At the Movies

For anyone who believes this movie was an excellent suspense thriller and a superb film...you have been brainwashed worse than Raymond Shaw. The problem is that what was a good screenplay with several very interesting ideas and great political intrigue was either abruptly finished the way studio executives thought it should be without any concern for logic, story development, or the plot, or it was a major hack job on the third and most important act of the screenplay.

Think of the terrible plot holes and enormous flaws in the logic of the plot starting about half way through and getting worse and worse till the out-of-nowhere ending. For instance, if these people, Manchurian Global, were able to do this kind of mind control effectively, why would they even have let Ben Marco go back to his normal life, why wouldn't he be as under control as Raymond Shaw all the time? In addition to the horrendous third act, the general editing of the film was poor, even the opening credits sequence featured unhinged jump cuts and strangely juxtaposed sequences that were jarring at best. This is what happens when an edited film is edited AGAIN, for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong people. I would be curious to see what a directors cut of this would look like

Napoleon Dynamite isn't about changing the world--it's live action 'South Park'. It's a highly ironic, self-mocking, merciless run of sight gags and one liners with no apparent purpose other than to get laughs at the expense of its main characters, especially the eponymous Napoleon, a fit stand-in for everyone who's ever felt like a socially inept outcast trapped in the hell of high school.

Is this really happening?! According to the users of this site who voted in the year-end poll, "Napoleon Dynamite" was the funniest film released in 2004. Once again, I'm scratching my head. I tried to like it, I really did, but the fact is that "Napoleon Dynamite" is absolutely empty.

With 'Twelve Monkeys' you need to pay attention, but if you do that you probably find a lot to appreciate. I know I did. The story is interesting and deals with time traveling. A virus killed a lot of people back in 1997 and a guy named Cole (Bruce Willis) is send back to 1990 and 1996 to find a cure for the virus. In 1990 he is arrested and put in a mental hospital. There he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), who probably has something to do with the virus. He also meets psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) who doesn't believe him in 1990. When Cole disappears from the mental hospital while he is chained and locked in a room and re-appears in 1996 Kathryn starts believing Cole's stories.
The movie constantly plays with time. Cole makes a phone call and leaves a message in 1996, it is picked up in the future and "they" send someone. For Cole that someone appears only seconds after the phone call. Things like this happen throughout the movie and therefore you must keep attention
'Twelve Monkeys' works as sci-fi, with some great images and a dark atmosphere, and it works as a thriller. You are never certain of what will happen next and that helps the movie. May be it has some flaws in the story, but since it is about a fictional thing like time traveling, you should accept what the movie tells us and just try to enjoy. That was the easy part for me.

The constant changes in time and location add to the confusion of following the movie and the characters are not developed enough compared to most movies overall.

Krull is an excellent Sci-Fi action fantasy adventure! What else can I say it's on my license plate. This is a fantastic and classic film of the 1980s! If you like fantasy action movies check out Krull! Where computerised effects are mainstream today, in this film they are rarely used and the crew get round it with more hands on methods; making the entire piece look far more realistic. A much underrated gem this terrific children's fantasy picture boasts several fantastic performances from it then unknown cast, several of whom used it as a springboard to go on to become major Hollywood and TV stars later in their careers. Excellent special effects for the time in hindsight and with beautiful art direction, this film truly deserves to be dug out and dusted off and shown the respect it deserves.

The thing runs just over two hours, but at least 20% of that is shots of them riding on horses through the country side and climbing mountains.

The story about Amélie (Audrey Tautou) is a modern day fairy tale and that is exactly how it looks the entire film. We have a wonderful story about Amélie who decides to help people around her, making them happy. Not by doing great big things or giving money, but by little things. She helps her father by making him believe that his gnome from the garden is on a trip around the world, she helps a lonely neighbor by just visiting him, she helps a stranger by returning something she found in her home. On the way she falls in love with Nino (Mathieu Kassovitz) who's hobby it is to collect photos from automatic photo booths. Photos that were tossed away because people thought they didn't look good enough. He puts all those photos and pieces of photos in a big book.
The movie looks colorful and bright almost constantly. Even the sad parts from Amélie's life, her youth for example, look almost strangely happy. In this world, Paris actually, Audrey Tautou is the perfect inhabitant. She has one of those faces that seem to smile the entire time. She looks like she just pulled a joke and she is waiting for you to find out what it is. In a way her character is really doing that here so it does not feel strange.

This is one of those movies that everyone says is so great, so you watch it, and then either you are captivated by the fact that this movie is one of the most incredible films on earth or you come to realize that this is just an OK movie that happens to be a French production.

Many kids throughout the years have always feared that there are monsters hiding in their closets, especially at night after the lights are out. But as it turns out, the monsters of Monstropolis are just as scared of human children as the children are of them. In fact, the monsters consider human kids to be toxic and dangerous to the touch. So you can imagine the pandemonium that soon follows in Monstropolis when one human child, an adorable little girl, goes through her closet door and unintentionally enters into the monster world!
The perfect movie for those without any sort of attention span. Laugh at the wacky monsters screaming and hitting things and getting bonked on the head. Don't worry, it's going to happen again soon, so be patient during those three seconds of the characters talking, your mindless garbage is going to repeat itself real soon.

If there would be one word to describe this movie it would be cute. This cuteness is the only thing that this film has going for it. It generally lacks any humor, minus a bit in the beginning. This movie is often compared to Shrek. I found no comparisons but for the main character and the animated look.

The special effects were pretty good, but that does not make a movie great. The cinematography was pretty good.

This 3rd offering is by far and away the worst. It's no Shrek 2. I found this film's storyline and plot confusing and non-sensical. really is no continuity between this and the previous movies. Hogwarts is not the same as in the 1st two movies. The sets have changed and you don't feel like you have visited the school before. Maybe it's because I have yet to read a single of the Harry Potter books that I'm missing out on the additional character development and underlying plots.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this time Angelina Jolie actually had to ACT, which made this a much better endeavor than the original. The sets are nice; not as well done as the first, but the story line here at least IS a coherent story with a decent plot and some execution...unlike the first installment. Additionally, there was even a small smattering of character development dealing with Croft's aloof personality.

If you are an archeology buff, a fan of historical fiction, action movies, spy movies, or Indiana Jones movies, this probably is not the movie for you. Let's forget that the government of Greece would have the "Raiders'" heads and the rest of them would be in prison until their corpses turned to dust for diving for any sort of treasure within a hundred miles of the Grecian coast. And forget that there is little to no archaeological worth whatsoever to be found within the reels of this attempt. Also, let's forget that a 135-lb woman with a 6" wrist can not possibly HOPE to stop a shark swimming at a 45 mph velocity, with a punch to the nose. However, the sets were lacking, as were the effects, and do not miss the incredible disappearing parachute scene when they land on the barge. Now you see 'em, now you don't. It was incredible to me that they would leave the final cut this way, but I'm afraid the whole industry has gone more for the eye candy, and less for quality, recently. But the pre-landing portion of that scene was simply breath-taking. That was awesome, and I would love to try that myself, sometime.

There was nothing horrifically bad about the film, it just wasn't any good. The storyline to begin with was slightly nicked from Batman Returns where a mousy woman finds out her bosses secret, is killed, brought back to life by moggies, wears leather. I guess the whole back story of catwomen covered that one up a bit, but still they could have come up with something a little better. It would be unfair to compare Halle Berry to Michelle Pfeiffer because the characters are actually different in the way they react to the fact that they have these new powers. Selina was more hell bent on eliminating her killer and went quite nuts because of it. Patience seemed more determined to just bring down the empire of Hedare. Her revenge just didn't seem as believable.

The action sequences where real people were involved were fairly ok but the computer generated ones were distracting because it was so easy to tell when they actually occurred. I'm beginning to get slightly annoyed with film makers constant reliance on computers to have action sequences. I know in some cases it would be physically impossible to have any stunt person perform what is required, but they should limit the amount of times that impossible stunts need to be performed. Trouble is in catwoman when Halle Berry was performing her own stunts she was slow and jerky. The final fight at the end was a fine example of this. It almost seemed like they were just fighting in a set patten, following the rehearsals slowly and methodically. Now on to the acting ability of the lead characters. Halle Berry can be quite good when she knows the film is going to be successful, there was nothing wrong with her performances in both X-men films and Die Another Day, but she just seemed so wooden in Catwoman. But if it was possible Sharon Stone actually lived up to her name and had about as many facial expressions as a granite statue. Maybe that was part of the character who was wearing so much of that face cream that she couldn't actually move her face, we will never know. Benjamin Bratt seemed almost non-existent in this, just really going along with everything and not really having much to do with anything at all.
In summary, this film had so much potential to be a great action comedy that didn't have to take itself seriously like the Charlie's Angels films have managed to succeed in doing. But with a thin plot and terrible acting it was never going to be. Basically this is just a film centred on Halle Berry and the fact that she is hot property. She had better watch it though, she has done a couple of turkeys since winning that Oscar and with 6 films lined up between now and next year we could become so saturated with her that we will eventually tire.

Despite the fact I enjoyed "Sky Captain", I am still thankful these films are the exception rather than the rule. I still prefer films with real (or at least partially real) sets and shooting locations. The pitfall of blue-screen films is the quality of the acting. Even a great actor has a challenge when standing against a blue screen and pretending to respond meaningfully to something that's not really there. The acting here isn't down right corny, but I believe if the key players had more real surroundings to play off of, the performances would have improved. I also think Angelina Jolie's "Frankie" character deserved more screen time.

Apparently set in the 1930s yet featuring technology most of us associate with a time in the 2030s, 'Sky Captain' does a poor job of blending the old generation with the new.

Action, explosive action, clever script, eye popping special effects and a strong cast. A highly successful computer hacker(Hugh Jackman)is coerced to help a ruthless spy(John Travolta)steal billions of unused government monies obtained in an old DEA drug operation. Don Cheadle is the run ragged FBI agent trying to spoil the by-computer hijacking. Sam Shepard has a small role as a corrupt Senator. The alluring Halle Berry is supposedly an undercover DEA agent whose purpose in the whole procedure is not clear cut.
Where can I get myself one of those monitors!@! Still enjoyable seeing for the Xth time.
The first three-quarters of the film are excellent, keeping viewers guessing and leading us to believe that the end of the movie would be superb. Instead, it fizzles terribly beginning with the second viewing of the bomb explosion that takes us to present times. (Remember that most of the film is set in the past). The ending is dull, with nothing to hold a viewer's attention, except for the eerie similarity of the ending to the film and the terrorist attacks of 9/11! (A helicopter holding innocent people hostage, while ALMOST flying into a skyscraper!) And this movie came out in 2001 no less! Also, don't forget the bombs that are strapped on the terrestrial hostages! Still, 'Swordfish' is a good and compelling movie, featuring a tremendous cast and a very unique bank-robbery. It's worth watching.

I would have spent the $500,000 on more script development on true computer knowledge skills and technology verses one 5 second breast exposure scene by Halle Berry.

Iusually do not go for westerns, but this one looked rather good on the trailers so I gave it a try. It exceeded expectations and was a good movie to me. I thought it could have cut a few scenes here and there, but all in all it was very entertaining. Though I highly doubt all the things that happened in the movie happened in real life as claimed by the makers of the film, I think the guy this movie is based on was probably a good story teller. This one has a cowboy whose specialty is long distance races going to the Middle East to race there because they do not like the claim that he is the best long distance racer there is. Which is fair enough considering it does not look like there is all that much desert terrain in the United States. This race is very dangerous and it makes you thirsty just to watch it. Of course there are many trials and obstacles along the way including his fellow racers who hate the idea of a Mustang horse competing in the race. Though you know a Mustang has to be a rather fast and strong horse because they named a rather good car after it.

This movie is a lie. There was no 3000 mile race in the Arabian Desert. Historians have debunked this theory. The only evidence this ever existed was the tale of Frank Hopkins himself. That's it! The movie itself was a stereotype against Arabs. It consisted of scenes where Arabs are trying to fix horse races and kill Hopkins. Arabs are portrayed as savages. It is difficult to imagine that Disney would fund such a film and display it as "Based on a True Story"

When I first heard about OPEN WATER, I was really excited. Being a HUGE Jaws fan, with an insatiable fascination with sharks, I couldn't wait to see the movie. Also, having heard that the movie was filmed with "real sharks", I was expecting to add this movie to my "faves" list. However, as soon as the movie started, the disappointment began. The acting was mediocre, the characters quite boring. The movie had no real setup. The scenes weren't interesting in the least. Even the "nude scene" let to absolutely nothing, making it pointless and unnecessary. Finally, after about 20 minutes, the couple makes it to the boat. Why didn't the movie just start here.

The movies plot started out way to early, making no character development and the so called "problems" they had during their lives! The entire movie was very B rated, almost like a cheep porn. The acting was horrible and I can not believe the writers couldn't come up with better lines. This is what I want to know, how does any one really know the true events of this movie? Could they simply have drowned? They must have taken off their packs. Did they really fight? Did Susan really throw up? How could any wife let her husband just...go away? And what's the deal with Susan at the end? I feel bad for their families - having to watch a made up story about their love ones. What if Susan & Daniel drowned 15 minutes after the boat left them?
I guess I just found it disturbing that someone would make a movie like this, base it on "a true story" and be so creative with the facts, they are horrifying actually. From what I was able to ascertain online only pieces of their gear were found and a slate containing a message proving that they had survived at least 24 hours. The gear found however was not damaged so a shark attack appeared unlikely. I feel bad for any of their family that may have stumbled upon this movie as the ending is very haunting. As she kisses him one last time, watches as he slips away, observes the sharks feeding frenzy, then takes off her gear and goes under herself.....very haunting. As the credits start to roll and the shark is cut open and we see the camera......shocking. Taken as just a movie it is clever, shocking and disturbing, but throwing in the "based on a true story" was what caused such an emotional response. It was a lot like Blaire Witch Project with the horrific camera angles and it seemed like the camera man had Parkinson disease or something!

I wonder what it says about the state of cinematic science fiction that most of author Philip K. Dick's adaptations generally mix high-octane action with its interesting sci-fi concepts. There are two concepts in this movie that specifically intrigue me (some moderate spoilers here), the first one is choosing deliberately to erase your own memory, but the notion is forgotten after the first half-hour. I was quite curious to know exactly what the process is like to the subject. Take, for instance, the fact that he lost his memory over the three-year span. Does the last thing he remembers feel like a three-year old memory or an event that happened just a second ago? Instead, all we get is a half-hearted (actually, not even that much) attempt at a sorrowful romance because he can't remember his girlfriend and she's not very happy about that.
The other major sci-fi concept, the ability to see into the future, isn't explored with much more interest and it leads to a number of baffling questions. You see (quite a few spoilers here), it's revealed Jennings sent himself those twenty items because they can come in handy at a specific moment that'll help him survive or escape from a dangerous situation.
But the thing is, Jennings couldn't have known each item would come in handy unless he used the device he built at least twenty times, because there's no way he'd know a motorcycle would come in handy if he never had, say, the bus ticket to escape from the FBI, meaning he used the device to see what he needed to escape the FBI, but still foresaw that he'd be killed in even more future events. That would mean this guy was originally destined to die or get caught in well over ten different scenarios (i.e. he had the bus ticket to escape, but if he didn't have the motorbike keys, he wouldn't have gotten further, and so on and so forth), but this is never really addressed.

If you watch the DVD, watch the documentary on the health care system that is on there- it's about 100 times more interesting and compelling than the film.

Iwas staring in disbelief at how cliche the dialogue, lines, acting, and pretty much everything else in the movie was. Considering the ammount of talent in the movie, I was surprised by how predicatable and awkward the whole thing felt.
So when things don't go your way, you just hold a hospital and half a city hostage and put certain health care workers through hell. Is that it? This movie tries to send a message about the state of health care in the U.S., but it sends the WRONG message that you should take the law into your own hands when the system works against you. And you get to wave a gun at terrified hospital workers who only have to follow the rules that are laid out before them and you get made out to be a hero for doing so

The movie"Troy" is a good movie, the book "The Iliad" is a good book do not get them confused. Short and sweet -- I have not been a Brad Pitt fan before, and I still find it painful to listen to him speak extemporaneously. It is the usual wearisome, monosyllabic new-speak one has become accustomed to. Brad Pitt is marvelously belligerent as Achilles.

The main thing that's wrong with this epic is the script. I was all right with the screenwriters taking out the role of the gods in this story, I was moderately all right with them cutting out the women in this tale (overplaying Helen who never speaks in the Illiad, and cutting out Hecuba--Priam's wife and Queen of Troy--completely, cutting out Cassandra), and I eventually came to terms with the fact that the Trojan Horse was in this version (the Trojan Horse was not in the Illiad, it was written about in the Aenied which was written a few hundred years later by Virgil and NOT Homer), and even that the Trojan war took place over the course of a few days instead of years. And I am completely shocked and amazed that the director took such artistic license as to kill Agamemnon in Troy. That is such a desecration of literature that I cannot believe that he thought he would get away with it.
For those who are interested: Agamemnon did not die in Troy. He went home with Cassandra as his concubine and was killed by his wife Clytemenstra because--before sailing for Troy-- he sacrificed his daughter to appease the god of the wind for good sailing. After his murder Clytemnestra cuts him up and serves him in a stew to her children Orestes and Electra. Wouldn't that have been a better end for a great villain?

Not bad for the second entry based on the popular survivor horror game. The action is cool and slick but the fight scenes are rather jarring ,with a lot of quick cutting , they need to get a good martial arts choreographer so they don't have to cut in so much , much of that action is too blurry. The plot and storyline pretty much follow the games with an ending similar to resident evil outbreak. Not a bad effort for what the movie is about . You do not go to see movies like this for acting ,just for the fun and gore.

I expected to be at least somewhat entertained for 90 minutes. Problem is: I wasn't entertained for 90 minutes. The main problem with the movie is that there are no characters. Sure, there are people in the movie, but we don't get to know them. They're just there, running about, shooting zombies, acting cool. I couldn't care less about what happened to these mannequins. Another problem is the disjointed narrative. It takes way to long to get the main "characters" together, and before they manage to do that the movie is very boring. This is because, as I said, it feels disjointed and episodic. Yet another problem is the acting. Most of these people couldn't act to save their lives. It's probably unfair to compare it to other recent zombie flicks such as 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead and the remake of Dawn of the Dead. But they're not only action movies, they are as much dramas or comedies with a bit of horror in the mix.

The Stepford Wives is what most people would expect, everyone expects to see a really bad movie when they walk in. I do know that this movie is supposed to make fun of the original movies. I didn't really feel that their marriage was believable. They only kissed once in the whole movie so, in the end how are they so madly in love

If you spent $10 for this movie, you would undoubtedly want 8.50 of it back. This is an extremely flimsy movie drenched in color with a fantastic cast that falls short of being either scary or funny. One certainly expects more - a lot more - from Paul Rudnick. There were a lot of missed opportunities here, due to the fact that the film couldn't figure out what it wanted to be. This movie is a perfect example of what is wrong with the state of movies today. The original was a gem, with excellent acting by Katharine Ross, Paula Prentiss, and Patrick O'Neal. It was part horror story, part feminist cautionary tale. Most of all, it was believable! You got the feeling these were real people, and that all this could really be happening--and with a minimum of "special effects". The dialogue was pretty intelligent, the plot twists weren't given away in the first 15 minutes, and the ending was a real shocker. You cared about the female characters in the movie--you cared about Joanna's plight, and rooted for her to escape her planned fate.
The current version could only--and was probably meant to--appeal to the lowest common denominator of movie-goer. In this film, the women are just as bad as the men--you don't give a damn what happens to them; that's how annoying the characters are. The laughs are cheap and lowbrow, vital plot elements of Ira Levin's novel are missing, and the acting is just plain bad.