Reviews

I fail to see how anyone could sit through this utter rubbish.

Personally I don't mind the main actors, although Sandler has been in some pretty terrible stuff before such as Happy Gilmore.

I could at least put up with the other movies he has been in. Unfortunately I just could not see this one to it's conclusion.

The kissing scene was just too pathetic for me. It was reminiscent of 12 year old kids, so I finally stopped the boredom.

I gave it 2 out of 10, and considering I could not stand much of it, I think that was generous. Stupid and unbelievable script just is not funny.

I am an Aussie, but far from a parochial one. The last Aussie film I saw prior to this I gave a 1 from 10 rating, and it had a top Aussie star. Needless to say, as a result of the prior film, and also because I had not heard of this film, I was not holding out much hope to see more than the first 15 minutes. I usually go for good actors when choosing a film to view, and that usually works, but as I said on the prior Aussie movie it did not. Someone faulted John G as a mafioso, and on reflection, that could be one flaw. As someone else said, Brownie is the typical Aussie larrikin, and was faultless in that role. In fact, I thought all of the performances were stellar, and portrayed the era exceptionally well.

Not sure how this did at the box office, but I hope it fared well. If it didn't, I suspect that may be because of it's promotion or reviews from critics who often do not reflect what the public like. I must also add that I thought Sam Worthington portrayed a kid from the era exceptionally well. Then again, they all did a great job. Sam Neil as the laconic cop also needs special mention.

The best thing that I can say about this movie is that I did not turn it off. I would have to add however that I was tempted to many times. This was potentially a funny movie, but it just didn't quite make it. Perhaps the continual narrative by Ackroyd did not help. The standard of acting was reasonable. The standard of direction was reasonable. The story was reasonable and had the potential of making a good movie. The 91 minutes of run time seemed more like 180 minutes. The movie was too drawn out and the comedy was too little and not funny enough. Of all the actors, I thought that Lily Tomlin gave the best performance. Ackroyd was OK, but as his was the main role, it was going to take more than OK to make the movie good. Jack Lemmon was unimpressive and his accent unconvincing. I gave it 5 from 10, and that was probably being generous.

This is a movie about a moral man (Kingsley) trapped in an immoral world. When his son is ill and needing urgent medical attention, the actions of the medical staff lead to serious consequences for all, and Kingsley's character requires legal representation. Baldwin is appointed his lawyer and his experience with Kingsley changes his values. Baldwin had become corrupted by the legal system and was no longer interested in right or wrong, just winning. Kingsley's moral values of right and wrong and admitting our guilt and paying for our wrongs changes Baldwin for the "better". Baldwin's character now has a new set of moral values and this has disastrous consequences for other parties.

I thought this was a movie with a strong moral message and it was well acted by Baldwin and Kingsley for the most part. At times it got a little too much listening to Kingsley's explanations of why we should be honest. He came across as a bit of a saint, and in reality this never happens, just in words. All in all, I thought it well worth watching. In my book an 8 (from 10).

This Aussie flick filmed in 1999 does an OK job of portraying a bunch of small-time crooks in Kings Cross, Sydney. The plot focuses on the plight of a young would-be crim who's life is in danger after botching a job for his future boss. Very well acted by Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown. The plot is fairly believable with some very humorous moments in one scene which revolves around a bank heist. The setting-up of various themes central to the story is quite well done. Eg. When one crim is searching for bullets for his gun. I personally have a dislike for gratuitous violence in movies, and in this regard, the movie did not offend. It attempted and succeeded in showing us the human side of the baddies such as Bryan Brown. The rest of the cast did an OK job, without any real stand-outs that I remember. The direction was very good in succeeding in making a believable movie that provided good entertainment. The main overriding feature that makes this a good movie is the acting and direction of Heath Ledger and his successful portrayal of a naive young man who makes stupid mistakes for short-term gratification, thinking he is indestructible and not realizing that there are sinister people waiting to pounce on any mistake. The director, Gregor Jordan, deserves special mention. Rating in my book - 7 (of 10).

I found this movie to be well acted and with quite entertaining scenes that kept me interested for most of the movie. It was well acted by virtually all of the actors, without anyone being particularly outstanding. Where the movie fell down in my opinion, was that it was too melodramatic. I thought that there were too many scenes where the reaction or rather over-reaction of the characters was far to pronounced. I almost stopped watching it for this reason. I persevered with it however, and my final view of it as a movie is 6 out of 10. From my point of view, the director must take responsibility for that, because it could quite easily have been a far better movie. In some cases, humor could have been used in place of the melodrama to a far better affect.

The Usual Suspects is a very well written and directed thriller that keeps us guessing to the very end. It is refreshing that such a complex movie has so few weak aspects to it. Thinking back, I cannot remember any at all. I note that one reviewer stated that he has seen this many times and still finds fresh interest in it. It is indeed superbly acted and I was pleased to see that others rate it very highly. It is also a very well balanced movie without anyone that I would rate as a stand-out star, although there were many starring performances. Spacey, Byrne, Pollak, Baldwin, Palminteri, Hadaya, the list goes on/ All added that special something that makes a great movie. Postlethwaite's accent had me guessing, but that may be my failing rather than his.

It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway, that the writers and directors must have been at the top of their game also, to create what is a really great movie. I will no doubt watch it again before very long.

Ah, it's wonderful to watch great actors ply their craft. It is a truly uplifting experience. "Don't get carried away I hear you say", but in reality this is the exception rather than the rule. Not to take anything away from the writers and directors and other professionals involved who must add much to the secret ingredients. However, in the end it is the actors that must make it all come together. I suppose it is like most things in life. People who want more than to be average and have the talent and experience to make it happen. The end result as seen from this movie is that it makes us feel part of what is happening, and not just wasting time and hoping that things will get better. From my experience they rarely do, although I have been surprised on a few occasions. No such worry with this movie - great from the start, but can it continue the high standard throughout?

Such were my thoughts after 15 minutes - but could it keep up that high standard throughout. Well, in my opinion, not quite. It was however quite well done thanks mainly to Pierce, Geoffrey, great camera work and direction. Jamie-Lee didn't overly impress me, however it was probably just the part she played that didn't provide the space necessary. Pierce really is a fine actor, and always rises to whatever occasion. He is a bit camera-shy of tourist cameras though as I found out at LAX circa 1993. Who did Geoffrey copy that Cockney accent from? Was it Michael Caine, who is proud of his? Pierce plays a rather bent 007. Perhaps he was once a 007 but now realises that after 45 they no longer need you. I note that "shengyang" uses comparisons to Casablanca. The first 15 minutes had me thinking along those lines also. It is a tall order however in the final analysis.

It is marked "Thriller" but is really a hybrid Comedy-Thriller.

Overall - 7 out of 10 in my book. Well worth seeing.

I thought this was an entertaining movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. There was good acting by classy actors. All of the main actors were a credit to the movie and the director. Obviously for that to happen, the director did a fine job. To put it a little more into perspective however, this movie sought to appeal to our basic instincts of the "good" guy beating the bad guy. This is probably partly because it rarely happens in real life, but quite often in Reel Life. From that perspective it has similarities to Rocky and Rambo. The movie has an interesting twist insofar as most of us think that the "hero" is not actually the bad guy initially. As he begins to get into the car with Harris, it appears he will go to "Philly" and all will be sorted out. The one thing that I found unrealistic and unlikely was the reaction of his family to his alter ego, Joey. I guess that the sex scene on the stairs was to show us the double standards of his wife to the extra persona of her husband. I gave the movie 7 out of 10. That may appear a little light on, but that is to reflect why this movie has the appeal that it does. Although highly entertaining, it is because of the main reasons it is appealing. My vote reflects my opinion of the story, the screenplay, the directing, the casting, and the acting. It is good to see good actors employed to entertain and show their wares. Unlike some movies that I have seen recently where acting talent has been utterly wasted - a la "Little Fish".

Crap about a bunch of losers. Depressing, uninteresting, and boring.

Set in Sydney, Australia.

It beats me why Sam Neill and Cate Blanchet would participate in such dribble.

Cate's boyfriend, another junkie, returns from Canada to work as a stockbroker.

Her brother, another junkie, was injured badly in a car accident. It appears that the car was driven by the boyfriend.

Nothing interesting or original or entertaining.

In addition, it appears that Cate was a former junkie and who appears to be her old man wants help getting drugs because he also is badly hooked.

Just crap and more crap.

Good actors don't make a bad screenplay a good movie.