Reviews

The movie is good but all that noise about seeing it on the biggest screen possible (I did) is unfounded. It's a procedural and you can see it on any screen you want. I was more impressed with the sound than the visuals. FX are secondary and spare, while the framing of individual shots is rather standard and the cuts so quick as too make it practically inconsequential anyway. It's still worth seeing in a movie theater, and it is a good film with some stellar performances. It's almost a shame there are so many name actors in it because it snaps you out of the story when you keep recognizing people in what amounts mostly to bit parts. It's not Nolan's best but it is a decent drama.

If you want to know what it's like to have dementia or want to know what it's like to care for someone who has it, then you found the right movie. I don't think I really needed this movie, though, because I kinda figured that's what it would be like. The performances are good but I'm not sure why this needed to be a film, except to get more people to see it. I feel like it would have been more powerful and meaningful to see the play. It left me pretty flat, like the screen it played on.

This was an excellent film that I didn't expect to watch. I thought I'd give it a try, as I have with many other gay-themed films, and turn it off in 15 minutes. But I couldn't. It is a very remarkable character-driven story. Other reviewers here have pointed out that the characters are at times unlikable or that their actions don't make sense. To that I would respond...that's life. And this film was extremely life-like. Certainly, there's some moments of weakness, but the dialog is very well-written and delivered. Dale Dymkoski in particular is captivating. His character is quite unlikable. At different points in the film, you want him gone, and yet your heart breaks for him. That's a great performance. The character growth in this story is something that's rare to see in any film, particularly one on this budget. Story-wise, everything comes full-circle.

As an aside, it irks me to read in some reviews that people were observed to "walk out of the theater." That's a cliché here on IMDb. Every time I read that, I know the review cannot be trusted. It's not a reaction I would expect at a film festival. I'm a lover of film, and I've never seen people leave a theater en-mass, especially one like this. Reviewers should post their review without relying on on others to back up their point of view. People that walk out of a theater do not lend credibility to a review, as they can't review something they didn't bother to watch. And maybe they were just getting snacks.

A sci-fi channel flick with Bo Duke; before you even rent/watch the movie, that should tell you not to take the film too seriously. All too often in these creature features, you get jipped on the violence, gore, nudity, and creature effects. Too often, the creature is seen for a total of 47 seconds in the entire movie. None of those things can be said about Lake Placid 2. It's a B-movie with some horrible editing and acting--but it's got all of the stuff that makes a bad movie good. While the CGI isn't always that spectacular (they even had a cheesy CGI plane-landing), the crocs are on-screen just as much as the actors are, and the body count is surprisingly high. It loosely follows the story of the original, with Cloris Leachman in for Betty White (and, actually, she raises herself above the other performances in the film). It doesn't strike the horror/comedy balance of the first film at all, but this is more of a B-movie creature flick than a true sequel. Compared to other low-budget films in the same genre, this one actually manages to rise above most of the others out there, and gives you the good stuff along with the laughs.

Really, I think this movie is more an example of an easy target than a truly bad film. In fact, the movie is done very well in many respects and is very entertaining.

Yes, the script is a little convoluted, but that's the genre. The film has a noirish atmosphere centered around a femme fatale. Just like all the old noir classics, this, too, has a screenplay that twists you around so that you don't always know how to make sense of it at first, and it can be a stretch if you think too deeply and try to put all of the pieces together. That's the genre. In general, the script has enough surprises and turns to keep the viewer guessing and, in turn, surprised, without abandoning the viewer.

Sharon Stone is also an easy target. The truth is she looks great and she speaks her double-entendre laden dialog in such a way as to zhuzh it up into something mysterious, sexy and fun.

The direction is more than passable, because let's face it--you have to keep an audience interested in the "did she or didn't she?" question for two hours. In addition to a twisty script and a fun performance by Stone, this is done effectively through the direction by the creation of a noirish atmosphere that is both dark and very stark and modern at the same time, with straight industrial lines to go along with Stone's sexy curves. The frame is always beautiful--press pause anywhere and there is something interesting to the eye.

The film also effectively builds on things that were gimmicks in the first film and turns them into something a little more real, particularly the sex. "Katherine Tramell is bisexual...how shocking!" becomes treated more matter-of-factly here, and typically, the sexuality of the film is used to better effect. It is still titillating, but not done so readily for shock value and buzz as done in the first. I won't say that it isn't still somewhat of a gimmick because, let's face it, this film is supposed to be fun.

And a fun film it is. It may be an easy target, but if you watch it for what it is: a noirish, femme-fatale driven, twisty, sexy, did-she-or-didn't-she who-dunnit, you're bound to enjoy it (no pun intended).

I see many independent and low-budget films, and those involved with this film on all levels clearly have talent. The problem with low-budget horror films in particular is that horror is a genre that relies a great deal upon mood. Without a lot of money to put into good film stock, these films often appear digitized and lack the ability to give the same degree of color richness, depth and texture necessary to set an appropriate mood. Lighting is also far less forgiving, which influences not only mood but also the special effects and gore. So, while it is clear those involved in this film have talent, the low-budget nature is often distracting, and left me wondering what could have been. The story has an interesting twist on typical vampire lore with the addition of zombies (and I love a good zombie flick). Throw some more money at these guys, and lets see what they can do next.

This movie was awful, and a misleading copy of "The Eye." Additionally, it is awful in a way that American remakes of Asian horror films often aren't. At least the Hollywood remakes are typically slick, bigger on budget, and look pretty. Certain scenes may even be improvements upon the original (and certain films like "Pulse" actually beg for a remake, because they are hardly flawless even though they may have a good concept.) But this movie...it had absolutely no redeeming qualities; many scenes were laughable! A smaller-budget remake (copy?) with no original ideas or twists on the story? That means it must have been done simply to change the language to appeal to Hindi-speakers. That's fine, but there's absolutely no reason for anyone who does not speak Hindi to see this...if you are going to read subtitles, watch the much superior original.

And I do plan on seeing the American remake of "The Eye," even though I know that it can't be an improvement upon one of my favorite horror films. At least, however, I don't expect it to be the insult that this film is.

The bad makeup job and hair cover on the "bald" cancer kid gave me the chills, for all of the wrong reasons.

I think that many movies are misjudged here on the IMDb, particularly those within the "horror" genre. For some people, horror should be funny, while for others, humor in horror ruins a film. Some people are gore fans, and others favor suspense. When horror has so many different faces, the viewer ratings here on IMDb reflect opinions from those going into a film that will inevitably be disappointed, because their definition of "horror" is not what this particular horror movie happens to be...hence middling scores on a great many horror movies here on IMDb, as well as very mixed comments from viewers. I try to judge a film based on its own merits, rather than my expectations going into a film...and sometimes when my first impression is to be disappointed, I find other value in the film when I realign my expectations to view a film for what it is.

I have to say, that this film is not really a "horror" movie. And that is OK. It is a drama that departs from the original horror film. And that is fine too. What is not fine, is that this is not a particularly interesting drama. While it is filmed and framed extremely well, pretty pictures don't substitute for an involving story and characters that you care about. For the most part, this plays like a TV drama. While the final scene is good, that doesn't make the film worth-while. I'm a viewer who can find good in most films, and I can find good in this film as well. All the same, I have to say that the good isn't worth it, and this is a film that is completely worth skipping.

For a more worthy title worth your viewing, check out "Another Heaven" by the same director. While not a perfect film by any means, it is entertaining, and your time will be better spent.

It's interesting that this film's central image and namesake is a roller-coaster, because that is exactly what this film is. It makes you laugh, produces some scares and excitement...and maybe even a tear or two. Unfortunately, if you've ever ridden one of those old wooden roller-coasters like "The Bullet," you know that they also bounce and trounce you around and can give you a little bit of a head ache--and that's also what this film does.

It's really difficult to keep a viewer hooked when the film tries to be so much--it's a comedy/horror/romance/drama. In the end, it goes for the same tone as some other Stephen King adaptations like "Stand By Me" or "The Green Mile"...even though it didn't begin that way. Even so, it's a fun ride, kept on the track due to a host of strong performances. I was expecting the usual greatness from Jonathan Jackson and Barbara Hershey...but even David Arquette was good. Add in a nifty soundtrack and good cinematography, and it's a thrilling up-and-down, twisting ride. The only problem is on such a ride, one wants to be left with a sense of that thrilling experience--the exhilaration--and not, however touching it may be, a saccharine voice-over of an ending.

After an interesting (though seen before) opening, this film sinks into blandness. It tries to be moody and foreboding without going for the cheap scares, but the proper tone is never really established. That may be because the very conceit is just a little over the top. Every time the newspaper appears, the spooky music cues, the actor's eyes get wide, and he steps trepidaciously towards the ill omen and you feel as though you are waiting for something to jump out at you...but the truth is, there's nothing really that scary about a newspaper. I don't believe that everything in a movie needs to be explained or make sense, but when things are left unexplained, it should be done to good effect. That's an effect this film never achieves, try as it might.

This film could have been astounding. As it is, individual scenes are still quite amazing to watch, but overall, this film falls far short of the greatness that it could have been. I'm not sure whether the fault is that of the director or script writer...but what I can say is that the cinematography along with some of the concepts are amazing. This film could have been so much more. The scene in the wheat field (or grass, or whatever it was) speaks to what this film could have been. That scene is involving and original, creating the mood that most of this movie aspires to, and I would say that scene alone is definitely worth the rental. However, unfortunately this movie is more visible for its shortcomings. What is an intriguing and original concept--Bhuddism vs. Christianity, of sorts, with the "resurrection" idea in Christianity allowing for a plot that I haven't scene before...falls short. The filmmakers don't take the play on Christianity that they could have, and the film, after a remarkable opening, wreaks of a PC mentality. Moreover, while individual scenes and the camera work are great, the characters and situations are hard to follow. I want to believe that is my Western sensibility and non-understanding of Japanese history, but this movie seems to me like a lot of Hollywood productions that look very pretty but fall short as far as story and continuity is concerned. It's still worth a watch...but I can't help feeling a deep sense of regret that this movie wasn't as great as it could have been.

I don't recall a film which so deftly shows the emotional destruction of war, as mirrored in one single marital relationship. The focus of the film is the union between Ullman and Von Sydow--the two are in every scene. Through the course of the film, they experience a role reversal--one has the strength of survival and the other is reduced to emotional escapism through dreams. Both will lose a measure of humanity, but one to a greater degree than the other. The characters and the viewer go through periods of fluctuation in regards to closeness--the camera pulls out and away, sound disappears, words are lost, only for the camera to return to painterly closeups of its facially expressive stars. The confusion and fluctuation may make this film hard for some viewers, but this is all purposeful under the master hand of Bergman. I think the use of a "fake" war makes the film timeless, as relevant today as ever before, and by focusing on the human relationship through war, makes the film relevant to everyone. The pair could be anyone. The film is not grounded in place or time, but rather in emotion. A unique and effective war film, unlike any other. Bergman's films are virtuosic in presenting human relationships--that he would bring this to a war film is masterful.

This movie hardly qualifies as a werewolf movie. You could take the werewolf out of the picture and basically be left with "Clue" as different character types (the actress, the doctor, and even the professor!) try to figure out who is killing the other guests within the castle...or in this case, who the werewolf is. I think one element pivotal to werewolf films is "the transformation" scene, and this movie robs its audience of this payoff. You don't really even need a budget to pull off some type of effect, but all this movie provides is a costume seen in close-up or in shadow, further removing the presence of the werewolf from this film. Even when the werewolf's identity is revealed, we don't get so much as a nifty contact lens effect or wry-fanged smile. Additionally distancing itself from the werewolf genre, the film isn't even scary. It lacks any real thrill or even gore. It's hard to stay interested as the film goes along because the characters we begin to sympathize with are each killed off in turn...which is fine as an element of surprise the first time it happens, but when it continually happens throughout the movie, the end result is that it distances the viewer and you're not left with much to care about. It really is, then, like a game of Clue, with about the same amount of depth, where characters are gradually eliminated one by one, merely for the sake of finding out who the killer really is, and not for suspense.

I will say that it's nicely shot, the acting is above par for a low-budget video release, and for what it is--a somewhat awkward mystery--I guess it's OK. But a werewolf movie, it's not.

What a wonderful wrap-up to this series, and it's hard to imagine it being more relevant than it is today. It's easy to see why Romero waited 20 years to give us this, and one wonders if he knew how this series would conclude all along or if the times we are living in were fodder for another installment. From commentary in previous Dead films about consumerism to final revelations on class, evolution and revolution, George Romero has brought his scary series full circle. The zombies lose none of their horror as they develop unity, discover weapons...and even become sympathetic. Urban strife and decay pit man against man and create a morality and humanity that is harder to come by, at least among the humans. The cinematography outdoes all but the first Dead film, and creates images that should go down among the best in the horror genre. This is a movie that has the blood, guts...and brains, for those that care to eat them up.

Brilliant! I'm amazed that such a small film could do such great things...eventually gaining enough attention to get a larger theatrical release. Jordana Brewster is mesmerizing throughout--I doubt nary a man nor a woman would take their eyes off of her. This film strikes a very original chord--It's like a Sunday-night Wonderful World of Disney if you threw in a couple hot lesbian chicks in catholic school girl skirts toting weapons. It's innocent fun that's beautiful to look at, but it has enough subtext to make it something more than shallow. It's eye candy, to be sure, but if Robert Rodriguez can do it with blood, bad language and sex up to the eyeballs...why not twist it a little to make a film like this, with all the energy, even less of a budget, and more fun than anything I've seen in a while.

Kudos to Jill Ritchie, who steals a few scenes in a confidant-sidekick role, and returns from the original short film.

This movie is not romantic...

I'm sure this review will end up at the bottom of the pile, being voted down by all of the other people who seemed to have loved this film. The critics loved it. All of the people who have posted here have loved it. I will say that the direction, story, and acting were all good. But what other people don't seem to mention is that this movie is profoundly disturbing. It's filled with graphic images, sexual assault, and a gritty reality that (while infused with dream-like images) I cannot romanticize. As a special education teacher, I watched this film, applied it to people I know, and that made me cringe. My boyfriend and I rented this movie on Valentine's Day--it was my choice, and midway through the film he looked at me and said, "I can't believe you rented this for Valentine's Day!" I won't say this movie doesn't have good qualities, but what I will say is that I feel it has been misrepresented here on IMDb and on it's box cover, and that's why I'm posting this. It's perhaps more than you bargain for.

And if you go into this film expecting that, maybe you will even like it.

But personally, I don't see how people can find it romantic.

I can't say enough for this movie. You can tell it's low budget, but it doesn't disappoint. The acting, cinematography, editing and the directing never strike a false note. How many films can you say that for? I rented this movie at Blockbuster, and even though I'm a horror fan, I have to say, Blockbuster has become a maven for low-budget bad horror films. And, for some reason, horror fans seem to accept less than other movie-going audiences would accept in terms of budget, plot, direction, cinematography and character (maybe because gore is a category in and of itself, as is being bad in all above mentioned categories). Anyway, this movie has it all...good character development (give the first 30 minutes time), good acting (dispicable characters that you somehow feel for), good editing (flawless, actually), good cinematography (wait for that alley car scene), a good script to unite it all and, to make it all come together, I have to give credit to the director. Really an excellent, although low-budget, horror film.

I can accept low budget, but this production was low in general in most respects. One would think with some actual stars in the cast, there would at least have been a decent script.

One redeeming value is that it's sort of interesting to see how the stars work with something so...silly. Some occurrences were so unbelievably silly, it may have meant to have been funny, but just didn't strike that balance at all...and this coming from someone who doesn't have much of a problem with suspension of disbelief. This movie asks the audience to accept too much. It's almost like they made stuff up as they went along--characters suddenly reappearing as if they were on set and had nothing better to do than pop back into a scene.

Good packaging. Good opening titles. Good cast. 3/10

This goes into one of the ten best movies I've seen. I was blown away by every aspect of this film. The acting, cinematography, directing, and writing kept me enthralled and astounded through the mere 80 minutes of this film. Strangely, I rented this at Blockbuster, and I'm sure quite a few people must be unhappy with this non-mainstream rental. As someone who has experienced and seen the dark side this movie depicts without actually crossing over (much like the main character), I can't say I have ever seen a more realistic representation. I find the characters fully realized, and my hats off to all the participants in this film. It was edgy, non-mainstream, and risk-taking for all involved. I'm amazed and delighted (through turns of emotion) at this effort. Special congrats to Sarah Polley and Brendan Fehr for participating in this film.

I found this movie to be very well-paced. The premise is quite imaginative, and as a viewer I was pulled along as the characters developed. The pacing is done very well for those that like to think--enough is kept hidden from the viewer early on, and questions keep arising which are later answered, producing a well-thought out and very satisfying film, both cerebrally and from an action standpoint.

It seems some people were looking for a non-stop roller-coaster ride with this film--one of those that comes charging out of the gate. This would be more analogous to one of those coasters that first takes you slowly up the hill--creating a wonderful sense of anticipation--and is ultimately, in my mind, more fulfilling for the foundation initially laid.

Excellent film.

Even as a Christian (and it's unfortunate that I feel I have to open with that true statement to lend myself some credibility), I was rather disgusted by this movie. I think the accusations that the movie are antisemitic are indeed founded. The primary "villain" of the piece is the most Jewish looking character in the whole film, and is almost a caricature. Granted, he was a pharisee and followed certain guidelines regarding appearance, but no other Jewish characters were depicted similarly. More compelling evidence supporting prejudice in the film, however, is in the obvious representation of two other main villains as gay. Satan looks to be a very effeminate man (played actually by a woman), and Herod is shown wearing makeup and has gay mannerisms (and should have been much older, no?). Again, no other characters are represented in such a way. Because of this triumvirate of caricatured villains, the film seems in every sense a representation of Mel Gibson's beliefs and, frankly, some of his beliefs make me uncomfortable or angry.

I believe he and his film are antisemitic and homophobic.

Considering this, the scene in which Joseph puts his arm around Jesus while carrying the cross seems more like a Harriet Beecher Stowe move, to me (she may have written Uncle Tom's Cabin with sympathy for some characters, but in the end, still wished black people to return to Africa--in other words, a few sympathetic depictions of Jewish characters do not mean the film is not antisemitic).

As a representation of Mel Gibson's beliefs, I think some people who believe similarly or are willing to overlook certain flaws may be moved by the picture. However, they are likely moved more by existing belief than anything that is actually created in the film.

This film did not challenge or inspire me intellectually or spiritually, and I saw nothing new or highly original in the film. I was not moved by the violence.

The moments of Jesus carrying the cross and his crucifixion were somewhat redeeming on an emotional level, likely because the focus became Jesus rather than the violence that was inflicted on him, and those that showed him sympathy actually were putting into practice his teachings. Unfortunately, these character-driven moments were too few and fleeting. The cinematography and performances were fine. For the most part, however, I think these positives are overshadowed by the bland nature of the film and the depictions of some of the characters that were to me quite offensive.

This film was a missed opportunity. As a representation of one man's personal beliefs, I frankly just don't care about it very much.

It is a good movie, to be sure. One of the best, in fact. But it's good in the way that "Gone with the Wind" is good--it's largely spectacle, only this movie was made for men. It makes sense that the two films sit at numbers four and five on the AFI top 100. They make a good pair. Neither quite stand the test of time. In Lawrence's case, Englishmen playing Arabs and Arabs whooping and hollering like "Injuns" in an old Hollywood Western seem, thankfully, to belong to a time of movie-making quite past. Another difficulty of the film is that it portrays quite a confusing character, as T.E. Lawrence the man is nearly beyond comprehension and largely an enigma. Peter O'Toole does an admirable job, but in the end, his character still has to remain an enigma--for an actor, that must be difficult. Omar Shariff, on the other hand (perhaps the only Middle Eastern actor to actually play such in the film) comes full circle, and is one of the more unforgettable characters, and performances, from the film.

A good and admirable film in many respects, but it is good to see it for what it is: it's not the greatest movie ever, it's not flawless. It's a good example of movie-making spectacle.