Reviews

I'll admit it, I laughed a lot during this movie. But instead of using clever, fresh, silly , NEW jokes, Mike Myers now resorts to the old jokes from the movie before, now worse since we all know how they're going to turn out. This movie was just trying too hard to make us laugh. Goldmember is pathetic. Definitely Mike Myers' worse character ever. The plot doesn't flow and tries to bring a new emotional level to all the characters that just doesn't work. My biggest complaint though is that those dance interludes that were present in the first two movies are missing in Goldmember. As a comedy, this movie serves its purpose and makes us laugh. But as an Austin Powers episode, it is quite disappointing.

Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.

....so bad that I didn't even watch the whole thing. It's very rare that I actually stop watching a movie around 40 minutes into it, but I just couldn't stand this cheesy, unentertaining movie any longer. Perhaps the movie would have gotten better if I would have given it a chance, but I'm glad I chose not to.

It's horrible how many times that after a movie I sit thinking, "The book was so much better." I know that a four hour long movie would not be reasonable, but that is what it takes to properly adapt a book into a movie! I am a HUGE Agatha Christie fan, and "Murder on the Orient Express" was one of the first books I ever read by her. It has been a few years since then, so I've forgotten most of the characters, but the plot was so unique that of course it has stood out in my mind. While watching the movie, I was appalled at how little screen time the suspects got! How could anyone (who had not read the book) have formed any guesses as to who the killer was before it was revealed? You call that a mystery movie? If you can't form educated guesses, then who cares who the murderer is! Anyway, apart from not enough screen time for the suspects and not enough time for the movie in general, I did not enjoy this at all. Where were the clues? I sure didn't see any that would have lead me to believe that a certain person was guilty. And Agatha's famous red herrings were not in the least bit conclusive or suggestive!! Apart from that, Albert Finney did not resemble the Poirot I picture while reading Christie's novels. The Poirot I picture is plump, with, of course, the twirling mustache (it wasn't twirly enough in the movie), and a rounder, egg shaped head (as is always described to the reader). Apart from physical differences, "my" Poirot is kind, not at all modest, does not yell, and has a certain way of questioning his suspects so that it is more conversation than questioning. The Poirot in the movie was way too snappy with his questions, and he yelled!! He yelled!! The calm, cool, collected Poirot, does not yell! Poirot is what makes his novels interesting, and yet it was mostly Poirot who ruined this movie for me.

Sometimes when I see a really bad movie, I wonder to myself, "Do film makers watch the final product of their movies before showing them to audiences?" I first wondered this after paying $5 at a movie theater to see "Buddy"... but I won't get into that. I absolutely hated this movie. It didn't capture my interest, the special effects were horrible, the acting was laughable, the jokes were forced, the sidekick was shoved in to amuse the kids, and overall I was remind of Star Wars: Episode One, and after reading the other comments here I know that I'm not the only one. My boyfriend loved it, but I'm wondering if it's because he's been playing the game for years. Maybe if I was familiar with the game I would have liked it, but I really don't think so. I watched X-Men, not being at all familiar with the comic book, and while I didn't have the same appreciation as readers may, I really enjoyed the movie. I've often heard people say that if it's only entertaining for children, it's not a good movie/book. Well I apply the same rule here. If it's only entertaining for D&D game players, it's not a good movie.

I have one main point of this comment. Read through the other comments left here. See anything negative??? ....... I didn't think so. Get this movie. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The acting is wonderful, and the script is interesting. Five out of five stars.

I have very little to say about this movie. It was not hilarious, it was not interesting, it was not fun, it was just plain boring. Simple as that. People who disagree with me are probably guys who were too busy watching the girls slink around in leather outfits to notice the lack of intelligence in the movie.

The Truman Show is quite an amazing movie. Once it ended the first time I saw it, I went through the next few days looking for hidden video cameras and suspecting everyone. That's the impact this movie had on me way back in 1998. If I had seen it for the first time in the year 2001, I wouldn't have been quite as shocked, since shows like "Survivor" and "The Mole" have become quite common. I pray that a storyline like Truman's stays in the movies and isn't transfered to reality TV. Anyway, bottom line, this is an exellent movie that really makes you think. Jim Carrey proves his talent beyond comedy with this role.

I had no trouble understanding the original Star Wars movies. But this one, even after four viewings, I still don't understand what was really going on!! The acting was alright for the most part, except for Anakin. I didn't find that boy suited the role at all. And Jar-Jar... what was that all about? It was like Lucas knew that a bunch of kids would be watching, so put an irrelevant character in for comic relief. How annoying. I hope the next movie is more clear cut with a better storyline and a better Anakin Skywalker.

Around 15 minutes into this movie, I turned to the three other people in the room and asked, "Is anyone else bored?" Not a good sign. I expected to laugh my ass off as Mel Gibson explored his feminine side and found out what women really want.... Well, I think I laughed twice, both at parts that had been endlessly shown on commercials. And I found it creepy, not funny, when Mel tried on pantyhoses and attempted to wax his legs. Helen Hunt was a bore, as usual. Can she never bring emotion to a character? This was worse than her sobbing episode in "As Good As It Gets." Well anyway, this movie is also poorly titled, as no guy will be able to figure out what women want just by watching this movie. Don't waste your time.

Definitely one of my favourite Disney movies ever. It's always nice to see a female come to the rescue. And after Hercules, I'm glad that the villains in this movie were actually scary. A chill went down my spine during the mountain scene. And the ending was great too, not completely wrapping up the story like most Disney movies do. Excellent work.

As a big fan of Disney movies, I must say this is a disaster. I disagree with the person who said that it grows on you; I find it to be the opposite. The first time I saw it, I was indifferent. The second time, I was bored. The third time, it had been a few years so I wanted to see if it was as bad as I remembered it to be. Well, I was wrong, it was worse. The jokes are forced, the characters are unlikeable, the animation is horrible, and the music is not up to Disney's standards. Quite disappointing.

I categorize movies. "Thinking" movies and "non-thinking" movies. "Sliding Doors" is definitely a thinking movie, so don't rent it if you're only in the mood for a movie that requires you to sit back, relax, and watch the story-less action. This movie can be very confusing at first if you're not prepared for the storyline, but don't worry, it gets easier once one of the Helen's cuts her hair. This movie was very refreshing. The acting is good, the script is well written, the editing fits the storyline.... you just have to pay attention!

I've seen some horrible book adaptations, but this was definitely the worst. The plot was extremely different, but regardless of that, the characters were not the same. In the book Fanny is quiet, shy, withdrawn, soft spoken, yet in the movie she's very outspoken and even rude at points! Mary and Henry Crawford were not shown as truly manipulative people as they are in the book. And the bond between Edmund and Fanny is barely portrayed. There is no character revealment or development in the movie. Also, to truly make a Jane Austen movie, it has to be longer than two hours (that's why the A&E adaptations are usually so much better!). Anyway, Mansfield Park is one of the best books I've ever read, so take my advice, read it and skip the movie.

I know a movie is good when not only do I cry for half of the movie, but I also cry for an hour AFTER the movie is over. This is a movie that will stay with you for weeks afterwards. The acting is amazing and the storyline is touching. I have also read the book, and I'm happy to say that the movie is very faithful. "The Green Mile" is a must see!

How can you go wrong with two such amazing actors as Meg Ryan and Kevin Kline? They are hilarious in this movie. This was my first Kevin Kline movie, after which followed "In and Out", and I couldn't believe it was the same guy! This movie definitely deserves a higher rating than is on this site.

I had great expectations of "Cast Away", considering Tom Hanks is my favourite actor. I was very disappointed. I felt no emotion for any of the characters, least of all Chuck, even though Tom Hanks did do an excellent acting job and definitely deserved the Golden Globe. Also, the story line was way too jumpy. The best scene in the movie is the storm scene. That was the only part of the movie that had me fully interested in the fate of Chuck.

Maybe it's because I'm 18 years old, or maybe it's because the only actor that I like in the movie was Kevin Kline, but I honestly found this movie very poorly done. I found it boring, uninteresting, and at some points appalling. There seemed to be no character development whatsoever. And it ended so abruptly! I was left with the thought, "So, what was that movie about anyway?"