Reviews

Did you see great visuals on TV? That's why this film gets the 3 stars I'm giving it. When it comes to story line, you've seen this before 1,000 times but much smarter in other films. I had no idea that this was based on a graphic novel, more like a bad comic book. By the end, it was clear that this film was made for idiots who can check their brain in at the entrance and worship the man name Cruise who was on Cruise Control.

For some reason I allowed myself to pay to watch Cruise try to play 6 foot 6 inch Jack Reacher a few months ago. Bad idea. Gave him one last chance and came in with an open mind. The opening scene is a little murky. You're not quite sure what to make of it. Great visuals, the explanation given by Cruise is hokey, something is off but you just go with it. In short, he and his female companion are supposedly the last remaining people on earth with a job to do before they are ready to join the rest of the others in 2 weeks on Saturn. They are a clean up crew, maintaining drones that kill the alien "scavengers" on the planet and extracting water/minerals.

Gratuitous CGI, which is done pretty effectively, leads us to the first immediate problem. When Cruise pulls out a New York Yankee hat while reminiscing about a football game, you can't help but think "perhaps the worst and conspicuous choice of product placement I've ever seen." From that point on, while you want to figure out some of the mystery, you're loath to admit that this script has silly holes in it the size of Saturn.

Now I've seen worse but the middle and ending are very disappointing because the twists are not only predictable but so many remind you of other films. And they are also very awkwardly managed. With each twist you keep begging the film to come up with a better answer for these oddities. And as the film plods along, they are unsatisfactory.

This is a good free on cable movie, not worth spending money in the theater. As a rental, be prepared for disappointment. It's Cruise doing Cruise, marching on without brains to pick up a big check.

Yet another stupid sex crazed college movie. Sorry guys, this wasn't even a poor man's Animal House. The cast could have been used so much better if there actually was a script and the challenges on the "road trip" were even remotely believable. But this whole movie felt like an over the top B-C grade movie. Almost every gag was completely predictable, the geek ends up doing the exact opposite of what his personality would suggest. How surprising. The attempt to throw in some character development was laughable.

Now I'm not saying this is to be taken as a serious movie, but even to be mildly amusing... it sucks. Why so harsh? The joke are so cliché and predictable that you know what will happen and be said. The film completely relies on the charm of the actors, whom I'll give credit are good but cannot save a pathetic script. The road trip consists of contrived convenient situations that are absurd.

Want to watch a much more clever movie? Watch Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. I went in thinking I would hate it and was pleasantly surprised that someone made effort into writing that script instead of the pathetic C formula and C-movie high budget film this was.

Oh yeah. And enjoy the oh so obvious plug for e-bay at the end of this film. Pathetic.

While a little far fetched, this is actually one of the better thrillers I've seen over the past few years. Great performances by all the main players. Hackman and Eastwood, Harris and Linney give very believable performances -- who knows what happens concerning the President? Given the Clinton scandals, is this so far gone? Not at all.

I really like the pacing, the script, and Eastwood still comes off as the gruff wiseguy who can eke it out when necessary. I think that after this flick he was just too old -- but not here. Liked this one far better than the farce with John Malkovich, In The Line Of Fire.

Sure there are some overdone moments, but this is one of Eastwood's better movies. Ending is also good, especially the Eastwood confrontation. Kudos for an excellent, well done flick.

After reading the rest of the reviews by the "critics" I realized a pattern -- all of them are familiar with Derrida and would love to know more about this man who apparently is very private. The film is like "a day in the life" to a certain degree so for those who always were dying to know what this man is like, it is extremely exciting for them. I was shocked and appalled that they praised this movie which is nothing short of ludicrous and absurd. Most of the critics lost complete perspective in their zeal to learn more about Derrida, a man who they know little about personally, and fail to criticize the film which really is a whole group of missed opportunities and is done in very amateurish fashion.

There are some golden moments but they are few and far between and could easily have been summarized in a 15 minute documentary rather than a full feature that seems only to try to prove, by "deconstructing" the documentary process that it is virtually impossible to do a documentary because the subject is aware of the camera and then doesn't act completely naturally. Unfortunately, the producers ram this point home with inane, superfluous shots of life designed to illustrate a phrase that a reader read in new age monotone, thus failing to even attempt to capture much of the mystery that the man is shrouded within and focus more on vague, abstract clips. Quite frankly, I thought the film was somewhat insulting to Derrida. I wasn't sure if many moments were an attempt to provide comedy in the film to keep the audience interested at the expense of the subject.

The critics can spout abstract praise and make comments about philosophy and deconstructionism (hoping to feel a "superior" thinker to the audience) but what this comes down to, unfortunately, is a very poor film with little preparation, poor questions, no follow up, no direction at all (regardless of the mystery of deconstruction, isn't the point of most films to captivate the audience?) that will only be interesting for fans of Derrida who want to see a little bit of this man's personality -- and even that is limited. I've become interested to find out what my friend found so interesting in Derrida's philosophy and I got nothing from it in this film.

A friend who was very influenced by Derrida asked me if I wanted to come along and see the film. I didn't know who he was and was very enthusiastic to see this film. I read the 3 preceding reviews here at the IMDB after seeing the film and I'll say that the gross mediocrity of this film is summed up with perfection by those reviewers. It was glaringly obvious that the producers were completely unprepared, had absolutely no agenda, and I could not figure out what they hoped to accomplish with this film. Was it to praise or mock Derrida? It was a 90 minute attempt to be stylish with no substance at all. I had no idea what the film was trying to accomplish except dropping in a 85 minute take of film with words spoken at certain parts in an attempt to show style (and a few other obvious superficial attempts at style.)

Not once was there a discussion or revelation as to what made Derrida such a legend (at least so I'm told), little if anything about is family life (except at in the last third of the film), and the clips that were edited in made him appear like an incorrigible Frenchman with a sense of humor, which he may be but I got the picture very early on in the film. There is an attempt to do a chronological bio by taking his books (I presume) and reading a passage from them in an asympathetic, new age monotone and attempting to show some brilliant connection between the quote and the scene in the film. But there really was no order and the scenes shown, largely, go unexplained. Sometimes they are a superficial illustration in Derrida's life of the simple quote. Nothing worthwhile, just style.

The questions asked to Derrida were general, inane questions with not a single followup. When Derrida answers (he's frequently annoyed answering such general stuff) there is an obvious follow up question each time that is NEVER asked. The best one is when Derrida rambles about how he'd love to know more about philosopers' personal lives because its so strange that they never speak about them. Funny, because this film doesn't really say much at all about Derrida's personal life and Derrida himself admits several times he has a hard time talking about it at all. Refused to, actually. Does the interviewer ever ask why he is so intensely secretive about many things, like other philosophers? NO!!!! Instead we get several clips of what a sample lecture is like with a student asking a very simple question but making it sound as obtuse, complicated, and deep as possible. Ugghh.

How stylish was this movie? The first 15 minutes are spent with a drive through Paris with constant cuts of different news clips saying that Derrida is a modern genius, thinker, etc. etc. and father of deconstructionism. Do we ever find out why? No.

The camera wobbled throughout the entire film. Things were out of focus at times. I was so surprised that out of all the hours shot (Derrida even talks about the camera crew following him for 2 weeks) they chose this stuff to put in.

Unfortunately I know very little more now about Derrida than I did when I came in. My friend enjoyed the opportunity to actually see the man and what he was like on the screen but felt the same as I did. It was as though there was a camera crew commissioned to shoot some footage and then it was thrown together in a hurry. Disappointing. Missed opportunities. I really went into this film wanting to like it and feel like someone fleeced me of $10 and dropped me off a home film that has never been edited. And I'm an optimist!!!!

Inferior to the first film in many respects except for action. Unfortunately there is very little character development and the film focuses itself on a tortured, twisted plot. Puberty has not been kind to the actors, especially Harry, who now speaks in a very deep voice.

No question that the character development is the enjoyable element of the first movie that is so sorely lacking here. Yes, great CGI but nothing beyond it. The huge number that rated this a perfect 10 here are either kiddies or ballot stuffers. You will be disappointed. The movie is entertaining but drags on for over 2 and a half hours. Harry wonders why Hagrid mentions to go somewhere and then after they do, you'll begin to wonder the same. Bad pacing, bad flow.

Worth seeing? Perhaps as there is a lot of shlock playing now. But don't expect a great film -- this isn't one. While it no longer is an "intro" to the Harry Potter series, this one suffers from the focus on CGI rather than good moviemaking. Good video rental and a film if there isn't anything else playing, but not a must see.

A real farce of a movie with some entertaining notions and scenes. This movie is something in between David Lynch (incoherence personified) and Mamet (twists and turns) and does neither particularly well. Stamos is one hot looking woman but her performance, combined with a truly twisting and confusing script, makes you lost in the movie and somewhat unenthralled with Stamos' gratuitous nudity. Unfortunately the nudity doesn't even fit in so well with the story at times... but I digress.

The point of the movie escapes me since the ending reminds me that this is a lame, Hollywood production. Big dollars thrown at the screen for high value but with an ending guaranteed to leave you nauseous. It was unnecessary. The beginning starts with SO much promise but then loses all credibility quickly and goes nowhere special.

Banderas plays his role pretty decently but for some reason he felt very miscast. Right from the beginning some of the lines and connections are choppy and so far from practical that you are constantly reminded that this must be a movie. David Lynch's movies are incoherent and silly enough (although from a standpoint of style they are superior) but do we have to deal with junk all around?

Bottom line -- if you like Stamos, find her naked elsewhere or wait till someone grabs the video from the DVD for your satisfaction. Other than a few redeeming moments, this film is a loser.

The script for this movie is so bad, it's terrifying. The corny "high-fives" place this movie right into the bad B-movie category and is the reason why Stallone's movie career ended. Oh, it's painful. Even watching Snipes is painful. The dialogue is awful, makes little sense or logic, has zero in the way of originality and is just another "bad guy escapes and hero needs to be brought in to save the day" film. This isn't really sci-fi, just a bad flick. Not even worth a rental.

Horribly bad tripe with a script that sounds like a bad, amateurish soap opera. It's really difficult to believe this film got made.

The premise is somewhat interesting, two teenagers looking to plot the perfect murder for their own selfish reasons (and feelings of superiority) and a curious relationship. From after the first 5 minutes, it's straight downhill from there. Strange occurrences make no sense, characters acting in a manner completely inconsistent with any sense of reality, logic, or other rational thinking. Worse, the movie is incredibly predictable.

While I usually cut films a little slack, this one has no redeeming qualities other than just mentioned. Sandra Bullock directs and acts in this picture (and completely miscasts herself) and this is one she should bury. Unfortunately, it might be a message not to quit her day job.

Figures that this is a remake of a movie with a great premise. Unfortunately it is butchered into a B-movie execution. The acting is weak, the editing is weaker, and the plot holes, some ridiculous dialogue and unrealistic events keep it well within B-movie status. It is entertaining but you'll be left unsatisfied at the end of the movie, feeling like too much was left out and that the whole script and movie was a sloppy effort.

The premise in this movie is enough to radiate fear. But from there everything goes downhill although there are one or two nicely done scares. But this is a not great movie, nor even a very good one. That doesn't mean it isn't entertaining but it is instantly forgettable. The audience had a few shriekers and a lot of laughers because of some silliness in the film. I'm looking forward to seeing the Japanese version.

The biggest crime in the creation of this movie is the total lack of depth to the script or reasons behind what goes on. Things happen just "because." It's so silly that at the end you say "well why did that happen? Most good horror movies give you the reasons and answers but this one leaves you with questions, namely, how in the world did this movie get made with such open holes? I can answer the high ratings here -- major ballot box stuffing must have gone on at the IMDB. This movie is nothing more than a 6 at best. Great idea. Truly. Poor execution. See the Japanese version first...

If you are disturbed by dark films then this film isn't for you (apparently the previous reviewer needs Hollywood candy.) But if you like your suspense gripping, cold, with great character development, then this is a film you won't forget for both the story and its all around excellence.

While not as easily palatable as "The Usual Suspects", "Seven" is a film about a psychotic man trying to make a point about the downward spiral of our world. He's Hannibal Lector but with a purpose for killing besides mere glee. The production is astonishing, sound is fantastic (you wouldn't believe it would be in a "cop" film), the acting is first notch, and most of all, it made me really appreciate character development. The film delves into what basically makes two men tick and how they view the same world with completely different perspectives. Is either right?

Great care was take to make sure that the dialogue flowed as well as the pacing of the film, which picks up just as soon as you think there is a lag. Incredibly, the film is nowhere near as gruesome on screen as most other gruesome flicks ("Gladiator" comes to mind) and it is mostly the disturbing thought that there are people like this and perhaps the world isn't a rosy place with a few freaks... or perhaps it is. The film gets better with repeated viewings and I think that this is one film where Morgan Freeman just shines as an actor. Brad Pitt actually is remarkably good as a typical American who seems to have been educated through pop culture and is quick to the hip rather than to the brain as is Somerset, Freeman's character.

If you can enjoy a movie like "Silence of the Lambs" then this flick will take you for a ride. If you are simply disturbed by disturbing things in this world then you might not give this movie a chance. The DVD is remarkable and perhaps the most worthwhile DVD you can get with all the interesting commentary tracks. The previous reviewer probably also thought that "Fight Club" -- another Fincher film -- was just a social commentary applauding violence. Like that film.... there is so much to see and appreciate in this very dark film.... Fantastic, intriguing, and replayable...

Better than Hannibal, well below Silence of the Lambs. Both Ed Norton and Anthony Hopkins turn in tired performances. Oddly, Hannibal is left to look far older than he appears in either predecessor movie and this is supposed to be the first in the series.

But let's get to the movie. Yes, the killer is interesting and Fiennes gives the best performance of any actor in the film. However, the unique quality of this series is the Hannibal character and not the typical "let's go find the serial killer" routine. Strangely enough, Red Dragon does not capitalize on our getting to know more about Dr. Lector and more on the routine and predictable plot. But that is what it is and you are left with dozens of dialogue and lines you've all heard before. How sloppy is the script? I remember Hannibal using the word "messily" in his dialogue with Will Graham -- is that a word anyone would even remotely equate with the brilliant genius Dr. Lector?

The movie on the IMDB is HIGHLY overrated. If you are walking into the theatre hoping to see a top 250 movie, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for some good mindless fun for 2 hours, you will be entertained and the production is better than average. But let's not fool ourselves -- this was a project to cash in on the predecessors and it doesn't even deliver Hannibal the way you'd probably expect. The beauty of Silence of the Lambs was that there was a high tension between the innocence of Clarice and that of the evil Lector. The relationship of Graham to Lector is not exploited and the scenes with them are very tired and not the nail biting encounters of Silence. It's inferior, although entertaining. See it for the fine performance of Fiennes. Warning... predictable....

A mystery in two eras? Unfortunately, after about 15 minutes I couldn't give damn what happened. The premise -- an 19th century author who is a mysogenist and also writes about love and dedication (say what?) might be revealed to have had a secret lover. Just say it isn't so! No, that would be just incredible. What's the big deal? It's not like it was the search for the Pope's secret lover, just some poet. If that ridiculous plot doesn't intrigue you, neither will the ridiculous, unbelievable lines that are uttered throughout this boring movie as they move to a predictable ending. Really, you wont care. The "love story" of the modern day is predictable and has no chemistry. The love story of generations is ridiculous. The "clues" that are discovered in various places are preposterous. This is a movie that overstates its importance every minute and ends up as the farce that it is, which might explain why it was out of theaters almost instantly.