Reviews

Despite the impressive writing and acting credits, I could never figure out what the plot was, who was doing wehat to whom and so on and finally after an hour, I gave up. A total waste of time, frankly - poorly scripted, and appallingly directed. Slow, tedious....Skip this one on TV..which is where I endured it tonight.

I cannot understand how some films ever get into production - like this pitiful attempt at a crime drama that I sat through on TV hoping it would get better. It didn't and I wasted two hours on pure garbage. It's the sort of movie that has made me hate most contemporary films that are pretentious, boring and a total waste of time and money.

Meryl Streep must have been really hungry to take on a part in this film. Tiresome, endlessly boring -- a pitiful attempt at a comedy. I only sat through to the end in the hope things would improve - but they didn't. It's another in a long list of contemporary films that makes one wonder why this humorless attempt ever got into production. Oh, dear... as for Roseanne - some people think she's funny. She may be occasionally amusing on TV, but she's not in this film.

Okay, so I grew up on MGM musicals. In the 60's I worked in the script department at MGM. I consider MGM my alma mater...the greatest studio the world has ever known, or ever will... and it saddens me to see only one viewer comment on this magnificent film. If the kids today were to watch it, perhaps they'd realize how sad it is that they don't have this kind of film, this kind of immortal music, this kind of great performers to enjoy week after week.. I am only thankful that in my era Hollywood made good decent films... before computer effects, before the so-called music called rock and rap, before all the gratuitous violence and needless explicitness that has made many besides myself prefer renting classic films at Blockbusters to enduring the gross tasteless garbage that pollutes most cinema screens these days. Ooops..I didn't mean to climb on my soapbox, but after watching "An American in Paris" on PBS tonight, I was reminded of the sorry state of the movies today and how wonderful the golden age of Hollywood was. God bless Vincente Minnelli, Gene Kelly, Leslie Caron...wherever you are now...We miss you! Let's hope PBS gives us more of the classics to enjoy!

My TV watching is confined almost exclusively to PBS and the British shows, which are usually the only things on TV worth watching. BUT... this particular show suffers from an excess of unintelligible dialogue that only added to the confusion of the muddled plot and story, the jerky handheld camera work, the appallingly choppy editing and uncertain direction. May I suggest to Rebecca Eaton that she add sub-titles to this show (which still has a few episodes to run) so that American viewers can truly enjoy rather than endure the British dialects and poor diction of the performers.

I caught the last hour of this disaster on ABC last night, and am grateful I only endured an hour. Judging from the other reader comments, it was three hours long. Dear God! The hour I sat through seemed like ten...and the final scene suffered from the slow pacing, endlessly repetitive tuneless music trying unsuccessfully to emulate the great Victor Young, and a pitiful performance from the female lead who I had never heard of. She should go back to acting school! As for Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins, they both looked uncomfortable - but not nearly as uncomfortable as audiences must have felt in a theater sitting through this pretentious attempt. When is Hollywood going to stop trying to redo films that have already been done - and done much better. As for the direction and editing, oh, dear... ! Films like this only underscore my growing aversion to too many contemporary films preying on public adulation for name actors and forgetting that without a good script and competent direction, a film must inevitably fail...as this one certainly has.

By accident I clicked on this over ABC tonight for ten minutes... which was all I could stand...I could not believe what I was watching... That rumbling you hear is William Shakespeare whirling in his grave.. MTV addicts will love it, but those of us more mature and discerning will wonder, as I do, what next will come oozing out of Tinseltown...I am truly getting to the point when I HATE movies (unless they were made before 1970!)

Imdb has a banner "The big sleeper of 1999" - so right, guys! I was almost asleep after only 30 minutes. This should have been called "The Sixth Nonsense." I wasted two hours enduring this pretentiously directed, appallingly confusing and ultimately irritatingly dull movie. The little boy was incredible, and should have got the Oscar. Bruce Willis has two expressions throughout. Who half the other characters are totally escaped me. This film is one total bore. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who disagrees with the unwarranted praise lavished on this attempt. Is it any wonder I seldom enter a cinema these days? If I feel a film will appeal, I'll rent it and watch at home. I'm sorry I spent three bucks on this mess.

I was engrossed in this film up until the final five minutes. When men Tom Ripley is attracted to don't return his advances,he murders them, and gets away with it... but then...what happens to him? I plan to get the book to find out, maybe... but the film definitely needed a final concluding scene that lets us know Mr. Ripley may have been very clever, but he still is a murderer who should be brought to justice to wrap up the story. I felt cheated because I wanted to know what happens to him. We all want to know "what happens" to the character in a film - and this one doesn't. A big disappointment, as too many contemporary films turn out to be these days.

It would be interesting to know the ages of those who have already gushed forth paeons of praise for this movie. I caught about a half hour on TV while having lunch today, and could not believe what I was seeing and turned it off. Feeling incensed as I do with most contemporary films, I checked your viewer comments and saw most people loved it. Why? Because I suspect they are all under 30. I am long past 30, and having lived through and loved all the great films of the 40's and 50's, I find this type of emotional assault too grim, too depressing, too pretentious. Isn't there enough misery every day in this unhappy era we are living through? Why spend two hours watching some screwed up characters try to sort out their lives? Sorry. The actors may be great, the direction flawless and all that... but isn't the bottom line of any film to be entertaining? I am not entertained by this sort of sturm and drang. And as one of your viewers considers this the best film ever, I must put in my two cents for MY most enjoyable film ever... namely, SINGING IN THE RAIN, which leaves you uplifted, gloriously positive, happy to be alive... Yes, times change, but not always for the better, sad to say...

Is television so desperate for something to fill up two hours that producers are turning out stuff like this? Melodramatic to the extreme, unbelievable story and predictable denouement. The cast, who all do well, have my sympathy for wading through this.

Other viewer comments show that I'm not the only one who was disgusted, depressed and totally revolted by this endless exploration of explicit sex, violence, poor writing and direction and confusing plot revolving around a bunch of very sick people. I'm content to say that this is one of the many reasons I seldom watch contemporary movies any more. Most of them are trash. I only viewed this because I was told the storyline was the same as a script my agency is currently marketing. It wasn't, and I wasted two hours on this mess. Bruce Willis must have been very hungry to accept this role. No wonder today I call it Horrorwood, a pitiful contrast to the days when I used to work at MGM in the 60's when far more memorable films were still being made.

I checked your other viewer comments, and was shocked how many loved this excursion into the current dating scene, complete with stereotypical couples, all of whom were a total bore - the sort of people I don't even want to know. A couple of viewers did confess it was hard going for the first hour, which is an understatement. After about twenty minutes I pressed the STOP button and began rewinding the tape, totally turned off by a scene in an unmercifully noisy nightclub where one of the characters is cussing out her boyfriend over the phone. Oh, dear...This is entertainment? Excuse me...! This film only underscores my growing disenchantment with too many of today's films (and a lot of today's younger people, too!)

Seems I'm not alone in condemning this pitiful attempt at a film. As for Sharon Stone, her appearance, manner and character were totally revolting. As a friend commented "She looks like the type of woman who turns men gay!" As for Brooks' character, in all my years in the film business, I've yet to meet a screenwriter like Brooks portrays in this tedious, self-conscious story. I gave up after thirty minutes and felt like asking Blockbusters for a refund!

I'll admit I'm not a sci-fi fan, but dear God, this was such a pretentious, muddled and confusing film visually and the story was so ridiculous that I'm glad I only watched it in spurts on PBS tonight. And I only watched because it was partially shot in Dallas in 1979 which I felt might make it a little more interesting for me, having been involved in films in Dallas since the 50's... but frankly, some of the godawful horror flicks we've done here rate higher than this. No wonder it hasn't been picked up for commercial television. I guess the book attracted viewers but as a film, to quote today's teens, it sucks! Don't waste your time.

All other viewer comments seem to be mixed. Some loved it, others share my disgust with the endless repetitive violence, a ridiculous premise and Harrison Ford taking over the plane and flying it...really! Doris Day did better in a much better film years and years ago. This is too typical of today's excessive specials effects films, all cleverly done but ultimately boring. I prefer films about people not about unbelievable fantasies. For what this film cost, Horrorwood could have made ten good human interest films. Thank God for PBS and its wonderful Masterpiece Theatre and the British comedies. American films and American TV are fast becoming a total bore...

I was only tempted to watch this as I enjoy Jack Higgins' novels...BUT...the excessive violence disgusted me and at the end I never could figure out what it was all about, nor what happens at the end. The plot got lost someplace...and this only added to my growing disgust over too many contemporary films. I'm almost beginning to hate movies, and the only truly palatable (meaning enjoyable) films seem to be made before 1970. Needless to say, most of my movie viewing is of older films where violence was more restrained and more was left to the imagination.

It won all those awards including an Oscar... which shocks me. ABC showed it tonight and I had to force myself to sit through this endless, painfully slow-paced drama about a retarded man in a town peopled by dumb rednecks. Oh, dear... how boring can a film get? Sorry, Billy Bob Thornton, but this just wasn't my cup of tea!

I am appalled at the many favorable comments on this film. While the basic theme is commendable, I was constantly irritated by this story of trashy slum dwellers in England, especially a foul-mouthed black teenager who really had little to do with the main storyline. Had they ended it with the mother and the two teenage gay lovers moving away from the godawful apartments where they live, I might have had a better reaction, but the ending was inconclusive. I understood maybe one word in every scene. It needs sub-titles because of the accents that are incomprehensible. I do not recommend this to anyone who likes to enjoy films rather than endure them. I felt I had wasted two hours watching this.

I understand this film was banned in China because it deals with homosexuality. I prefer to think that it was banned because it could bore its audiences to death. Basically the story of a frustrated and screwed-up little Chinese queen who falls for a policeman who arrests him for cruising the park, this attempt at a movie is badly directed, incredible badly edited, static to the point of being a series of still pictures at times, with actors who maintain a single expression and have little to make one feel sympathy for them. Good grief... I sat through it though my hand itched to fast-forward to the end of this dreary exercise in movie-making. Skip this one...

I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...

I guess I'm in the minority, judging from other enthusiastic comments but despite the excellent production values, I found it more than ridiculous that all the bad guys are firing off umpteen rounds at Bruce Willis who never gets hit, and only suffers a cut foot from walking on broken glass. His antics and what he has to do stretches credibility to the limit. Too much violence, too much shooting, killing and so on. I stuck with it only because I thought it couldn't get worse but it did, leaving me with the ultimate question: WHY? Is this what audiences are thirsting for? Sorry. No wonder I've become more than disenchanted with what Horrorwood is spewing out these past few years..

Any film that is overloaded with voice-over narration to explain the shortcomings of the script deserves a slap on the wrist. I had not read the novel from which this is supposedly taken, and only watched because I knew Lou Diamond Phillips when he was a student here in Dallas before he became famous... and it is obvious this was one of his very early films. He looks innocently sweet and precious but seems to be struggling beneath a script that is sorely lacking. Makes me, as a screenwriter, wonder how on earth any producer plonked down the dough to make this film in the first place....

I can only think that Ben Walsh saw a different film to the one I endured last night. Certainly the costumes were magnificent but the script labored on and on without giving us details essential to understand what it was all about, and the direction was pretentiously self-conscious. I recall a film when I was a teenager - ELIZABETH AND ESSEX - with Bette Davis playing the Virgin Queen which was light years ahead of this attempt, and that was made fifty years ago. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that contemporary film making sucks, and ELIZABETH in particular is an exercise in tedium. Skip this one.

Like all Masterpiece Theater shows, it is very well done in every way except Episode Three, which I felt became boringly tedious and which could really have been omitted and the lovers getting together should have ended Episode Two. As for production, it was excellent except for the annoying intrusive solo guitar plonking away in scenes that should really have had a full orchestra with a lush score to accentuate the emotional mood. At the risk of sounding cute, I might add that it could easily have been titled "Heterosexual Hell" which is all it was, really... on and on and on....