’ show The Truman Show. The only thing is, Trumanthinks he’s an ordinary guy and he doesn’t know anything about this. Untilone day, he finds out the truth about his so-called life.

I really wanted to like The Truman Show but I just didn’t. I mean, yeah theidea for the movie is good and even though I’m not really a Jim Carrey fan,I guess he gives quite a believable performance here. Let’s just say EDTV,another movie about a man being watched is much better than this.

Let me go on a point by point basis, in discussing this piece of dreck, thisfilm sickened me to the point that I have to write a review for posterity sothat they will know how bad it really is.Peter Weir=Dead Poet Society his only good film the restforgettableJim Carey=first saw him in Once Bitten - he played the character straight, hecan act, it’s just that this performance is not worthy of any award.Ed Harris= I defy any of you to name one film in which this man has playedanyone other than himself. He plays a character that would only bebelievable if this were a farce, his character is so unnaturally evil, am Isuppose to believe in this film that his character is so obsessed that he iscrushed when a fellow human being wants to be free. And what is with thehand gestures, I want everyone to pay attention to his hand gestures, almosthomoerotic in a way, if this were done on purpose it might be funny might befitting, it’s that method acting isn’t it?The woman who plays his love interest=one word-TERRIBLE her face is shot insuch an annoying way it is almost unbearable to watch.PLOT: if you are going to do social satire with a moral dilemma it must bebelievable(i.e. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (FILM and NOVEL) 1984 (NOVEL) and NETWORK (FILM)) you cannot do a STAR WARStreatment to a supposedly serious film. For example, we are supposed to believe that a man in his early thirties hasbeen on film for his entire life: 1. if he were born sometimein the sixties the technology simply would not be available to carry on withthis charade.2. and most importantly as bad as we are as human beings I cannot believethat any of you would allow this to happen to a person, therefore what isthe point of this film? It doesn’t make me think of anything other thanHollywood made a great deal of money off of us and we are starting toappreciate the sh** that they give us. So now that StanleyKubrick has died where are we? The only thing that I can think of is that Iam going to have to start making movies, I can’t be any worse than theseguys!!!

Is the American audience so ignorant that they can truly believe that such apoorly directed movie, which is nothing more than an interesting bit ofcoffee table philosophy could be a revolutionary cinematic concept?

Jim Carrey should stick to low brow facial acting, and leave the real actingto real actors. Though his comedic performance was the most entertainingaspect of the 2hours I wasted on this movie, it did not make thegrade.This was nothing but a thinly veiled concept movie with a big name actor torailroad it into "the hearts of Americans". If you want to see a movie whichhas depth, in which all the elements of cinematic excellence come togetherto form a cohesive film try something like: Brazil or reading 1984 ( thatwas a bad movie). Try to find a movie without the "feel good" Americanperspective, where the director is afraid to alienate theignorant..

All I heard was how original this movie was. Original? Try a rip off of anold Twlight Zone episode. The characters had no pathos. It boggles mymind.Why do people love this movie? It’s not worth the price of the film it wasprinted on.

What we have here is a film with great potential. Potential to becomeone of the great dystopian films. It raises such themes as a nationobsessed by television, the means used to provide people their purile"entertainment" without any consideration of ethics nor human dignity.Truman could be a great tragedy. We could see one man live ameaningless life, forever watched by millions of big brothers,completely unaware of his fishbowl existence. A warning, pointing tothe disconnect and disassociation we all experience upon seeing someoneon a television screen. And also to our slavish instinct to glorifythese people without knowing why we adore them.

And I can’t help but think of this when I see all the thousands ofmediocrities line up to make complete fools of themselves on nationalTV on so-called "reality" shows all in the name of a few brief andunmemorable moments of "fame". We’ve been brainwashed by the media intobelieving that fame it itself, is a desirable virtue.

But this movie, instead of exploring these issues in depth, skirtsaround them, afraid of giving itself intellectual depth and weight.Instead were treated to Jim Carey’s charming smile and empty acting.This f
ilm has the potential to be a memorable and in-depth dystopianvision of fame and the media. Instead, out of pure cowardice, itsturned into another meaningless popcorn movie. A complete waste ofcelluloid. All the people involved in this should be ashamed ofthemselves.

"The Truman Show" is a film in which Jim Carey plays the characterTruman Burbank who is an insurance salesman that seems to want more outof life. He finds later that there is something strange about hissurroundings that isn’t authentic. There must be someone watching himbecause everything seems to be orchestrated.

He goes on from this to the discovery this hypothesis is true and thatthere has to be more to the world than he has seen. He tries to escapehis surroundings that he was groomed to be accustomed to, and findsthat magically every attempt that he makes is unsuccessful becausesomething always comes up as a block.

This aspect of the movie portrays much of what one must imagine wouldhappen in the raising of a wild animal in a controlled environment.They would either find that there is no way out of their environmentand eventually give up, or they would rebel. This would be much like in"Jurassic Park", where the dinosaurs find a way out of the fence of thecontrolled environment. Truman is a wild animal that is kept in acontrolled environment that is against his innate will and instinct.His instinct is to explore and find meaning to life. He is a wild manon the lose, and nothing can stop his aspiration to venture to theunknown. This is much the same in "Jurassic Park", in that the animalsthat once ruled the earth have an instinct of free range. They will, bytheir instinct, find ways to become top of the chain again.

There are many that will find that the movie "The Truman Show" has someunderlying spiritual meaning and that the producers had some greattheological statement to make about how we view God and whatever elsemay come to mind. Many may even say that it is a statement of theodicyin that God has everything perfectly orchestrated to his will but makesmistakes in his outtakes. Others may say that much like what the Mormonchurch believes, God was just a man that was given high power of whichhe abused and screwed up thus bringing disorder to his creation.

While all of these are legitimate statements about this movie, none arequite on par as much as to say that this was a movie for the sake ofentertainment and poking fun at reality television. While reading manyinterviews of Weir, one will find that it was a satire on realitytelevision and that it was to show how fake it was. It is almost as ifit were to show the persons involved in reality television are petsthat are subject to what the master throws at them. All of theirresponses are controlled and generated responses from a learnedbehavior in one way or other. These directors have simply learned howto manipulate those responses to get good ratings.

Unfortunately, unlike "Jurassic Park", "The Truman Show" is not worth asequel. The movie was poorly made and had a juvenile story line. Theplot development was not adequate for the audience to fully connectwith all of the characters. It was obvious that the prime focus was togive Jim Carey a character portfolio that would bring his career into adeeper, more meaningful position. While this being true, more thanlikely, this was the only way that a writer of a movie in this calibercould get his work published; one can find an actor with the need todiversify, come up with a budget, and create a film with a big name andit instantaneously happens, they have a career.

For any person to say that this movie had any type of effect on themspiritually, would be to say that the "Care Bears" shaped theirepistemology ultimately leading them to Jesus. There is about as muchspiritual meaning to this movie as there is in a peanut butter andjelly sandwich and to say otherwise is to deny that of the words of thedirector and to read cosmetology into "Gandhi".

read comments (0)

U.S. Marshals

This is one of my all time favourites. The second of the filmsinvolving Deputy Gerard. This film is much better than the first film"The Fugitive". It gives us a great cast (All marshals form the firstfilm, and the inclusion of Wesley snipes and Robert Downey Jr). TommyLee Jones gives us a stellar performance from Gerard and should havebeen nominated for best actor. The plot is good and the film isthrilling and suspenseful.

The better sequel of the fugitive but it would have been better ifHarrison ford to have reprised his role in some way shape or form.

a very good film.

8/10.

Never seen so many microphones in a movie!

Good action show, but nothing that hasn’t been done many times. Jonesrevises his role as the hard bitten Lt. Gerrard who chases another goodguywho is thought to be evil. Sound familiar? The chase was set up by rogueelements within the U.S. Government as a patsy to cover their shadydealingwith a foreign government. A long chase ensued… and blah…blah….blah.Not a bad film, just been there, done that.

(possible spoilers in these comments)

The overall plot of this movie is pretty weak, but the main actors keep itrunning, most notably being Wesley Snipes & Tommy Lee Jones.

The movie starts as your average cop-flic, with a team bustingsomecriminals in their home, and slowly evolves to an entertaining, albeit notvery original story.

At some point, the film brings to mind a scene in Con Air,whereconvicts board a prisoner plane, and all hell breaks loose - Deputy Gerardboards a prisoner plane, which is forced to make an emergency landing aftera few parts of it explode.

When the plane settles down, one of the convicts (played by Wesley Snipes)escapes, and a pretty standard hide-and-seek game ensues.

The action in the movie is predictable, standard, but of highquality.Entertaining actors, a bit of humour, some suspense - all in all a prettydecent action movie, and one would expect nothing less from people likeSnipes & Jones.

After appearing with Will Smith in ‘Men in Black’, Tommy Lee Jones went onto appear with Wesley Snipes in ‘U.S. Marshals’. The film was a variation on’The Fugitive’ with Snipes stepping in for Harrison Ford, and with RobertDowney jr as the antagonist that is revealed at the end of thefilm.A much tougher film than his predecessor, ‘One Night Stand’, and probablyeven superior to ‘The Fugitive’.

I did not know anything about this movie before I started watching ityesterday night but I soon was to become very disappointed. This movie isa90 % clone of "The Fugitive" using to a great extent the same plot andactors but still falls completely flat when compared to the former. First,nothing is really original in this movie - you have seen everything beforeand the story is rather predictable. Second of all, the major strength ofThe Fugitive was the interplay between the great acting skills of HarrisonFord and Tommy Lee Jones which is completely missing from this moviebecauseWesley Snipes is simply too bad an actor.So I recommend anybody to rent "The Fugitive" instead. It is both moreoriginal and more entertaining.

Jones, making a welcomed return to his role as a hard-nosed U.S.Marshal, is forced to undergo a routine assignment and accompany aplane transporting a cargo of convicted felons. When the assignmentgoes awry, he's then assigned to track down accused assassin Snipes,with the "aid" of federal agent Downey. Being a sequel the freshnessand excitement that made The Fugitive so effective are sure to belacking here, but the film actually delivers some first-class stuntwork and plenty of high-energy, pumped-up kinetic action. The familiarstory can't hold up to all of the film's superior action scenes, butfor the most part it's worth watching. ***

Tommy lee Jones, Wesley Snipes, and Robert Downey JR. all do in possibly oneof their best roles yet in this great action movie. The so-called sequel toThe Fugitive isn’t that bad from what some people say it is. theperformances by the star-studded cast do all wonderful and I loved thecharacters.

Overall the entire movie is excellent on many levels and I highly recommendit. Rating 10 out of 10.

Average action movie with good cast and story but average productionquality.The lighting/color was also particularly bland.The actionchoreography was bad as well.Some exciting sequences here and there make upfor it though if one is a big action movie fan or a big fan of the leadactors…….

Tommy Lee Jones repeats his role as now Chief Deputy Marshal Sam Gerard inthis sequel. And again he is on the trail of another wrongly accusedman(Wesley Snipes), who won’t give up to prove his innocence. Good storyline. Some real good action scenes. Not only are Jones and Snipes excellent.Very good performances from Kate Nelligan and Robert Downey Jr. Nelligan hisboss and Downey Jr is the special agent who gives his unsolicited aid. Veryworthwhile.

read comments (0)

The Patriot

Unlike some of his previous work where some how someway they worked nudityinto the film (good example On Deadly Ground.. needless nudity) this filmactually had some heart in it. I found it to be surprisingly good for aseagal film. Since most of his films wind up being violent. This filmthough might peeve some Seagal fans who watch movies because they areviolent. If that’s the case. Run the other direction. However if your proenvironment of sorts, you might like this film. This movie, though no wherenear as good, reminds me of Medicine Man with Sean Connery. With all themodern medicine’s out there, there’s always proof that age old medicineswork best.

I do not really have a problem with B-films. I do have a problem withB-films that seem to think they are not and therefore take themselvestoo seriously. With ‘The Patriot’ the cinematography and music show ushow serious the film is meant. It even plays a version of Wagner’s"Ride of the Valkyries" when helicopters are seen. Of course StevenSeagal always looks like he is the star of ‘Terms of Endearment’ aswell.

I will not talk about the plot too much since it does not reallymatter. I can say it is a mix between you typical Steven Seagal filmand ‘Outbreak’. We have Seagal as a doctor who used to be CIA, avillain who infects a town with a virus, a lot of coincidences and ofcourse Seagal who saves the day. Nothing new here, all done a lotbetter in other films, this is another bad one from Steven Seagal.

There are several types of Steven Seagal movies: OK, bad, awful - and thenew one - The Patriot. A product of surprisingly low quality. Bad script,awful acting; lame characters, cheesy scenes (especially the happy-end withflower-distributing helicopters). I regret I spent 10 bucks for the ticketand wasted a couple hours watching this "masterpiece"; I also regret someonewasted a lot more money to make it.

I have always liked Seagal . His roles in films like ‘Nico’ , ‘Hard To Kill’, and ‘Under Seige’ , may never have been the most testing on the brain ,but they provided the action and excitement for the films to do well ,especially for their targeted audience .However , to be frankly honest Seagal has lost the plot . I admire the wayhe cares about the environment , but to incorporate that in every film isplain stupid . The last people who care about the environment are people whogo and watch action movies , especially ones with Seagal in them.Seagal must get back to his action roots , playing the tough guy . Thismovie which never even got a video release never mind a cinema release isabsolutely awful. The little action there is in this film has no relevanceto the film; its almost as if the producers realised there was no action init , got worried , and told Seagal to go back and shoot some action scenes .I doubt that happened , but this film is just that bad .

Avoid .

When I first saw this movie in the shop, I was quite excited, because I`m abig Seagal fan (although Fire Down Below wasn`t that good). I was terrifiedat the lack of action and violent martial art that is present in any ofSeagal`s other movies. Seagal plays, of all things a doctor! I liked it whenhe was a cop/ex-seal with a past that is covered by smoking mirrors. Onlythe ones of you who need to see all of Seagal`s movies should bother seeingThe Patriot. I gave it 2 out of 10, because I really like Seagal, but thismovie stinks!

every now and then we get so used to seeing someone portrait a certainpersona so much that we tend to be disappointed,turned off or act like aspoiled brat when there is a change.as goes the seagal movie thepatriot.many have dogged this movie and also fire down below as the worst orpure garbage.folks judge for yourself but don’t try to compare this movie tohis earlier action heavy flicks or else you will miss the point of the filmand will not broaden any perspectives you can achieve when watching films ina objective manor.with that said,i can enjoy this film for what it is,aseagal film with more plot than mindless action as usual.

The Patriot is a well thought out, well produced film, that will draw the viewerinto the story directly, and keep them involved to the very end. Granted,it is not in the same vein as Under Siege, et. al., but this is definitelythe trademark film of what might be described as Seagal’s second era offilms. Not so much Action movies with a nod to a story thrown in for goodmeasure, but a good story, matched with a point, and injected with some ofSeagal’s unimitable action sequences. Is this the kind of film thathardcore action junkies will enjoy? Probably not. But for those of us whonot only like our action, but also can appreciate a well told story, this isa big step forward for Seagal. It’s almost like the transformation ClintEastwood made as he tried to step out from underneath the shadow of his"Dirty Harry" series. Either man, had he continued in the singulardirection they were headed, would have forever been keyholed in in specificrole and guaranteed the brevity of their careers…

Basically, this is a very good film. It is very different from Seagal’sother films though, whichunfortunately may turn off some of his fans. Unlike some of theother films, this does not feel like a’Seagal vehicle’. You get to see plenty of the other charactersas well and all of Mr. Seagal’s actions are not the same as we’ve seen before. The concept of himbeing an ‘intellectual’ insomething other than bombs and other weaponry is a nice change.Although there are someunrealistic parts to the film (some more obvious than others), ingeneral you can let them slidesince the film is fun to watch.

It boils down to this:If you are looking for a classic Seagal action film, sorry, butyou’re going to be disappointed. Watchit anyway for the fun of it.If you’re open to seeing Seagal without the action, it’s wellworth a look. I personally believe it issome of the best work he’s done in quite a while.

Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less "actionpacked". To date this has to be his worse movie… no action, a poorstoryline, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIESTendings I have ever seen.

Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for thegreat social causes or impeccable acting… you want a good action flick.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1…

I really enjoyed The Patriot. This movie had less violence and was basedona real life threat that could inevitably destroy our civilization. Onelinein the movie from wesley mclaren (seagal) stuck out in my mind to be verytrue of our society, "western medicine is in the practice of prolongingillness and I am in the business of curing it."

read comments (0)

The Opposite of Sex

The opposite of Sex is good amusement and a nice change from what we usuallyget. But they should have kept it to that. Instead, the script constantlytries to spoof itself and the entire industry of cinema. That’s a bit muchand it often ends into painlessly unfunny sequences and twists. The oppositeof sex can be described best as a R-rated version of Clueless. You’ll onlysee conceited and egocentric people walking through the screen. Led by the"bitch-queen of all teenagers", namely Christina Ricci. She’s terrific inthis film!! Personally, I think she always is, but the character she’sportraying here seems to be written for her exclusively. Almost like ateenage version of Wednesday Addams, except more greedy and with a lot moresex appeal. Her character constantly makes sadistic, offensive and morbidremarks while her facial expression remains neutral. I love that!!! She’scruel, senseless and she refers to deceased people like: "him, the dead guy"… In short, she’s a girl with a lot of attitude. And, in fact, this entiremovie has attitude but it runs out of ideas after the first hour. The charmand creativity shown in the first hour fades away and the twists become moreabrupt, far-fetched and uninspired. Lisa Kudrow’s character has too manyscreentime. Most intrigues concerning her personality could easily have beencut. Nonetheless, I recommend The Opposite of Sex to those who’re tired ofseeing predictable love stories, filled with needless moral…and to thosewho have a more wicked sense of humor. And - from a more personal point ofview - any movie that contains a lot of Christina Ricci-cleavage is warmlyrecommended!

"The Opposite of Sex" is a lot of fun and very original, what wouldhappen if a standard romantic comedy met "The Big Lebowski"and"Freeway". The best part is Christina Ricci's voice-over narration.She sounds like an Arkansas version of Orsen Welles. "If you think I'mjust plucky and scrappy and all I need is love, you're in over yourheads. I don't have a heart of gold and I *don't* grow one later, OK?But relax. There's other people a lot nicer coming up–we call them"losers."

Much of the credit for this little gem should go to the writers. RogerEbert had a great observation about the narration provided by Ricci'scharacter in "The Opposite of Sex". "I hate people who talk duringmovies, but if she were sitting behind me in the theater, saying all ofthis stuff, I'd want her to keep right on talking".

On the surface, "The Opposite of Sex" has the standard love story movieelements with characters engaged in the process of discovery andrevelation. But below the surface the voice-over is providing a sort ofsexual teasing to the audience (and it is not the opposite of sex).There is an ongoing shifting out of the movie each time Ricci shiftsout of her character to discuss the film and its elements; doing thisfrom a detached perspective, a technique that she is especiallyeffective at. This bonds us to her character more completely than asimple narration or point-of-view. After a little of this, when hercharacter interacts with characters inside the film our identificationprocess as viewers intensifies.

Hopefully Ricci will permanently ditch the blonde look, it does notsuit her, although it was OK in "Sleepy Hollow". So much of her actingis with her eyes and dark hair accentuates them. I classify her as ayoung version of Jennifer Jason Leigh. Both are height-challenged andat times appear dumpy on the screen. Meaning they will never beconsidered "really hot", but Leigh has turned this into an advantageand Ricci should be able to do the same.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

This movie is grossly underrated. The story line, is bold, funny,disturbing and very memorable. It begins with a teenage girl namedDede(Ricci)and her messed up little life. She runs away to live withher half brother who is gay and comedy ensues. The plot gets verycomplicated very quick. Dede becomes pregnant and someone dies.

I’ll admit the acting isn’t as good as it could have been, but I thinkit just seems to fit the kind of film it is. Christina Ricci’s playsthe kind of character that audiences love to hate. This movie has a lotof great one liners. Their are many shockers through out. I highlyrecommend giving this movie a chance, you could be surprised!

I originally paid special attention to this film because I am a fan ofChristina Ricci and black comedy… today, when I finally got to seeit, and I was very surprised by how direct and clever it was. The filmhas a distinct feeling of "You know how so-and-so is cute? Well,there’s nothing even remotely like that here"(it’s mentioned on severaloccasions throughout the film), and it’s really refreshing to see afilm that makes such an effort not to take itself seriously. Allthrough the film it tries to be gutsy and offensive, and it will haveeven the most open-minded individuals frowning once or twice. Do what Idid, laugh. That’s what it’s there for, and you can’t change it nomatter what. However, near the end it grows a conscience, and dwells onthe nice pictures it started out mocking. It’s as if the film grows upas Dede does it, taking the audience with it. I can’t see anyonewatching this and not being even slightly enriched by the experience. Iwould guess that such people just don’t look past the offensive andprovocative nature of most of the film. The plot is interesting and, asfar as I know, original. The pace is great, you’re never bored and ittakes off right away. The acting is pretty good all-round, with LyleLovett as a possible exception. The characters are all well-written,credible and interesting. Not one single character feels clichéd. Thedialog is well-written and well-delivered. The humor is black as coal,with just a hint of immaturity here and there. The film is very good,but the ideas in it are even better, and are hurt a little by theexecution. Letting a bratty 16 year old girl narrate the story was agamble that paid off, but the film loses some credibility due to it. Italso limits the audience a bit, due to the fact that most people willdisagree with our lead character’s actions and opinions, and this isthe kind of film that should really try to get out to as many people aspossibly. It holds a lot of wisdom about sexuality and relationships,nicely covered in black comedy and a provocative, offensive attitude…and this attitude will deter many viewers. A shame, really. I recommendthis film to fans of the actors and/or black comedy. Actually, I thinkjust about everyone who considers them-self to be open-minded shouldsee it… but be prepared for a very direct and uncompromising filmthat you may not like, even a little. But please give it a chance. Itmay challenge your views, and for that, it should be respected. 7/10

As hard-boiled as our under-age heroine tries to be, both as voice-overnarrator and lead character, her sassy attitude is mostly strutting andposing. There’s not a lot of bite to her rhetoric–cynical and sarcastic asit is.

Bearing a tagline, "You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll be offended," "TheOpposite of Sex" drew little audible response from the audience at theshowing I attended. Yet one did feel audience interestthroughout.

A comedy without audible laughs is somewhat a new kind of humor, rather inthe mold of "In the Company of Men." With a "heroine" who seems to dislikeeverything and everyone–including herself–there’s not much to identifywith here. One just sits there, savoring the cool dialogue and hipattitudes.

That said, the film is not without it’s points: some niftycharacterizations, crafty lines, unexpected plot turns, and a few sharpobservations on contemporary relationships. Even if there wasn’t really allthat much to make us laugh, cry–or be offended–we were
most certainlyengaged.

This is precisely what happens when you get a wild conglomeration of ideasand characters and throw them all together if only to see what happens. Inall actuality, this isn’t as much of a movie as it is a science projectcaught on camera. Christina Ricci plays Dedee Truitt, a young girl wholeaves home to go live with her step brother in Indiana. She’s not exactlya kind hearted person, and the first 20 minutes of the movie serve only todescribe her thoughts and attitudes on life and other people. After only aminute or two, it doesn’t take any intuitive powers of perception to realizethat she’s a bitch; the enjoyment comes at watching her say everything youwish you were creative enough to think of yourself. As though that weren’tentertaining enough, she leaves town and the movie takes a turn for theworse. She moves to Indiana with her gay step brother and decides she’sready for sex, so she converts his boyfriend back into being straight! Thatdoesn’t go over too well when Dedee announces that she’s pregnant and theboyfriend is the father. The movie takes another turn when they run off toCalifornia to have the baby. There is quite a bit more of scenery changingthat occurs, but the basic plot of the movie is how several different peoplethink about sex and relationships, how they interact with each other, andhow Dedee’s exploits serve to change some of their thoughtpatterns.

Trust me on this one, it sounds a whole lot better than it actually is. Thefirst 20 minutes border on the hysterical and you could fall off your chairfrom laughing so hard if the mood was right. The last 10 minutes werepretty good as well, when Dedee finally figures everything out and order isfinally restored to everyone’s lives. The problem is really the hour inbetween the beginning and ending. It sucks. I’d say that it progresseslike a soap opera, but I don’t want to give any soap operas a bad name. Itruns pretty much like everyone is just going through the motions with theirroles, nobody is very interesting anymore, and it’s pretty boring to sitthrough. By the way, if you are planning to watch this for one of the actorsor actresses involved, don’t bother because nobody is very good here. Thestory dominates the actors, and nobody is going to be so emotionallycompelling that it is a must see performance. Every once in awhile, thereis a nice conversation where a couple of the characters have somethingreally important to say about life, sex, or relationships, but the tidbitsare so small that to wade through that whole hour for them is going to be abig waste of your time.

In actuality, the perfect scenario to view this would be while sufferingfrom a severe case of diarrhea. You could start the movie at your leisure,get through the first few minutes, and then go clean up shop. By the timeyou got back, you could see one of the nice tidbits scattered intermittentlythrough the middle of the movie, and just in time to go worship theporcelain idol once again. When worship services were over, you could makeit back for the last 10 minutes, someone could explain to you what youmissed, and you would have beaten the system by diarrhea! You could see allof the great stuff this movie had to offer, and there is some good stuff,your friends would have to sit through the whole thing to keep explaining itto you when you were there, and you would miss out on all of the boredomthis has to offer while you were taking care of bigger and better things! How great is that! I guess if that doesn’t appeal to you or ifcircumstances don’t allow it, you could just do something else while themovie is playing. It’s an excellent movie to clean house to, or makecookies or what have you, but don’t give this your undivided attention. I’drecommend watching it, but have a backup plan to keep you busy, because themovie won’t.

A completely horrendous movie. The characters are all weak. You never oncecare about the Christina Ricci’s character and are completely annoyed byhervoice-over explanation of what’s going on. Lisa Kudrow is just plain whiny,I kept hoping that Bill would tell her to shut the hell up and get out ofhis life. Ivan Sergei is just eye candy. The plot is even weaker. Who wouldhave really put up with any of that?

I was more amazed when I found this categorized under "comedy". Therewasn’tone laugh in the whole thing. The only joke is on the cover of the videobox, "Scathingly Funny". Yeah, right.

I've got to warn you right off; this movie is bad. No that's anunderstatement; it's really bad. This film thinks it's an intelligentstudy of sexuality, but really it's little more than an amateur effortat trying to create something hip and original. The plot followsChristina Ricci, a horrid excuse for a human being, who has an argumentwith her mother and goes to stay with her half brother. While there,she seduces her brother's boyfriend (yes, you heard that right) andgets pregnant, thus affecting the lives of everyone involved. Makingthe central character impossible to like was a very silly idea (thisfilm has many of those) because it makes the film hard to like rightfrom the word go as it's seen through her eyes. The movie also suffersfrom a terrible narration courtesy of said character. As we all know,narration is a sign of someone that doesn't know how to write a scriptgood enough to function on it's own, which sums the writer of this filmup. The narration is also really stupid, and the way it is presented isan obvious attempt to make the film different and cool, and needless tosay; it didn't work.

The tagline of this film clearly states that 'you will be offended'.This is very true, as this film continually insults the viewer'sintelligence. Stating that 'you will be offended' is a ridiculousclaim, and the only people that could possibly come of this filmoffended are gays, by way of how they're presented in the film; butreally, anyone with anything about them would easily be able to laughoff the silly ideas put forward here. As an obvious attempt to mask thelameness of the movie and it's terrible script, Don Roos has puttogether a cast of TV actors from bad American TV shows. Lisa Kudrow,obviously from that 'Friends' rubbish, sticks out like a sore thumb andis obviously in the movie to try and draw the Friends fans in.Christina Ricci is a fantastically beautiful actress that I've liked inmany of the films I've seen her in, but even she cant get past theawful lines she has to deliver, and the awful cast she's actingalongside. There isn't much else to say about this movie as I've nailedall of it's main flaws already, but I'll close by saying this is one ofthe most limp and pathetic movies ever to insult my television screen.I beg you not to bother with it, and if you don't take my sage advice;you'll be begging for your time back at the end. I don't care if you dolove Christina Ricci; this is one to avoid like the plague.

laugh? Nope. Cry? Nope. Offended? Nope.

Irritated? Yes.

A very silly and remarkably annoying film, Ricci is a young girl who willsleep with anything. And that’s about as deep as it got, stereotypical gaycharacters withstanding.

Don’t bother.

Go figure. "The Opposite of Sex" is a bland, sophomoric,unfunny comedy with a bunch of second rate actors, a dumbstoryline/script, a somewhat cynical and sardonic feelwhichshows us nothing new, is not compelling or poignant, triesto be hip and fails, and pretty much adds up to one bigboring waste of time. I’m not sure who would enjoy thisbutsomeone must for it to score a 7.0 after 4153 votes castandthree stars from both Ebert and Maltin. I don’t getit. This thing sucked. One man’s opinion.

read comments (0)

The Negotiator

This was a smart, well done movie overall. The casting was great and the acting was good. I enjoyed it. I did not mind spending $7.00 for it.

The underlying structure of this intelligent film is as near perfect as Ihave seen in a long time.

A short first act, establishing everything you need to know about both setsof characters - the cops on one side and the hostages on the other; a tensesecond act, with a beautiful opening scene that introduces Spacey’scharacter as a mirror to Jackson’s; an exciting third act that ties all thelose ends together, solves the mystery and leaves you wondering how the maincharacters will deal with their doubts of each other.

And woven through all this is the themes of appearaance, bluff, and the eyesbeing the window to the soul.

The performance garlands will go to Jackson, but Spacey is, as ever, magneticwhenever he’s on screen. His second face-to-face encounter with Jackson iselectric.

Then again, there isn’t a weak performance across the entire company.Between the ensemble and a cracking story line that covers less than 24hoursor real time, I was literally on the edge of my seat. Highlyrecommended.

A great and exciting film full of unexpected twists. This film set in theChicago police force is a first-class detective film shot in a very unusualfashion. Full of suspense from the beginning to the end.

Very nice. If you’re looking for a very nice time-passing movie, then thisone’s for you. No major flaws, great cast(Spacey being one of my personalfavourites after I watched The Usual Suspects). Humour is provided tooespecially by Paul Giamatti playing one of Jackson’s hostages, Rudy. I likedit a lot.

"The Negotiator" starts out as your average, run-of-the-mill action picturewith a hostage scene featuring a negotiator named Danny Roman, which, ofcourse, is the best in Chicago. These scenes are always isolated from anyother sequence in the movie and end in a positive but violent note. Afterthat, I made a prediction that the following scene would take place in a barwith all of Danny’s drunken friends. I was wrong. First there was a romanticincident in which Danny talks to his Fiancee about how he’ll never take anymore risks etc. Then there was the take at the bar.Little did I know of what the following film had in store for me. Thesmart take-off begins when this highly respected negotiator is framed forrobbing the officers pension fund, then the murder of his partner, whom heloved. He is sure the murderers are cops. Little by little, the criminalsmake Danny look more and more guilty, until his own attorney advises him todeal out.That’s when he goes seemingly nuts, He goes in the police headquarters’20th floor and takes a room of four workers as hostage so he can prove hisinnocents. (Yeah, I sided when I thought about that as well, but the actorsmake this unbelievable situation surprisingly realistic.) One whom hebelieves is behind this set-up. Unfortunately for the other Chicago police,they really have no way to talk down Danny. Another negotiator does try, butDanny corrects his mistakes like a professor teaching a student. So how canthey beat this guy.Soon, however, Danny puts in his own demand, he wants to talk with anegotiator, named Kevin Sabian, another one with the skill he has, a zerocasualty rate for five years straight. Why does Danny choose him, because hecan relate to him well.The film takes us through a series of plot twist and exiting turns asthe characters sink deeper into a web of corruption. This movie is allaround great entertainment. The twists are sort of confusing and hard tofollow, that’s for sure. But thanks to a phenomenal script and greatwriters, this flaw only helps develop positive depth in the highlyintriguing plot.As good as the story is, however, the actors are even better. Oscarwinner Samuel L. Jackson is at first an unrealistic character, I mean, whowould put presumably innocent pedestrian’s lives on the line to prove hisinnocents. Even if he is, which I will not reveal, he is committing a crimeright here, there goes his hope for freedom. But Jackson makes his characterso very believable I was sucked into his sorrow and took his side andwondered if I would ever do a thing like that. "The Negotiator" is the kindof movie that makes you ask yourself these kinds of questions.Kevin Spacy proves he is capable of such nomination as the othernegotiator. I was amazed of what tension he brings to the audience. And myopening statement stated that the movie lead to typical romantic and barsequences, ha. The only reason those scenes existed was to bring incharacter description and develop a history and background of these people.Like with Spacy, the first time he was on screen he was talking to hisfamily about something. So based on the two minute section, I can tell youKevin Sabian is great with kids, family oriented, sides with is children andis very understanding. It’s not every day that a director takes the time todevelop a character like that."The Negotiator" is the years smartest, most brilliantly achievedthrillers. I recommend it highly.

Brilliant, real edge of the seat stuff and a fine epilogue to a fineactor…JT Walsh.

This movie is good, but the best of it is Samuel Jackson’s acting. I thinkhe deserves the Oscar for it.

I also loved Kevin Spacey and Paul Giamatti.

Let’s face it, Spacey and Jackson are wasted in this turkey along witheveryone else. Totally implausable storyline, mediocre directing, and actingout of The Stepford Wives.

What a waste of talent, money and my time. No wonder the tape was onlyplayed through half way when I rented it. Prior to viewing I thought theformer renter was inconsiderate, after viewing I realized they hadtaste.

My impression, from reading comments on the newsgroups, and reading otheruser comments here, is that snobs who only love art movies hate this movie.C’mon guys! A diet of just filet mignon or just junk food will killyou!

However, if you like movies besides art movies, you’ll like this. Greatdialogue, great direction, great acting. A few cliches, but the few clichesare at least handled a lot better than you’d think.

Why did I so naively think "Negotiator" would be any different than allthose other action movies out there? There is a plethora of "bad" oneswaiting for us out there, waiting for us to shell out money so we can sitthrough two hours of an action movie that fails to deliver, well, action.When will "action" movies once again be action movies, redeem themselves andbecome pleasures instead of bores? I ask myself such a question whenwatching a movie like "Negotiator."

Sure, it has some action, but not the same engrossing action films like"Rambo," "Terminator 2," or even "Die Hard" had. Call me cynical, whateverbut when I watch a movie, I want to be captivated, I want the film to holdme in the palm of its hands and not let go until the credits roll down. Whathas happened to the good ol parameters of action films? Have they crumbled?It sure seems like it nowadays.

The only thing saving the "Negotiator" is the acting, not to mention thesudden "L.A. Confidenital" sort of twist at the end. Spacey, as usual, isstrong as Sabian, the negotiator talking to a fellow negotiator seekingjustice after being framed (Samuel Jackson). Jackson is also good, yet alltoo often I get that feeling that these two were put together simply to rakein heavy profits. Though, I have to admit, the chemistry between them isn’tthat bad. Stronger dialogue should have made it more of a pleasurable feedinstead of the burnt omelette they gave us.

The film is in dire need of a more economical script; "Negotiator" is liketaking the elevator instead of the stairs–it wastes a lot
of time it didn’tneed to. There could have been more to this film is all I’msaying.I swear seeing "Die Hard" for the millionth timne would have given me a morepotent fix to satisfy my appetite for action. We go to these types of moviesto be entertained, yet as the years go by and heaps of action films areshoveled on us like snow, these same films are losing in large increments intheir attempts to sizzle and stir as they are supposedto.

Movies like "Negotiatior" try really hard to awe us but can’t. A millionshots of police cars simply doesn’t do it forthe average moviegoer. After all, we can just watch the five o’clock newsinstead.

read comments (0)

The Mighty

Less importantly, I can't figure out why Sharon Stone is the number onecredit when the story isn't really about her character. Other thanthat, this movie has good intentions and a great story. However, therewere a few scenes that just felt overly tense, such as when–possiblespoilers–Kevin begins choking on his food and loses consciousness,when Max learns of Kevin's death (which is more disturbing thanemotional), and even the scene where Loretta is strangled (but notkilled), which is otherwise understandable. This seemingly is supposedto be a family-friendly film, but with these scenes the filmmakers makeit look more like a horror/thriller. If the filmmakers had not donethis, I believe this film could very easily have been given a PGrating. -6 stars for the tension.

If there's ever a chance for me to write to the actors 'Kevin' and'Max', I want to say 'thank you' to them and the producer.

I chanced upon this movie, and was swept over by the story….

The whole movie is about the friendship between Max and Kevin. It's amovie that springs forth love, hope, and faith in this chaotic world.To have this in real life is rare, but I hope that my life can be trueand be like Max, to have courage and do to the good deeds, to be likeKevin, to give hope to others.

The first scene that moved my heart is when Max carried Kevin on himfor the fireworks. It is a beautiful scene where self-giving and loveare shown.

The music in this movie plays a very important role. The songs andmusic are very well chosen for the movie. They are also played at theright time during the movie to bring out the spirit.

Thank you and well done! Let's be a channel of love, hope and faith toothers in this chaotic world.

Was this a Sharon Stone film? Or was Miramax angling from the start tothrow an Oscar-worthy contender into the role of the mother and market thefilm as a best-supporting-actress vehicle? It’s only too bad that all theother supporting characters, played to perfection by James Gandolfini,Jillian Anderson, Harry Dean Stanton, and most especially Gena Rowlands,were simply not fleshed out enough in the script to merit award status. Iwas thoroughly impressed with the child actors, whose names should havereceived top billing. Meatloaf, as always, is fun to watch.

But acting aside, this film was sheer crap, wrought with cliche,sentimentality, and oh-so-pretty music to disguise the fact that this is areally lame story, re-told ad nauseum, which had nothing new to offer."Loved the music!"… From now on when anyone tells me they "loved themusic" from a movie I will refuse to watch it. Directors tend to use themusical score as a crutch to paint over their mistakes. When the entirescore is THAT good, clue into the fact that he’s blowing smoke in your eyesto hide the inherent flaw of the movie: that the story itself, frombeginning to end, is flawed.

7-out-of-10, for acting alone.

Based on Rodman Philbrick’s novel, "Freak the Mighty," this is a funny andmoving tale of the adversities of youth. On the surface, it may seemsomewhat similar in concept and themes to "Simon Birch." Both films concernthe friendship of two adolescent boys who are outsiders, with one of whompossessing some sort of medical condition. Together, a diminutive "brain"and a husky "brawn" team to form "Freak the Mighty," with the smaller ladperched upon the larger’s shoulders. They bond over the ideal of chivalricknights and embark on noble quests with their imaginations revolving aroundthe King Arthur mythos. The movie generates genuine emotions and doesn’tresort to the trickery employed by mundane Hollywood-ized stories (see"Simon Birch"). The situations aren’t played for cheap laughs, and the filmtakes a turn into darker territory when one character’s convict fathershows up, threatening dire circumstances. All of the leads give above-the-mark performances, especially the two younger actors. Kieran Culkindisplays more range in this one part than in his elder sibling Macaulay’sentire career. Sharon Stone is superb in a winning, heartfelt appearance.Fans of "The X-Files" may want to tune in to see Gillian Anderson in abrief role that is about as far as Agent Scully as one can be. Trevor Jonescontributes an inspiring score that reflects a Celtic-influenced medievalmotif that mixes with the urban realities of modern day Cincinnati, Ohio.This is a smart and thoughtful film that, while containing some deeply sadmoments, is no tear-jerker. It manages several touches of humor including avery amusing "Star Trek" reference.

Wonderful, touching and just great, 3 cheers to Culkin who I didnt giveenough credit to before, he pulled it off nicely, and Sharon Stone, well,she’s just a classic, and she looks very good in this

I urge everyone to see this movie. It is one for all ages. I laughed a lotand cried a steady stream of tears. Had I been home, I would have used up abox of tissues. The entire cast is perfect and the two boys are absolutelymagical. May we all learn to have their courage and to remember that ourdeeds define who we are. Thank you so much to everyone involved in themaking of this beautiful film.

I am sure that director Peter Chelsom isn’t in the same league as StevenSpielberg. Nevertheless, he almost equals the master in the art ofmanipulating the audience into whatever emotion he deems appropriate. Timeto weep? Chelsom makes us weep. Time for an outburst of laughter? Everyoneis laughing madly. I would have to watch the movie a couple more times to beable to analyze what does the trick, and I don’t either have the time northe motivation to watch this film once more, let alone three or fortimes.Even while shedding a few tears or laughing aloud I was very much aware ofbeing manipulated, but that didn’t prevent me from behaving in the "right"way. This is not to say that The Mighty is a worthless movie. The two maincharacters (Elden Ratliff as the dumbest kid in town and Kieran Culkin asthe paralyzed and soon-to-die genius) do some great acting, and some ofCulkin’s wisecracks are hilarious, as are his impersonations of Groucho Marxand Marlon Brando. A less Spielbergian approach might have resulted in areally great film. As it is, The Mighty will reinforce the point of viewshared by many European critics (not me) that every Hollywood production isan all too obvious vehicle to make a lot of money, while furthering thecorruption of western culture.

One of the best movies I have seen in my time. From the very beginning I wastotally captivated and I didn’t look at my watch once during the movie. Theacting was superb as well as the soundtrack/score - a definite mustsee.

What most annoyed me was that Sharon Stone got the most credits while she isnot the main acting pesonality and when she shows up she completely blowsit. I’ve seen you a lot better but your career gets worse every time.

Also the movie is over-sentimental (a minimum amount of tears is required togo to the next scene), and over-all it’s more something between "Good WillHunting" and "Dragon Heart".

To end with something positive: Elden Ratliff and Kieran Culkin did a greatjob at saving the movie a bit.

I thought the two guys that played Max and Kevin were super. In the story,their teamwork let them get up with and maybe a little ahead of theirclass.

I don’t get to see very many movies that completely please

read comments (0)

The Gingerbread Man

This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens inthe available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot isevidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility beingdue to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers).

A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a veryvariable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret APorter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the factthat the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent castthat you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistentslumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not"so bad it's good".

It's just bad.

I rented this DVD for two reasons. A cast of great actors, and thedirector, even though Robert Altman can be hit or miss. In this case, itwas a big miss. Altman’s attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. After seeing Kenneth Branagh in a good film like "Dead Again", I didn’tthink he could possibly contribute to such a turkey, and I hope it didn’truin his reputation. Robert Duvall seems to have fallen the way of mostone-time Oscar winners. On a downward spiral that includes acting ineating-money films such as this one. Duvall was once a great actor inexcellent films, even though his best performance was not "Tender Mercies",but "The Great Santini". This movie was truly a big waste of time. I giveit a 2 out of 10.

Coming from both a fine director like Altman and a writer like Grisham Icertainly expected something better than this.From the beginning you guesswho sets up the conspiracy again the main character MacGruder.Beingeverything so predictable is an unforgivable sin in a good thriller.Aninteresting character like the one played by Robert Duvall could havereceived a better treatment.Certainly this is one below average in thegenre.

This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to haveso much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn’t deliver his lines.The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham’s name. No wonder it wasnever published as a book or released in theaters. I didn’t even watch thewhole thing. I decided I didn’t care who done it, then realized there wasno "whodunit" to care about!

I'm curious. Why would an acclaimed director such as Robert Altmanwould pick a plot like this? Of course the cinematography, editing andother technicalities are good. But the story… It is too obvious atthe beginning of the film that the whole thing is a trap for theattorney.I was hoping for some kind of twist that would surprise me.But no. It keeps getting worse. And I kept going trying to understandwhy someone with so many original ideas would dig such a hole. I don'tknow if the original story by John Grisham is that bad, but the movieis. I just give it a 6 because of the cast and because of some finework of the technical crew.

Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph theirintentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more thantelegraph future plans — they show up at your house drunk and buffetyou about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been usedbetter, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. EmbethDavidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branaghdoesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably waswritten to have.

The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeablecharacters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by Britishactors.

Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a partyhosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a womannamed Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seemsto have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there theydiscover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by herfather, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the housearguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in frontof Rick, and he then spends the night with her.

Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in theday, asking him to file suit against her father because of hisdangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to doanything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sentto prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick findshimself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children fromthe danger he has unknowingly brought to life.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. While featuring goodactors the movie doesn’t live up to the expectations. The most dramaticthing about this movie is the music, which pretty much sums up the movie:compensating for a bad and confusing storyline by having known-good actors,loud and dramatic music. It doesn’t change the fact, that this is a veryboring movie to watch. Earned itself a score of 1.

If your kids are being threatened do you leave them in a shop and make aphone call? Do you leave them at all? If this is Altmans (or Grishams)idea of suspense he’s got it all wrong. It’s just plain boring to try andcreate suspense on the back of the characters utter utter stupidity.

Next please….

Rarely have I witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. There is almostnothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. Whatfew interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to belittle more than red herrings. Actors of stature - Robert Duvall, RobertDowney, Jr. - are deployed in roles which go nowhere; a director ofoccasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through acoffee-stained camera lens; a writer (John Grisham) who has never producedanything of merit, discovers new depths of under-motivated incoherence. Thefilm has a cheap, lecherous feel about it - but barely at the level ofcommentary - its really part of the aesthetic. Normally, I come on to theIMDb to write balanced, generally appreciative comments. This egregiousdisaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless, bilious rant. Iwon’t, but only because I no longer want to occupy my "mind" with thistrash.

read comments (0)