Reviews

Took my eleven year old to see this today. She's not interested in animation or rendering, she just - as many have pointed out - wants to be entertained, and she gave it 8/10. She's very discerning! As a film, the premise is terrific, with an almost CSI / Agatha Christie set up. The tale, as told from the various perspectives is fabulous, and genuinely provides some laugh out loud moments, with some spot on characterisation and voices. Is David Ogden Steirs doing a 'John Cleese' though? My problem with it came with the last quarter when the filmmakers move from the story telling to a sock 'em, crash 'em resolution, and a chase scene that feels a little tacked on to provide a neat ending. This just wasn't as engaging, funny or characterful as the preceding 60 minutes or so. A shame, but it is still a terrific little film.

Meh. Just dull, really. No real tension despite an attempt to raise it by means of a few (ridiculously staged, convoluted set up) chases, a modicum of plot twisting that makes no sense, and a bit of the old ultra-violence. Toutou tries to be emotional with a few raised eyebrows, Reno sleepwalks through and says 'merde!' a few times, McKellen picks up a cheque for doing what he always does and Hanks continues his long slow slide into middle age without really finding a niche for himself - romantic lead? action hero? He tries both here, and doesn't convince in either. Howard plots the film by numbers, making sure that even the hard of thinking can follow it. It just looks like a low budget film made with a huge amount of money. You don't really care about any of the characters as they slip from good to bad to good without any real explanation apart from bizarre sociopathic behaviour and 'slap the forehead' obvious moments.

But I suspect the whole thing is unfilmable anyway. It's really a plot written around a supposition (the whole holy grail thing), and as such, the plotting of the film is not as interesting as the wider supposition, to which so much documentary footage has already been devoted. So we're left with this hotch potch: neither documentary, nor thriller, it meanders between the two with clunky dialogue that tries to advance the plot without losing the audience.

'I must find a library - quick'. C'mon.

By the way, in Britain, we do not all have red phone boxes, red buses, nor live within a couple of hundred yards of major landmarks like Tower Bridge or Millennium Dome. Amazing though it may seem.

Shockingly bad. I mean, I knew it was going to be poor, but this bad? Dragged along by my seven year old daughter, who is entranced by thirty year old re-runs on Cartoon Network (and they haven't aged well, speaking as someone who used to rush home from school to watch it), I didn't expect the cynical, set-piece laden exercise in making money which was served up. The good bits: any time Scooby (and therefore Shaggy, who Matthew Lilliard gets to a 'T') is on screen (and it isn't as much as you'd think it would be, couldn't they afford the computer time?). The bad bits: the rest, boy does it draaaaaaaaagggggg. The plot is weak, isn't explained very well and is thus confusing, but never mind because here comes another set piece that has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the plot. Why does Velma change from dowdy and homely into sex vamp, and back again? Why is Sarah Michelle Geller completely unbelievable as Daphne - she's a fine actress, but she sure does need to get away from playing Buffy clones? Why did I want to punch Freddy Prinze Jr. every time he appeared?

A cynical lazy Hollywood pic, lowest common denominator stuff, recycling ideas that weren't really that good in the first place and should have been left well alone. Already setting up the sequel at the end as well. Please, don't do it.

Within an hour of the film ending, my daughter was struggling to remember ANYTHING she liked about the film, bar -surprise- the fart scene. She was more entranced by the fast food she'd had afterwards.

Absolutely terrible. How can abominations like this ever be made? A decent premise (city put in danger by big corporation, heroically saved by firefighters), but an absolute cliche ridden script of the worst order, hammy acting by a cast who don't seem to know whether to play it for laughs, and very cheap and repetitive special effects. Must have been a stuntmans hog heaven, because we get to see lots of people wandering around on fire and falling from buildings for no good reason. Ice-T, despite taking second billing, appears only for about a minute at the start and a minute at the end. Tom Arnold picks up his cheque by sleepwalking through his role, and the rest of the cast must have been desperate for work and are desperately under rehearsed or just unfamiliar with the script.

You know something is badly wrong when in the intro scene, a man sets on fire by the side of an extremely large lake, yet prefers to wander around going 'argh, argh' rather than THROWING HIMSELF IN THE LAKE! The final climactic scene is frankly laughable - not even 'good in a bad way' as people make mistakes that they simply wouldn't do in real life (walking around slowly and having a look at the pretty fires rather than running like hell). Do yourself a favour and avoid this turkey.

I felt I had to add a comment after seeing the breathless gushing of the other comment. I was taken to see this film as a child by my unknowing parents, expecting a normal Norman Wisdom jolly romp comedy. Instead, what you get is this insipid British sex comedy of the worst kind where Norman (Norman!) plays a swinger aiming to get off with as many 'birds' as possible. Absolutely typical of the genre - poorly filmed and acted, no semblance of a script beyond the worst kind of double-entendre, and very vague hints of 'naughtiness'. And all seemingly on that special grainy film stock that is reserved for 1960's-1970's British low budget films. About the only memorable thing is the annoyingly catchy theme tune, which still pops up in my brain after 30-odd years.

Finally, in the last scene you also get to see Norman naked - running across the sand and looking frozen. I think so anyway- at that point my mother hauled me out of the cinema. I saw it again, many years later, and guess what, it was still dire.

If you're any fan or take any interest in the little man and his career, you'll apply the '10-foot-bargepole' rule to this. Believe me, you do not need to see Norman Wisdom's backside.

I gave this movie 8/10, but I have to admit being a little disappointed when I finally got around to seeing it.

The first half is almost flawless - a dystopian Kafkaesque world, designed seemingly by Terry Gilliam, inhabited by off-kilter characters that adds to the general air of strangeness and unreality. Striding through it all is an unrecognisable Cameron Diaz, and the (once again brilliant) John Cusack. Yet then it seemed that the initial promise somehow slips away- the film shifts its focus from Cusack's character to Malkovich himself, and the less screen time that Cusack gets, the more the film loses its momentum to (what I considered to be) an unsatisfactory finale. There also seemed an element of over explanation in the final scenes - why not just leave the audience wondering?

Still, a brave and original piece of film making all round- script & direction. Would that more films took risks like this did.

Well, to like this film, you've really got to like the lovely Mel. And while he's had his moments in the past, he is just starting to get .... on.... my....nerves. OK, the character is _meant_ to be obnoxious, in order to give the film its comedic spin, but boy does Mel smarm and squirm his way through the role. As most other comments have said, the women characters, particularly Tomei, are woefully underdeveloped and underused, leaving the film to stand and fall on Gibson's performance.

The plot lurches along too: Tomei is written out with an unbelievable plot device, the 'daughter' sub plot is predictable and the ending just doesn't convince.

As said, you like Mel, you get Mel. But if you're looking for sensible plot and believable characters, try elsewhere. It's almost as if the great Mel decided there just wasn't enough room in the film for anything else.

Far too long, this movie just seems like it will never end. Good idea, poorly executed, with absolutely no spark between the leading characters at all, this is a true 'put these stars / actors together and SOMETHING is bound to happen' film. Kristen sleepwalks through the film, Harrison struggles to make sense of the terrible dialogue and his character.

And I know that other users loved the music, but I thought it was the most obtrusive soundtrack I've ever heard. It never lets up! Every tiny scene is crashed by vaguely jazz piano arpeggios that only serve to disturb your slumbers.

First hour of this one is almost perfect, but it's ruined by a mad last twenty minutes where as many twists as possible are piled on an increasingly incredible situation. The coup de grace is that the little vignettes that play over the final credits were obviously an attempt to try and explain what's just happened.

Tremendous pop film- why can't they all be like this? Loosly based on the life of Carole King, terrific acting and a great story combine to make this one of those 'never heard of it but must see' films. Do yourself a favour and make sure you see this one.