Reviews

Nicole and Black, both great movie stars who had starred in many good movies, have chosen to appear in such trash!

Extremely boring,irritating and agonizing ,this so called movie depicts the lives of multiple hateful neurotic psychotic characters who react excessively to normal challenges in life, making big fusses out of them, and annoying everybody else along their path , including the audience,unfortunately.

There is not even one single character who can attract the heart of the audience. And when you care about no one in the movie, you won't care a damn about what's happening to them. How I pity Nicole and Black, but they have nobody to blame but themselves.

The worst movie I've ever known for a long long time. Not just avoid it, don't even go near it .

This is another piece of magnificent work by Clint.

I only have two problems with this film.

Firstly, Steve looks too old to have such a young daughter, who looks more like his grandchild, despite the fact that she is really his daughter. I mean, films are made to suit viewers' normal perception and not necessarily reality.

Secondly, when Frank meets Steve in the last scene, how can he acted so coldly when seeing someone who had saved his life, his family and everything he owns? Normally, Frank should have given Steve a big hug and plenty of grateful words. He couldn't have just raised his hand and walked away with his family indifferently after what had happened in the film.

Otherwise I enjoy the rest of the film.

I don't know about USA, but even for HK, no organ transplant will be carried out from people died from toxins. This is simply hazardous and unethical to do so. Are the laws very much relaxed in US?

Secondly,transplants are only done from brain dead patients whose heart are still pumping and keeping the organs fresh. This is surely not the case where because the ambulance will find Smith quite dead in the bath tub and the ice will do the organs no good.

Thirdly, I doubt in a place like US, people can pinpoint cadaveric organ donation to a particular person, who may be jumping the public queue at that moment. Can anyone advise me on this? Apart from this , the film is a bit boring for those who already know the plot(probably 90%) and even for those who don't. Entertainment-wise , it's nowhere near MIB2 for the pair of actor and actress!

I have seen this film recently 6 years after it had been released. As the rating had been high all along I was kind of greatly disappointed at its plot, particularly at the twist that aliens can't stand water.

Actually I have previously seen "Scary Movie 3" which had exposed some of its plot lines but believe me, "Signs" is funnier! How else can you imagine that when you are attacked by an alien, pissing at it can save your soul! It's equivalent to its release of poisonous gas at you.

This is not to mention the stupid scene when the clergyman was on his way home, and was advised by the police woman to have a last word with the upper half of his wife while her lower half was dead.

If flaws like these could be taken care of, this can turn out to be a much better movie.

It's a highly entertaining movie but got a number of flaws that ought to be addressed:

Firstly, why had the dinosaurs and the natives not grown to extraordinary sizes(they are just their own normal sizes) while all other creatures had?

Secondly. how the hell did the crew get Kong on board from the water as there are no cranes nearby and the ship is distant away from the shallow water, not to mention that a few bottles of chloroform ain't enough to drug Kong down. Moreover, it's unimaginable how and where they can keep Kong on the ship for days sailing home(there's no oil tank like in the previous movie).

These are points which should be addressed if you want to make film more seriously.

There are queries I like to share with viewers.

There is the problem that Kate and Alex are separated by 2 years in term of time dimension. That means even if Alex can reach Kate before 2006, it would be useless because Kate had not started knowing and loving him.

But on the other hand, there is no reason why Kate cannot locate Alex in 2006(her present time) with all the information and that will be meaningful because Alex would have already knew and loved Kate. Why is she not doing that?

OK, how the hell would they expect that the 2006 Kate will be able to meet the 2004 Alex through the appointment at ll Mare when they are separated by time of 2 years? This could never happen and they should not have attempted this impossibility.That's because when 2004 Alex reaches 2006, the 2006 Kate will be in 2008.In 2006,he will only be able to meet the then 2004 Kate who does not know Alex.

By the same reason , the two should not be able to meet at the end because when the 2006 Alex, escaped from death through Kate's message and waited for 2 more years till 2008, the "then 2006 Kate" would then be in 2010, still separated from Alex by 2 years unless something happened to break the spell! And in 2008, Kate will not be at the lake house to wait for Alex because he had not died and Kate would not have told by Alex's brother about his death that had led Kate to the lake house in 2008! Probably she will be told by Alex's brother his whereabout at the architect's office, or Alex would have contacted Kate long before at any time between 2006 and 2008.

All these contradictory points and twists( and many others actually) had downgraded the film into an unexplainable absurdity, and the only attractions that had led me to finish the film are the actor and actress that I both like.

Another good example that Hollywood films are no longer respecting reasoning and simple logic, not even logic defined by the film itself.

I don't believe a missile test conducted by the Navy can make a mistake like that.

I don't believe the Navy would attempt to cover the mistake by destroying the plane, particularly so many witnesses around.

I don't believe the Airline boss and the Insurance manager would try to crash the plane for the sake of money.

I don't believe anyone could survive after the plane was hit by the missile, let alone dogs.

I don't believe a weekend driver could drive the plane safely back to ground.

I don't believe anyone would write a script like that.

I don't believe that Lu can still look so pretty, despite her age.

I don't believe.....................

Reluctantly I have to apply the following repeated comments to this as to many other recent Hollywoood movies: it's enjoyable IF YOU CAN TURN OFF YOUR REASONING MECHANIC!

Among thousand loopholes, let us just focus on the most fundamental one: it is impossible that not a single soul had seen the girl after boarding. The plane is crowed with people sitting around Jodie and the girl. They have changed to the rear seats to have more room to sleep after take-off and in doing so, have to walk past at least 10 lines of seated passengers. And how could Carson grab the girl away without notice while having to carry the girl through the secret passages that was sited way from their seats? Had he done it through the toilet window it would be equally difficult and more noise-making? In any case, how could Carson guarantee in his plan that no one would see the girl after boarding? NO WAY! The girl could have gone to toilet 3 times or the flight attendants could have given her toys or comics even before take-off, or she may have talked to the boy and girl sitting in front!

Another ridicule thoughtfully designed by the storyteller: at the end when the girl was rescued by Jodie, notably in a heavily drugged state, nobody took a damn about arranging medical care for her. Oh boy, we are close to tears.

I don't understand how scriptwriters nowadays can underestimate the IQ and basic wisdom of viewers that much. This is treating viewers like dirt which is terribly insulting.

Just an off hand suggestion: Will it be better and more logical if Carson had kidnapped the girl the night before and blackmailed Jodie to proceed with the plan, and yet they had secretly carried the girl on the plane and later noticed by Jodie, and from this develop a different storyline which can be more convincing, more logical, equally entertaining and less insulting to viewers?

When can film-makers treat us like human beings again?

There is a major problem with this film: the storyline are presented in disconnected pieces and flips, with hundreds of characters and names interrelated with intrigue relationship.

To be able to follow, you have to be a person well versed with the Middle East and oil transactions, plus a good understanding on how CIA is functioning, OR you have already read the book(all of these amount to perhaps less than 1 % of viewers). If you are no such persons, you'll probably find yourselves completely lost half way through the film , and lost your interest to follow.

The film could have been presented in a more easily digestible manner, which should be a better choice for the majority of viewers. Yet the director has chosen to confine the presentation to his own liking, and expects everyone to be prepared to do his homework before coming to see the picture, unaware that most viewers visit the theatre only to search for a pleasant evening, ending up with half of the viewers gone towards the end of this film.

Why should we make movies that require viewers to do some homework first before viewing it? STUPID CHOICE!

This film is so boring that even a dead man would walk away from his seat.

There's nothing wrong with the actors and actress; they are good and some very good.

There's nothing wrong with the plot either, which should rightfully set the backbone for a comedy.

How can the director make the film so boring? The only answer I can guess is that the director has deliberately avoided to make it into a simple comedy, and so he had artificially polished it into some sort of serious "classic", in which he had tragically failed and ending up with a disfigured mutant.

Should a 23 year old boy fall into love with a 37 year old woman? The answer is in fact simple. By nature this sort of relationship would not last long, and the answer would be more clear if the question is rephrased as" Should a 53- man in love with a 67 -woman?" More will tend towards a negative answer.

The only thing I like is the ending--which subtly implied that the relationship didn't work out at the end, which should be the case in the real world. Moreover, the ending also marks the end of our suffering in watching.

This film is remarkable for its innovation and uniqueness in presentation and its wonderful music.

With so many successful examples of animated films from Japanese ,Hollywood and Disney, Tripletes can still stood out and impressed viewers to wonder what else can still be created out of the imaginative world of cartoons and animation.

The film is funny, sensational and imaginative. The hero of the story, the Grandma, did all possible and impossible tasks for the interest of her grandson, as all grandmas will do in the real world.

There's only one flaw which I don't like in this film: using Bruno as the car tyre, which is not too humane.

The French are a strange and innovative race. They've invented the world's fastest plane, minimal invasive surgery. Now they have started a new trend in animation.

Well done!

I don't like this film, and for several reasons.

I'm not too familiar with the Crusades history, and the director didn't make any effort to help viewers like me to follow the story, especially the relationship among the parties.

Bloom is as dull as ever and never a hero to me. He killed for no noble reasons, and he jumped to bed with Sibylla as fast as Paris did with Helen in Troy. He had refused to take up leadership offered by the King and thus forfeited the opportunity to avoid a war. So Balian still behaved like a common blacksmith and Bloom is desperately in need for some acting-training lessons.

OK, the last bit, people fought like mad for days, thousands were killed. Yet the 2 leaders took only 30 seconds to compromise, shook hands and left in peace, as if nothing had happened. Those who had sacrificed would feel so cheated that they'll turn in their graves. Were this the commonly acceptable standard of moral in those days?

Now this is a high cost movie. Why can't the money be spent in finding a better script and a better actor?

The Grudge, The Ring , Dark water, all derivatives from Japanese films and inherent with one common problem: we don't know why these ghosts turn so bad and we can do nothing about it! Ghost films used to be entertaining. There were bad ghosts and some good ones. But then even bad ghosts are bad for some reasons. They used to come back and seek for revenge from the bad guys who had done harm to them in their lives. They rarely did harm to innocent people around them apart from scaring them a bit incidentally.

Yet this series of Japanese stories headed by Samara from the Ring depicted stories of real bad ghosts coming back to harm innocent human beings for no or selfish reasons. Now this is very unhealthy! Dark Water depicted a ghost(a young girl) who had eventually robbed another young girl off her mother by murdering her right on the spot, after blackmailing the mother for her daughter's life. Now this it hurting.

Why did a 5 year old innocent girl become a bad ghost and possess so much power after death? Why didn't the mother possess the same power to stop her after her death?

We don't want to see the bad guys(dead or alive) winning at the end. Are there no ways to fight such ghosts? What if this ghost want some company and decide to get Ceci later on? Then the mother would have sacrificed for nothing and this is likely to be the case as there's no one who can stop the ghost from getting what she wants.

Who would enjoy a storyline like this? Or do Japanese have a different culture?

Among all its ridiculousness in this movie, the most unforgivable one is that the professional killer has chosen to involve a common cab driver in his job.

Professional killers did their job alone, make as little noise as possible, and expose themselves to as least people as possibly can. Cruise must have gone insane to have chosen to do it the hard way, and in no circumstances be able to exercise any professionalism of a experienced hit-man.

Because of this unprofessional-ism, he practically screwed up every kill he had attempted, ending up with a fallen body down the street, a massacre in a nightclub, an overturned vehicle, a missed laptop containing information of his intended victims, gambling his luck on a cab driver to convince the gang he's Vincent, be a protagonist in the hospital's CCTV...... The film should rightfully be named " The top 10 "Don'ts" for a professional hit-man." No wonder Crusie got killed eventually even by a common cab driver and a frightened attorney.They could have done the job better than Cruise!

Unbelievable!

The film is entertaining if you don't mind about logic and reasoning. Both the actor and actress are good and perfect for their characters.

The weakest point is the plot-- the terrorists' plan to kill the politician. It takes terrorists with the lowest IQ to think of a plan like this. If they had possessed the powerful weapon like the big gun in the movie, they could have chosen a dozen spots for the assassination as they don't care about collateral damage to innocent lives. Why do they have to think of this intrigue and complicated plan that has so many potential risks of failure ??

Lisa could have been too frightful and hysterical to be able to carry out the instruction..... The body guards could have resisted the change of room...... The marine could have decided to clear the water facing the politician's room or stayed there on guard......People could have overheard Jackson's and Lisa's conversation and noted their queer behavior on the plane.....

All in all. they don't need a plan like this to find a chance to fire that big missile.

And when Lisa got free, she should have stopped and called her Dad and police instead of just hurrying the stolen car to her Dad's home.

And what's her chance of daggering a pen into a professional killer's windpipe and confronting him later barehanded in her Dad's home?

If you can turn off your reasoning mechanics you may be able to enjoy the movie which lasted only 75 minutes.

Let us examine one radical question: should incident of this nature be made into film? 80% of the film was about the couple floating on the water, with no story line nor twist nor hope for the couple or the viewers.

This maybe a very "true" story but we would like to watch a movie and get some joy.

If this can be considered a "movie" and won some awards, you can make the next film by putting the camera next to a dying patient's bed recording the last 2 hours of his life.

Are film-makers so short of story-line and inspiration that they have to make distasteful film like this ?

I have firstly not intended to waste time to write on this movie, but have only failed to resist the anger triggered by this real crap.

This is the worst of zombies' movies.

From what we can see, zombies are dull, slow moving, retarded creatures. Humans are smart, agile, collaborative, heavily armed with state of the art weapons. Can anyone give me one reason why the human cannot sweep out the entire zombie race within a day?

And what about the well guarded city that the zombies can break in through bare hands?

"They just want to find a place to live." said Riley, and so they have spared the zombies. HAVE THEY ALL GONE NUTS? Zombies live on human beings and human beings alone! The only way out for human is to eradicate them!

Is this film made by one more retarded than the zombie???

Elise and Richard lived in ages separated by 60 years. The return of Richard to 1912 was only triggered by Elise telling him to "come back" to her. This was later followed by Richard's self hypnotism which led him to go back to 1912. Therefore before this had happened, Elise could never have met Richard in the past. Therefore the story is entirely illogical.

We can sort out the logic like this:

If after Elise had told Richard to " come back to her", he had then encountered some unusual phenomenon ( a worm hole or polar magnetic force or something), which had dragged him back to 1912, then the story becomes entirely logical. A supernatural event destined to happen in the future had then enabled Richard to meet Elise in the past and therefore she can recognize him at the present.

Without sorting this simple logic out, the entire story becomes meaningless and a perfect joke.

One thing from this film keeps on puzzling me:

Why is Hulk still in his underpants when he has transformed while every other clothing goes?

What materials is his underpants made of which can withstand this kind of straining pressure during his explosion into a gigantic monster? The amazing elastic and enduring nature of his underpants is perhaps more miraculous than the transformation itself.

Can anyone tell me the brand of his underpants which one can probably wear the length of a life time? I want to buy them for my kids!

Apart from this funny absurdity, the fatal wound of this movie is the CGI effects, which had fallen far below expectation. We feel we are watching cartoons when watching the Hulk in action.

The original Hulk from TV seemed to be more human and thus more appealing to viewers.

It could have been a much better film than this.

The plot was originally good, but unfortunately the story ended when Lincoln and Jordan found out from McCord about the secret of the utopia. This was just about the middle of the film, the rest of which is just left with some routine Bond story lines. Viewers' interest in the story has completely gone from this point onwards.

The interesting part of the story should have been withheld until the end. More depiction can be made of how Lincoln and Jordan have probed around the real world in search of their counterparts which could be both dramatic and entertaining.

The film is now good for the first 45 minutes and trash for the rest.

HOW SAD!

The story goes like this:

An evil spirit presumably from hell possessed a baby called Samara. Despite she was only months old she had managed to transpire her Mom to kill her so as to save her from being possessed.

Failing this, the Mom was institutionalized and the baby grew up. She was adopted but despite all her supernatural powers she had allowed her step mom to drown her in a well.

She is now a ghost, or whatever. She made a funny tape, and whoever saw it will receive a phone call stating they will die within 7 days. From experience, mankind know if they pass the tape onto others the curse will be passed onto them too. Otherwise, Samara will climb out from their TV sets and scare them to hell.

At times and just for fun she drove crazy some deers and sometimes horses.

Occasionally, Samara did some direct killings bypassing all these "red tapes", example, Max and Dr. temple.

But the police didn't even bother chasing up Temple's death at Aidan's house probably because mysterious death was no news in those days.

Now Samara wanted to return to life through Aidan, because she fancied watching cartoons with a beautiful Mom.

Despite all her powers, Samara still got tricked by Aidan and Rachel and she got out of Aidan's body. She could have easily got in again but she had chosen to drag Rachel into her well.

Unfortunately Samara hadn't practiced well-climbing lately because she has been busily climbing in and out of TV sets, otherwise she could have stopped Rachel from closing the well entrance. After all this shouldn't bother Samara who could get through walls, doors and TV sets.

Having solved all the problems, Rachel was so relieved that she decided to commit suicide. She jumped over the cliff, but found herself suddenly in bed with Aidan, who actually looks creepier than Samara.

Dear viewers, if you are still with me at this moment you are quite qualified to see this ridiculously ridiculous movie!

For someone like Mike who's already in Heaven ( where there are lots of beautiful souls like Annie flying around), choosing to go back to earth IS A COMPLETELY WRONG CHOICE!

This is taken the fact that even when Mike does finally met Annie, which he did, they could never remember their affair back in Heaven, WHAT'S THE POINT? Their big love affair in Heaven is gone for good, but if Mike chooses to stay in Heaven and wait for Annie to come back one day, there is still hope!( Particularly when there are so many things you can do while waiting for her.) At least Mike can realize and remember Annie as Annie !

Must love be so stupid and blind?

Is this what the story wants to convey?

The first 3/4 of the film is outstandingly good, and had set great stimuli to viewers' curiosity. Audience are attracted to wonder how the ending could be. The ending is controversial, but is not the main problem.

The biggest flaw in this film is that the Director has intentionally cheated his audience, in the sense that: if David is Charlie, there's no way that Emily could have that type of conversation with David as depicted in the picture. She would have told her father something like " How come you can turn into a different person" or "Charlie is you!" Their interaction could not have been as depicted despite that Emily is also a potential split-personality person as hinted by her 2 headed-girl drawing at the end of the film. So this is pure cheating!

Having said that I still feel the film is great but it needs some amendments.

OK, David has split personality and he murdered his wife, we can retain that. David SHOULD NEVER BE CHARLIE! How about this : Emily is schizophrenic and has lots of hallucinations (as psychosis run in family). "Charlie" was in fact a wolf Emily met in the den as depicted in the film whom she had befriended .The wolf fancied Emily(just like Kong felt for Ann), who had imagined and hallucinated all the conversation with this "Charlie".

"Charlie" visited Emily now and again in the house, but being a wild animal, when it jumped out of the closet it had still shocked Elizabeth.

When David's split personality emerged finally and tried to harm Emily,the audience started to think that David must be Charlie. When he chased Emily to the den and when David was about to kill Emily, "Charlie" appeared from the corner and killed David, saving Emily's life.This is the first scene that the wolf should appear before the audience's eyes. Still trembling in the dark, Emily uttered, "Thanks, Charlie!" IMAGINE THE EFFECT!

Everyone thought David was killed by the wild animal while trying to save Emily, who had kept the story to herself. She was raised under custody of Katherine, and is ready to bring us another exciting story in the coming sequel. The audience should then be hinted at the end that she is schizophrenic and not having "split personality".

There's one more flaw that needs to be corrected. When a person is suffocated and died her heart stops pumping and her blood clots.There's no way you can drain the tub with blood afterward. So Alison should have been drugged first and then slain in the tub afterward, but then she had to be depicted to be a chronic drug addict to explain why the Coroner had not suspected foul play.

Everybody happy?