Reviews

Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer are great actors; there's no denying that. But even the best actors in the world can't breathe believable life into dialog that is overly flowery and complex. And this script is full of tongue-twisting speeches that Pfeiffer and Willis just can't overcome.

In a way, the writing is actually pretty beautiful -- certainly it's far better than the tripe in most movies (and it's the only thing that elevates this much above a "Lifetime, made-for TV" flick). But it simply isn't the way that people talk. The dialog -- especially Pfeiffer's mouth- full-of-a-monologue at the end of the film -- is filled with unnecessarily big and non- conversational words and long, complex sentences that don't exactly trip of the tongue. Overall, that final scene was pretty touching, and the meaning of what Katie is saying is deep and important -- and ultimately, it's the only thing that makes the movie worth sitting through. But nobody talks like that. And then there are the scenes where the Ben and Katie talk to the camera, narrating the story. Again, if it was writing in a book -- "prose" as opposed to "dialog" -- I'd consider it quite good writing. But clunkers like "...maybe it was the stuff of life..." (that separated us) are so distracting that they ruin the flow of the movie.

The ultimate point of Katie's final speech, and I guess of the whole movie, is that you should choose to be with someone because of the quality of his or her character. Amen. But neither of these people really exhibited a depth of character to make them endearing to viewers or to each other. And even if someone has a sterling character, would you want to waste your life with a person who can't stop yelling at you?

Though the movie doesn't take sides, I personally found Katie far more annoying than Ben -- and her rigidity, coldness, and inability to really communicate made it pretty unbelievable that Ben would want to stay with her. Life is too short to stay with someone you bicker that much with, in my opinion. It's true that sometimes you can find yourself in love with someone who really pushes your buttons. But there was never really a sense of these characters being in love, so I certainly didn't find myself rooting for them to work things out.

One might make the point that parents should stay together "for the children," but as the child of parents who argued a lot when I was young, and who now (divorced) say they stayed together for the kids, I strongly believe that parents don't do their children favors by doing that. I'll admit that maybe watching this sort of story was upsetting for me to endure because of that personal history. But from reading other readers' comments, it seems that not many people found this an enjoyable film to watch. (I'm not saying that every movie should make you laugh out loud, or feel better, or whatever ... but a movie like this is such a downer that it makes you want your two hours back.)

I absolutely can't recommend this film if you have any other alternatives. If it's a choice between this and a rerun of "Full House," I guess you could give this a try. But if there's some way you can just watch the last 10 or 15 minutes, that's about the only part worth watching.

Wow...did this movie NOT live up to the hype! It's not only one of the worst movies of 2005, it's one of the top ten worst movies I've ever forced myself to sit through. At its core is a thoroughly unlikable family unit, and any "horror" movie that doesn't contain characters you care about simply can't succeed. I've truly enjoyed the performances of young Dakota Fanning in her previous movies, but I have to say, not even her charm could save this mess of a movie. In fact, I know she was just doing what she was told to do, but the fact that she shrieked and whined her way through the film absolutely drove me nuts; watching this movie was like being stuck in a very small airplane with a screeching, bad-mannered child. I also found it difficult to watch Tom Cruise's performance and not be reminded of his bizarre behavior as he promoted this film. I know it shouldn't impact a viewer's enjoyment of the work...but for me at least, it certainly did. He has become so creepy and unlikable off-screen that I have no desire to watch him in anything -- or to add another penny to his bank account. Many other things made me dislike this film -- including a lot of really bad plot holes (were battery-operated machines all frozen, or not??) and aliens who looked like rejects from the old TV show The Outer Limits -- so I could go on, but I feel I've already wasted too much of my time, just watching the movie.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has a few interesting visual moments, but overall it's one of the biggest disappointments of 2005. It seems to me that Tim Burton did a lot of things in this movie because he could -- not necessarily because it was it made the overall film better. One particular scene sums up what I found most unlikable: Violet's transformation into a giant blueberry. Just because CGI technology made it possible to make Violet swell to gigantic proportions, that's no reason to do it. In the original Willy Wonka film, it was clear that even as Violet grew, she was still portrayed by a real little girl (Denise Nickerson). In this version, within moments after the transformation begins, we're looking at a cartoon character -- and not a particularly convincing one at that. The original film had scary moments, because even if you disliked the naughty children, you likely felt some compassion when they were in peril. In this version, I didn't care whether the cartoonish kids were in danger or not. The whole film suffers from this problem -- it has no heart. (Another example is the emotionless, unattractive Oompa Loompas. Bleh. And the creepy back story about Willy's dentist father...those flashbacks only served to pull us out of the factory and certainly didn't make Wonka any more likable.) I thought Tim Burton had hit an all-time career low when he mangled Planet of the Apes. But his work on CATCF is even worse. Most of his original work, like Edward Scissorhands, is great, but I hope he keeps his hands off any more classic films.

Please don't let comments from confused viewers stop you from seeing this amazing film! It's been fixed! :)

Spoilers follow...but nothing that will ruin your enjoyment of the film, I promise. :)

Like a number of the people who have offered comments here, I saw a very early "preview" version of this film, and was left scratching my head a little bit. I enjoyed it, but was a wee bit confused about how exactly Elaine knew so many of Robert's secrets -- enabling her to convince him she was the ghost of Robert's dead lover. But tonight in New York City I attended the film's official premier (complete with spotlights and movie stars... very exciting!) -- and some small but very important changes have clarified the plot.

Craig Lucas' film directing debut is a revelation. He has created a very grown-up, intriguing, complex, fascinating story and coaxed spectacular performances out of some of the best actors on the scene today. (Lucas has directed stage productions before -- and done an artful, deeply moving job -- so he's not a totally-brand-new director.) He has done spectacular work on stage over the years, and now he is beginning to apply his genius to film work. I believe we're going to see much more amazing work from him. (He has written some terrific movies in the past -- such as Secret Lives of Dentists -- but he is relatively new to directing.)

The three lead actors here are amazing. Each of them can communicate more without speaking than a lot of actors can achieve with hours of dialog. I've loved Campbell Scott ever since "Longtime Companion," and his mature performance here fulfills the promise he showed in that film (also written by Lucas) over a decade ago. Peter Sarrsgaard veers from sweet to evil, from happy-go-lucky to seductive, with great ease, creating a likable character who does some very unlikable things -- like many real, flawed human beings. And Patricia Clarkson is entirely believable throughout the movie. That may seem like a simple thing, but not many actors can consistently carry it off. I believed what she was saying and doing at every moment. Without her steady performance, the movie could have really stumbled -- especially at a point where the viewer has to buy into a slightly implausible situation. She pulls it off. Robin Bartlett has a small role as a wise-cracking, cynical nanny, and is quite amusing in it -- much like her short but funny turn in another of my favorites, "Postcards From the Edge."

"The Dying Gaul" isn't the type of movie that does well in wide release, for a number of reasons. It's perhaps too much of an "art film" to be widely viewed by casual movie fans.

(And that title, while totally appropriate once you see the film, is a little too "high-brow" to do the movie any good. At least the filmmakers have the self-deprecating sense to make a couple of jokes about that, during the film -- Jeffry says no one will see a movie with that title.... But unfortunately, he's right.)

So, unless you live in a major city (or unless it gets the Oscar attention it richly deserves) you may not see it in a theater. But thankfully we live in an age when great movies can find an audience on home video -- and I predict that's what will happen here.

Definite Spoilers Ahead. Please don't read if you haven't seen the film yet and want to be surprised.

My biggest question -- why do directors/producers think viewers are stupid? Maybe most people just sit back and enjoy the ride...but why spend so much time and money to make a beautiful-looking movie like this, populated with some fairly good actors, and based on a good, classic story, if you don't care enough about the story to employ a thoughtful writer or two?

Anyway...this movie has too many plot holes to count, but here are the most glaring, in my opinion.

Why would Emily leave a comfortable, hot bath to answer the phone? In such a lushly appointed apartment, it's hard to believe it doesn't have an answering system or built-in voice mail. And even if it doen't, there's been no sign that it's going to ring an annoyingly long time when Emily starts moving to answer it.

Why was Steven so easily dismissed as a suspect -- just because he was "on the phone" during the attack? Of course he didn't commit the attack -- the attacker is DEAD. His having an alibi for the time of the attack does not clear him of arranging it. If he was even considered for a moment, he wasn't a suspect for committing the attack, but for planning it...and his "alibi" doesn't clear him of that.

Steven was so careful about so many parts of his "perfect murder plan" -- why would he so sloppily toss the cell phone out of his car, on his way from the poker game? If it were found (which it never was, apparently) the fact that it was on his return route would be pretty incriminating. There are plenty of places, like the East River, to toss something.

It's obvious the dead man lived in a very scary neighborhood (Emily visits and it's pretty dangerous looking) -- so we're supposed to believe the killer only used one key and had one lock on his door? I live in a nice part of New York and there are four locks between the apartment and the outside world -- but Emily was able to get into that apartment with just one key. Doubtful.

When Steven confronts Emily, it becomes a complication that there's something at the artist's loft connecting him to them: her wedding ring. Steven says he'll go get it. WHY does it matter if that connection exists? There are obviously many others they can't do anything about -- like the negatives to the photos he's just shown her; money that he's confessed to paying the artist; at least one of her friends who knows about the affair. And, he's supposedly a blackmailer, so wouldn't one assume he has some hidden "proof"? Why does it matter that the ring is in the loft? Surely, no matter what, Steven and Emily don't think they're going to be able to pretend Emily never had an affair with David!?

When Steve hands over money in Washington Square Park, David tells him the tape is a "commemerative copy" -- there's been no guarantee (that we've heard, at least) that there's no other copy of the tape. Who would assume that was the only copy??? And of course, we soon learn it wasn't.

If your husband tried to have you killed, and you had the proof (the tape), would you confront him (even with a gun in your pocket) or get the heck out and go to the police?

Of course David was recording the murder plot, when Steven laid it out at his own apartment. Why wouldn't he? If Steven was such a good planner, why would he not "shake down" David to make sure he didn't have a tape recorder? It would be in character not to trust him.

Argh! I want back the time I wasted watching this thing....

I first noticed James Naughton when he starred in the cheesy 1970s TV version of the Planet of the Apes, and later learned that he has had an amazing stage career over the years. It's a shame he may be more widely remembered for his work in that series than for his theater endeavors, which by nature aren't usually recorded. Fortunately, his heart-breaking performance as Jim O'Connor was saved for posterity. He's perfectly cast here as the charming former high school golden boy who comes to the Wingfield home for dinner, offering a ray of hope for a happy future for painfully shy Laura (Karen Allen in a well-acted stretch from her most famous role as the spitfire lover of Indiana Jones in Raidres of the Lost Ark).

Joanne Woodward shines in a multi-layered, brilliant turn as one of the most interesting characters in modern literature, Amanda Wingfieid. She gives just the right touch to small moments that give the viewer an enlightening peek at the desperate condition of the fading southern belle -- such as a moment on the telephone, coaxing someone to renew their newspaper subscription so she can scrape off her small commission.

John Malkovich also turns in a terrific performance, making the aftermath of the dinner party compelling, though painful, to watch. Malkovich has evolved into an actor whose quirkiness can sometimes overpower his character. In this relatively early work, his brooding sexiness gives an endearing depth to the story's narrator, a character who, in the wrong hands, can be utterly dislikable.

My only real quibble with this film is has to do with the technical direction. Paul Newman drew out such great work from his cast that it's unfortunate that distracting camera work takes attention away from them at times when it shouldn't. One can see that he was trying to make the stagy story more "movie like" and intimate with close-ups and quick cuts from camera angle to camera angle. For example, when Jim accidentally breaks one of Amanda's favorite glass animals, we don't really need to see a quick, tight close-up of the unicorn and his broken horn; that momentarily breaks the momentum of the scene. It's more than enough to hear the sad young woman's touching twist of the situation-- comforting Jim for causing the break by saying she'll imagine that her treasured unicorn has had an operation to make him look like a regular horse, and will be happy now that he's not a freak. The camera work certainly does not render the film unwatchable, and I think it shouldn't be missed.

Though this film adheres a LITTLE more closely to Dean Koontz's classic horror novel than the first Watchers film, it's still not very watchable.

Tracy Scoggins, once deliciously campy on the old 80s soap The Colbys, appears as a "temp" animal psychologist whose "expert" abilities include such as displaying letters of the alphabet on a computer screen and sighing, "Z. This is Z." Wonder if the character needed a college degree.... (She must be smart though, because she sports big glasses and a frumpy hairdo through most of the movie.)

Marc Singer, as Paul, displays some of his Beastmaster-like love of animals bonding with the beautiful canine star -- but unfortunately he and the mutt have more chemistry than Singer and Scoggins. At least a moment in tightie-whities gives Singer a chance to show he's in even better shape than he was in his Beastmaster days. Of course, the sex appeal in that scene is toned down a bit by his pulled-up knee socks, and the director doesn't bother to try to generate even a little sexual tension between Paul and his ex-wife.) That's just one of many missed opportunities for interesting twists. And several scenes that might be a little suspenseful fall flat because we don't know enough about the threatened characters to care whether they live or die.

Early on, Paul's ex-wife mutters," Paul, you're not making sense," at a moment when he's actually making as much sense as he ever does. Maybe she was just making a comment on the overall script. (She does quickly follow with one of the film's only fairly good lines: "If you're thirsty, the toilet's open, OK?" -- delivered to the dog, and probably intended for her estranged hubby as well.)

The "monster," which we see much too clearly, much too soon, looks like a reject from an old episode of The Outer Limits. And its potentially layered relationship with its creator is watered down by the creator character's bored delivery of exposition.

Spoiling any kind of dark tone, the dog's abilities are played for laughs in moments more fit for an old Disney flick -- like when he drives Paul's convertible. Then again, a numbingly slow scene in which the pup taps away at a computer keyboard does give a clue who might be ultimately responsible for the clunky script.

If you're a fan of the book, you might enjoy seeing a few key moments transferred to the screen (thankfully, without Corey Haim, star of the first Watchers film). But amazingly bad dialog, silly writing, cheesy special effects, wooden acting, and poor lighting combine to make this a pretty big waste of time.

Based on excellent source material, this could have been camp, or scary, or at least interesting. Unfortunately, it scores on none of these fronts.