Reviews

Nowhere near as good as the movie.

I have first watched the Three Days of the Condor Sydney Pollack movie with Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway. I have since read the book - by James Grady Six Days of the Condor'.

This TV-series has basically no connection to the book, and mostly steals a few quotes from the movie.

Is the TV-series worth watching? It's not bad - it's just nowhere near as good as the movie. And it does feel strange when they rip off lines from the original movie - it feels somehow stolen by an amateur.

So I think that for fans for the original movie, and for fans for the book - it just it's going to work.

I think the low rating is do to wrong expectations - you expect a funny and light comedy with Tom Hanks. But what you get is satire and a criticism of modern society.

It's based on a pretty good book, and yes it not the same as the book. Christ it's a movie - can't be the same as the book.

If you watch it - just enjoy. Don't worry a long the way - it's not a sad ending.

Ok - so it might not be to everyones taste - but it is better than the rating suggest. Look at the list of actors, and on the director. There is no real hero in this movie, no one is really on the right side, and there can't be a truly happy ending.

Tom Hanks, Mellanie Griffith, Bruce Willis, and Morgan Freeman. They are all excellent actors - and Brian De Palma is a fine director. Enjoy it :-)

The background looks like a theme park - people don't look real the look like, the are dressed to play a part in a theme park.

And it felt like the actors were playing cowboys and Indians - it's a bit sad then when they finally make a cowboy movie, it is as if they're not even trying to give the genre a new great movie.

I would suggest watching the original -

The original is better - it's just more fun and lighthearted. Removing the robot scenes is a good example of this, alså extending the funeral scene - but also I think Sylvester is trying to make the fight more realistic - and that fight is just never going to be realistic. - it should be over the top, jumping the shark all out entertainment.

To little about the strategy of the battles - too much emphasis on motivation, will etc. Not enough about how the smaller army could win over lager ammes.

The book by Erich Maria Remarque is a beautiful and sad story that has been hacked to pieces in the screenplay Sydney Pollack is a great director however it is as if Pollack did not understand the beauty of the story the woman and her dresses and the man and his car We should have seen something akin to The Italian Job Lamborghini Miura in the mountains But Pollack does not seem to understand the love of cars Marthe Keller is wrong for the part you need someone so beautiful that it hurts to look at her perhaps a Michelle Pfeiffer Audrey Hepburn or Faye Dunaway Someone so beautiful that will make men casp for air The dresses that she hangs in her room should be like the dresses of Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys

Al Pacino is certainly a great actor but I cant see him as a smooth operator race driver and he needs to be cool for this - we need a Poul Newman or Steve McQueen

This movie is missed opportunity it a great example that having all the right people does not bring a great movie.

There is some good workshop humor from the local mechanics working with Hammond, some good sarcastic remarks from Hammonds wife, and those local mechanics you can't help but really love them.

And then there is the mystery - is Hammond going to go bankrupt?

I do hope not.

It's a very tame bad movie - the blot, direction and acting - it just surprisingly bad. Like if a kid wrote a story - very predictable story, filled with stereo types.

Jumping the shark is frase used to describe something that is too much - it's over the top. I think, that it is so strange, that Sydney Pollack that has made "Three Days of the Condor" would so loose his touch. The script is bad, the acting is bad, and it is impossible to suspend disbelief.

It's a just a really bad script - not one good "die hard joke" or oneliner.

Don't waste your time on this movie - go and watch "Nobody's fool" instead. It's the same author Richard Russo, the same actor Poul Newman, and the same director Robert Benson. And with these the same ingredients - you get an awesome movie in "Nobody's fool" and also and of course read the world class book the movie "Nobody's fool" it made from .

Richard Russo a Pulitzer Prize winning author co wrote the script (that was really the reason why I wanted to see Twilight in the first place). I like all the actors in Twilight, it's an all star dream team cast. Still Twilight (1998) an amazingly average movie.

The only interesting thing about this Twilight (1998) - is that it makes you wonder - how can so many people that are so gifted get it so wrong? So much talent wasted.

There is no dialog like the one in pulp fiction or reservoir dogs. There is lots of Quentin trademarks, but it's done so badly that it looks like a knock off. The soundtrack is okay – but it's just not cool. The actors have probably been instructed to play in cartoon 2D style to stay in the genre of martial art movies from the seventies – but is comes of boring. I think of natural born killers as a good script and a bad director, this film comes of as a bad idea and a director that is destroying his life with narcotics. Do fans of martial arts movie like this movie? I think this comes of as a pretentious martial art movie, and it leaves a bad stigma to the whole movie.