Reviews

User reviews are a bit ridiculous for this film. They are expecting some thing that this movie never pretends to be. It's an oddball comedy set in an oddball world. Sure there are plot holes and bad acting but if you're just looking for something that is fun and an escape then this works. I'm just so glad that I found something that is unusual and a nice hour and a half escape. It's fun to see chance the rapper before he became famous. So my advice would be to grab a slice of pizza or two and enjoy a slice of American cinema. If you don't take it too seriously, you will not be disappointed. It's just fun.

So the US government basically got rid of the only reputable vape system in the US and now the most popular disposable vape comes from China. How does this make any sense? As long as vape exists, kids are going to use it, so doesn't it make more sense that it should be made in the US? Some of these reviews that I have read are about the legitimacy of vaping. It should be about this documentary, which is very well-made. Vaping is a viable alternative to smoking cigarettes and the US government has ignorantly eliminated the best possible alternative. This just goes to show how politicians are so out of touch with the common man.

How did this movie get made? I assume people actually put up real money to have this toilet bowl of feces produced, right? Was it trying to be bad? One of McCarthy's lines in the film was "I'm not an actress", so was the joke on us? I thought movie 43 was bad but this one takes the cake.This film (if you can call it that) sets the standard that all bad movies should be judged up against. I don't think a worse movie could be made if someone tried. It makes time stand still. By far my favorite line was, "Did you sleep with Charlie Tuna or do you just need to douche". So classy. Someone should have paid the audience at the door to sit this this ocular torture.

Film begins showing a damsel in distress fleeing her pursuers by escaping to an isolated town in the mountains of Colorado. The isolated residents of Dogville are initially wary of the stranger but eventually accept her in as she ingratiates herself by helping around the town. This "helping" grows in intensity to the point of slavery as the town becomes increasingly dependent on her and she is scared to leave fearing what brought her to Dogville in the first place. Ultimately the situation is resolved. As for the film itself, one would have to believe that the director made this movie in order to cause a reaction. It's almost as if he is saying, "I don't care if you love it or hate it, I just want you to feel something". It this vein, I believe he accomplished his goal. There are aspects of this film that I loved and hated, sometimes simultaneously. For one, the movie is a full three hours long. That's a big commitment for one sitting. Secondly, the dialogue is choppy and sometimes confusing. It's as though it was written first in Danish and then translated into English. Sometimes this works, sometimes it falls flat. The acting is superb and I especially enjoyed Nicole Kidman's performance. Overall, the payoff in the end was worth it but be prepared for a long journey.

How is it possible that this movie has such a high rating. I wanted to poke my eyes out just so that it would end. This was torture. Please, will someone make it end. I hated it. Could you tell? The first story was unbearably boring. The second story was not only boring but confusing. The third story was boring, confusing, and stupid. Is that enough? Apparently not as so many have returned to this piece of dung for entertainment purposes. Do yourself a favor and rent free willy 2. It has much more entertainment value and it is a piece of crap. This movie was recommended through netflix automatic recommendation system. What a freaking joke? What about my past ratings suggest I would enjoy watching grass grow?

How does a movie this bad get made? Surely there are better projects out there to be made. The story is awful, the director has not shown that he can make a decent movie, adding those two elements equals a recipe for disaster. I've never seen Jamie Lee Curtis worse (what ever happened to Wanda?) and Tim Allen wouldn't even be working if it weren't for Christmas movies. This movie had nothing redeeming in it whatsoever. After I watched this movie I felt like I needed to purge so I returned home and watched some Fellini so that I might rescue whatever brain cells I had left. I wasn't expected a lot, but I was expected at least a third grade level movie. This movie sucked!

How do you rate a movie that causes such ambivalence? It doesn't happen often that a movie can be so well made (writing, directing, acting) and still be so un-entertaining. The hours was like receiving Chinese water torture to sit through with one miserable person suffering through one miserable life after another. How could anyone be entertained by such misery? Yet every aspect of the production was beautifully crafted from Streep to Moore, from the story to the dialogue. Despite all of this, I would rather make a trip to the dentist than to watch this movie again. Thus the dilemma. Does one rate subjectively, objectively, or both? Should there be a difference? If for nothing else, The Hours has opened up this world of discussion and for that reason alone I am grateful.

This film is like a canon that fires a dud. It has all of the ammunition to explode like the summer blockbuster that it should have been. Unfortunately the spectacular action, special effects, and interesting characters are wasted on a pitiful story full of lame one-liners. When will Hollywood learn that an action movie still needs to make sense? It also contains an ending that is a blatant set-up for a sequel. Maybe if this movie flops, that nightmare will never happen. Thankfully, this will not be Connery's last movie. I would hate to think that his brilliant career would end with such a dud.

This is the perfect example of how all of the seemingly "right" pieces of a movie puzzle can be together i.e. cast, director, story and the movie can be a complete disaster. It all hangs in the balance of that precious, rare, commodity these days; dialogue. And this movie has dialogue that would be rejected by the WB network! This site has a category called "goofs", well this movie is a goof. There is not enough room here to write down all the things wrong with this movie but you will all just have to trust me. Unless you like crappy movies, don't waste your time. If you want to see (and I use this term loosely) something "similar", try the original and still the best; Kubricks 2001:a space odyssey and give your hard earned money to the real movies.

I can't for the life of me figure this movie out, can somebody out there who really knows help? I mean the story is pretty good there's no problem there but the dialogue? At first I thought that maybe it was a foriegn film or the work of a foriegn director/writer but it is neither. It was so incredibly awkward at times that I almost convinced myself that it was trying to be awkward. If that is the case it would be good to know as it would greatly affect my vote. Sure the acting was transparent at times but it was so uniform as if planned to be awkward. I don't know but all who weren't satisfied with this movie but liked the concept should check out The Game with Michael Douglas as it will leave you without these same questions.

Bravo to TNT pictures for putting together two things that were made for each other; the role of Ebenezer Scrooge and the acting of Patrick Stewart. I could think of no other current actor who could approach Stewarts ability to grasp this complex role and after viewing the film I am convinced; Stewart is a genius.