Reviews

That's what this - a C- remake of 'Holy Smoke' starring Kate Winslet and Harvey Keitel. I feel like they didn't capture all the emotions very well that one can go through from all sides. The young woman learning about new things in life that fulfill her. The parents that are SO WORRIED because they don't understand their kid. And the goofy deprogrammer. IMO - Harvey Keitel NAILED the part. He mastered friendship, deprogramming, being given the run around by Kate. This movie doesn't have any heart. The characters are bland and Ansel Roth is pathetic from the start. The curiosity of this tale is how does the deprogrammer go from professional to needy; how does 'enlightened' lost child become the pillar of all that is sane and revered. Watch Holy Smoke. It's got the raw emotions.

I don't feel like I should have to preface ANY of my thoughts and feelings about this film - so I won't. You'll probably figure that out on your own. This story is tragic - watch at your own risk.

I don't know WHAT I thought I was going to be watching. It physically made me sick for SO, SO MANY reasons. I cried most of the way through it. I have a daughter around the same age and I wonder what I would do if someone did that to ANY of my kids. THEN - you learn about these terrible laws that are on the books that favor criminals. That's one thing that's true. If you're going to enter into a legal battle, it's going to be LONG and expensive. AND THAT IS APPALLING.

Injuring someone up to the point of death, maiming them severely forever, ON PURPOSE - should be a first degree felony. And with something like THIS CASE - where it was ALL caught on film - he should have received the death penalty. I'm not exactly sure why taxpayers have to fork out $150,000 per inmate - EVERY SINGLE INMATE. That's a lot of money that could be going somewhere else.

Hollyweird has been in a major slump for A LONG TIME now and EVERYTHING stinks. I actually enjoyed this. Granted, it's a well used plot that has a relatively predictable ending. However, it threw a new motive out in the world. The 'bad guy' doesn't have typical beef with society (if you watch the movie no then read this you'll say ha ha - bad pun), he's not looking for money. I think many have been turned off by this movie due to the pace and the formulaic plot but it has some serious imagery and makes you believe that THIS SCENARIO could actually happen (unlike many other films that are so over the top). In a post covid, post George Floyd world, it even manages to throw a nod here and there how the last 3+ years has affected us as a society.

It's not the greatest film in the world but IMO - it's worth a watch. Maybe you'll disagree. I thought it added a bit of 'something different'.

This movie was UNDENIABLY STUPID. It starts out with a house being blown up by some henchmen, the target wasn't there so henchmen follow target and his kid. On the other end, Angelina is mourning in her misery (no acting required there). Target gets nailed with little explanation right after he gives his top secrets to his son saying 'give it to someone you trust'. Kid runs into forest trying to lose henchmen and runs into Angelina, (a firefighting Hot Shot?) who helps save boy. Main characters die, Angelina doesn't do any 'firefighting' - just a silly stunt and fire avoidance. And the movie ends. No real character building - just another poorly made disaster movie - sort of??

I agree with another commentator I read before I posted - WHAT IS HOLLYWOOD DOING? They release one bad movie after the next and they're not getting any better. I understand they don't have the box office money they made at one point, but if you build a good story and don't spend your budget money on effects, you may actually produce a good film. The Brits do it all the time. STORY. That's really what we all want - a good story. This film is fragmented and just plain stupid. The kid did a pretty good job though.

This movie is obviously a metaphor - maybe even a message to fans from the stars themselves. This WAS uncomfortable and rather grotesque. I'm not a Jennifer Lawrence fan but I think she did a good job of portraying a person that has to be on the road of stardom with a loved one and seeing it from their point of view - which may well feel like intrusion with strangers trying to take little bits of you with them. When the person you're in a relationship desires the attention of fans and puts them first - it could feel just like this movie. And once you've given EVERYTHING - even your life - to your significant other, they start all over with someone new. Preferably young, full of energy and strong emotions. I think this movie was really interesting. Disturbing, but interesting.

I know this movie is long - but it is sooooo good. I am a Christian and I think this film accurately shows how NOT to be missionaries. Tom Berenger does a great job being able to live like a native and experience a life that's basically extinct in North America but then realizes what he's missing by not living in the modern world (mainly intimacy). The entire cast did a fantastic job and I agree with many other reviewers - this film is highly underrated.

This movie is truly for us 50 & 60 somethings that grew up in the 70's. All the references were hilarious! I'm an American and my childhood was VERY MUCH like this movie. It's a nod to a time that was so cool in one respect and so ridiculous in another. Plastic runner mats, crazy free gifts, our parents getting together to do 'whatever' while us kids burned the neighborhood down. I feel this movie is SUPPOSED to be silly and ridiculous - just like the 70's - humorously outlining what our parents were experiencing and what us kids were experiencing simultaneously. Right down to those stupid fondue pots that EVERYONE had. If you didn't experience the 70's - you may not like or understand this movie as a lot of the references are pretty subtle - except for the whale - which was absolutely a true event but in the USA.

I read this book 3 times because I loved the story. Funny enough, I discovered it in a tiny cabin up way up in the Superior National Forest of Minnesota. This book had been written in the early 60's and many critics hailed it as one of the first books of the feminist movement. And that's one theme I took away from it. A city woman gets trapped in the Alps and has to figure out how to live in an environment completely foreign to her. It celebrated her as a woman - a creature who's nature is to nurture and becomes capable of caring for herself and her menagerie including defending what is precious to her. She struggles with depression and illness and loss. Most importantly, she does it on her own without the help and tutorage of a MALE. To understand the poignancy of the story you have to understand the gender politics of the times - women still weren't seen as capable of running their own lives. It was assumed a woman needed a man to care for her and all a woman was good for was rearing children, cooking , getting her hair done. So please forgive what's going to feel like man-bashing - I'm only trying to explain how women felt during the feminist movement. It's also a tale of self reliance through almost insufferable loneliness.

I was excited to see that one of my favorite books had been made into a movie (even though I was almost a decade late in finding it). I DID like this movie but IMO it missed the mark. It should have taken place in its original time frame. Updating it to current time misses a huge part of this story - all she had to learn and how vulnerable she felt having no skills or physical strength in an environment which, at the time, was associated with just men (a hunting lodge with no heat or running water). She even drove up there with a MAN and his wife while wearing city clothes and shoes.

It had the opportunity to show ALL the things the woman had to learn, more of her ingenious ideas, her suffering through famine and illness. Basically, her becoming an independent, capable woman and surviving through very difficult circumstances without the lead of A MAN (meaning a person that would be skilled at living in that environment as hunting lodges are usually used by men). I felt that the movie's main theme was 'animals are people too' and spent too much time on her relationship with her dog. In the book, the woman loves and cares for ALL her animals - equally - even bringing her cow into the cottage for the winter to keep her warm. However, she does have a closer bond with her dog, Lynx.

I feel that when the man comes toward the end, the woman shooting him has multiple meanings. Not only is she protecting what has become 'her family' but she's cementing the fact that she doesn't need a man to help her or continue her lifestyle. There was an opportunity there for her to have another person to talk to and live with and have help from but she chose to eliminate the threat to what had become her family. This movie missed on a lot of what the book offers, and in doing so made it difficult for people to understand. It turned into a depressing tale of loneliness and loss without showing what she had gained throughout her tale.

IMO - read the book. The story makes more sense if you read the book.

This was based on a true story. A couple gets stranded in the ocean and then they die. At best, this was a SHORT newspaper article. Just because an event happens, doesn't mean you should make a movie about it. Don't waste your time watching this movie. And if you go SCUBA diving, make sure the company has a better way of tracking its clients than just using tally marks.

Excellent story of OUR American history. Whenever you have human beings together in one place, there will always be some difficult issues as human beings are imperfect. I think every person in America, especially our leaders of tomorrow, to KNOW that human beings can also love but they don't like being forced into ANYTHING. Change minds with love - just like the character of Ann did in this film.

To begin with, I really like movies that are NOT CGI and 1 second clips that make you dizzy. A movie with good characters and great plot are very entertaining. I'm just not sure what the point of this movie was. Aside from it being a pretty realistic point of view from the pilot, what were we supposed to take away from this film? The co-pilot endures some pretty profound loss and the bad guys die. What was the pilot supposed to learn besides life really stinks sometimes? Or was this just a PSA for hijackers? Someone pointed out that this would have been a good short. I agree. It was pretty long winded and I feel there was nothing to take away from it. It had good acting but left me feeling blah.....