Reviews

From the write ups on this movie I was thinking it was going to be closer to the novels. It looks like it started out that way but they wound up putting in so many holes into the plot in order to have a particular action scene they lost me. Some big and some small. Here are some examples: 1. Bond kills the suspected bomber in the African embassy then blows it up. Next action but at the start of the scene they made a point of saying they wanted the guy alive. Why couldn't Bond just get out then try to pick him up again later? This one is a small point and could be written off as poor judgment or maybe he didn't want him alive so badly after all. It would seem that he was a lot closer to escaping earlier in the sequence and Bond never thought about shooing him then.

2. The top bomber was being hired to drive a gasoline truck into a parked airplane? And a giant airplane to boot? Why did that need a top agent? I think the people in Iraq have shown it doesn't take a lot of skill to deliver a car bomb. If they wanted a top guy couldn't he have used a rocket or a remotely controlled vehicle? It seems to have been done this way just for the Indiana Jones type fight in the truck cab.

3. A big one - the CIA was going to pick up Mr One Eye. Felix Leiter tells Bond it's set. The next thing we know Mr One Eye is not only free from the CIA but has his crew of thugs able to kidnap people and take them away without any CIA tail. I guess you could write this off to incompetence on the part of the CIA but that is pretty bad. I had a real problem with this.

4. One-eye wants both the bank code and the password so needs the woman and Bond alive. However they leave the woman in the road where Bond could run over her and or kill himself in a crash getting out of the way. It made for a nice scene but a few minutes later when we found out the bad guys needed them alive it made no sense at all. The whole point was to get the account number and password, if one or both of them were dead how would they be able to get the money??

5. Bond is being tortured and at the last second the old man with the gun comes in and blows One-eye away. So the old man can track down the bad guys but Felix Leiter is still back asleep in the hotel? Okay so the CIA is incompetent but why did the old man kill one-eye so quickly? The airplane bomb-plot just failed a few days ago and rather than wait to see if one-eye can come up with the money he is just killed outright? What is the point of that? It's obvious that the old man doesn't have any trouble tracking down one-eye so why not at least try to get the money back? If the old man wanted the girl to give him the money that is okay but why let one-eye off the hook? If the money is that important why not break one of his legs or something. I don't think many loan sharks would stay in business if they killed someone the 1st time they said they asked for a few days extension.

6. So right after Bond goes through hell the girl decides to screw him over because someone (the old man?) has kid napped her old boy friend? At this point she didn't trust Bond enough to let him try to help? MI-5 sent her on this mission with $15 million and she was being blackmailed? So they are incompetent too? And their man on the scene turned as well? Or did Bond screw that up? Between the CIA and the MI-5 screw ups you have to wonder what is the point?

It seemed like I was back in the Roger Moore days by the end of the movie. Daniel Craig was good but I really don't think James Bond should be the sort of man that goes to the gym to work on his pecs. I thought he would look with disdain on puffer body builders.

On the plus side - the movie is great to look at. Some of the images created are very good, a simple one with a Mustang pilot waving for example. Malkovitch is very good but that's his usual. Has he ever given a bad performance? So there are a couple of good things going for it. On the bad side, Spielberg just can't resist making the 14 year old boy the wonder-kid, who can through a crowd and without stopping for a breath, immediately understands how to defuse a potentially deadly situation with some guards. The adults just stand around while the kid doesn't need to think. Sorry but this type of thing just detracts from the movie. It's the kind of movie you want to lose yourself in, forgetting you are watching a movie - then somethings like that are thrown in and you are jarred awake, oh yeah this is just Spielberg being Spielberg. It's funny how the kids are so smart in his movies, at one point do 14 year old boys become stupid adults? When do you lose your spark of intelligence? I know, this is a bit overstated but it's like Peter Pan in a Japanese prison camp, it just doesn't fit.

The best part of the movie for me, and the only parts that were worthwhile were the scenes with Jessica Biel in the bikini, and at the bar. She is just incredible to look at. Too bad she was in a flight suite and helmet for most of it.

As for the film - putting aside the whole "robot comes to life" part - I couldn't believe the politics of the movie. I don't think anything this jingoistic has been made since 1945. First the robot comes to life and flies into Russia. The Russians send up fighters to protect their country. The American pilot barely thinks twice about killing them all and I am sure doesn't lose any sleep over it. I was stunned to see this, but okay he had to protect the living brain/robot I guess. But then Jessica Biel apparently flies across China in about 5 minutes and goes down in North Korea. Okay so I think now they have to have some negotiations to get her out right? Wrong. The pretty boy pilot and his trusty living brain-robot fly in blast dozens of Koreans who again were just protecting their country to rescue Jessica. So the life of one American is worth dozens of Koreans? I know Jessica is totally hot but come on, some of those Koreans were just minding their own business on border patrol and here comes an American jet and starts killing anything moving. Did they show this movie overseas? It's this type of thing that gives Americans a bad name. When people in a non WASP country see this do they think it reflects the attitude of most Americans? I think the producers should apologize to all the non-white people on the planet for putting forward this type of message!

Overall the movie was okay, it was fairly entertaining. I thought it was a disappointment. SPOILERS - the big problem I have with it was the fact that Superman and Lois had a little boy (out of wedlock). This made no sense to me at all. I have a problem with it on many levels. First - I assume this happened sometime during the period of "Superman II" when he gave up his powers so he could have a relationship with Lois. Okay but at that point she knew he was Clark Kent. So what happened that she got pregnant, knew Superman was the father but not know he was Clark Kent? Then the whole issue with Superman being the wham-bam-thank-you-man type. That goes against his whole philosophy of taking responsibility, being "good", etc. And then Lois is married? The comic book has been successful for 70 years and I don't remember Lois getting married to some other guy (though the actor that played him did a good job).

And Superman zips off into space leaving the "Fortress of Solitude" wide open? This after Lex Luthor was in it during Superman II and obviously could get back? I don't remember Superman being that stupid.

I also thought the part of Superman wasn't well cast. He just didn't seem to be a "superman", he seemed more like a Clark Kent panty-waist. That wasn't a big problem but given the amount of money spent on this movie I would have thought they would have come up with a better lead.

I left thinking I don't care if they make a sequel to this or not. It's not something I would spend money on again.

I am a big fan of WWII movies and was looking forward to this movie. I had heard so many great things about it. I was very disappointed. The actual photography and special effects were great. The actions of the people involved to make little sense. The opening at Normandy was well done but I didn't understand mixing the humor with the gore. But it was good at showing the brutality. Now the men at the center of the action were experienced soldiers. We see them using their wits in using mirrors to look around corners, not exposing them selves to enemy fire, etc. Everything is fine. Then comes the set up, trying to find the one private in the sea of humanity. Okay, so they look and finally find him. Now the logic seems to completely desert the men and they act so stupid which is a complete 180 from how they acted at the start of the movie. If they had no combat experience that is one thing but to start the movie showing how smart they are, then wind up the way they did just was too much for me.

Okay, I accept the decision to stay and fight for no real good reason because things like that happen. But then they start running out in front of tanks, stand still while tanks point their guns at them, sit on their butts when they run out of ammo, and to not even try to find out where the bridge was in relation to the army? As it turns out if they had not lured the Germans into their "trap" their fighters and the whole column would have been up to deal with them without any pointless fighting. Okay well that could have been a stupid decision but to have the men act they didn't have a clue about war, they didn't just go through the brutality of the invasion, was just so contrived it was too much for the suspension of believe normally called for.

I really don't understand why so many people liked it. It seems like the fact that Spielberg directed it gives in an extra 4 points. Obviously I am in the minority here. Maybe I watched too many episodes of "Combat" growing up and my expectation were too high.

Jean Grey kills Scott Summers?? Does Ratner know any thing about the X-men comic? Why did they let some one who doesn't know the characters direct this? So would he have had Superman kill Lois Lane? How about Scarlet blow Rett's brains out? Then she kills Professor X? I can't understand what the thinking is here? If he had Lord of the Rings he would have had Frodo kill Sam and Gandalf. As for the rest of the movie it did not make much more sense. Why did they have the boy completely unguarded? There were a couple hundred guards but none with the boy. Why didn't the army think to have sniper rifles to target the main mutants? I really really felt let down. I just don't understand why they would destroy a franchise like this. Maybe Ratner can have James Bond kill M and Q, then receive a pardon from the PM just as the president seems to have pardoned the mutants. What a terrible, terrible, waste of time, money, and opportunity. I hope Ratner retires with his millions and never directs again!!!!!

I didn't have real high expectations for the movie going in but I like the Rock and thought if nothing else there would be plenty of action. I have played Doom since the original. It starts out okay, gets going on Mars and the Marines go through tunnels, and hallways, and into rooms, ....for what seems like 60 minutes without much happening. I think they were trying for an Alien (original movie) like suspense. That's okay but I kept waiting for the monsters. They came but I wasn't all that impressed. They 1. weren't particularly "good" monsters, 2. they got killed very easily. I thought there would be some that were easy some that were harder, the deeper they went the tougher the monsters, but no. What really killed it for me was the the whole bit at the end where the Rock turns bad and the guy who started out to be a sidekick becomes the hero and goes off into the sunset...with his own sister! I guess they were trying for a "twist" ending but I didn't care for that twist. Why have the Rock turn bad? Why not fight monsters instead of another Marine? Why have the person who ends up being the hero be paired up with his sister? I don't get it. How could they make a dull movie out of Doom?