Reviews

I have been a die-hard fan of J.B. since I saw my first real Bond movie in 1979, "Moonraker". No- Roger Moore is NOT James Bond (never was either), but Pierce Brosnan IS! "Goldeneye" had some promise, followed by "Tomorrow Never Dies". But the last two installments get worse and worse with age. But that is the issue here- AGE! James Bond is old and tired, and just needs to retire!

The creators have used up every plotline, every gadget, every villian, etc. Now they have invisible cars, machines that reconfigure one's face & body perfectly, surfing commandos, etc? Now, why was it that they fired Bond in this one? And was that hotel really supposed to be made of ice? Weren't J.B. and chickeroo cold when they had sex? Do you think they even did? And wasn't Toby Stephens a menacing bad guy? HA-HA! Did Maculay Culkin grow up and take this part for free? And is this now tailored to fit in the Generation Y audience now? They'd rather see Vin Diesel in that movie last year than this old fart. Oh- but it has Halle Berry!

And I've seen better dialogue in the new Star Wars movies than this!

My bad! Sorry guys!

This was plain stupid and a disgrace to the James Bond legacy.

This was an unoriginal waste of celluoid, time, talent (Chris Cooper, Franka Potente), blasting caps, squibs, set pieces, vehicles, etc...The action was entertaining, but completely implausible-- being that I've seen what guns can do to people, I did not accept this film from the beginning (for reasons one will find out when reading about the plot to this film). And what I couldn't believe was the fact that this movie really thought it was cool,hip, and original. This kind of genre is as dead as eight-track tapes, and I would of expected better from a director like Doug Liman. I think $$$ was the only reason why this film was made: money for Universal; money for the director; ...for the actors; there was nothing else appealing except it had great photography at times, and helped me brush up on my German.

But that's it. You're better off watching "Mission Impossible"-- it made just as much sense as this film!

I used to be a big-time "Lethal Weapon" fan. I watched the second one in awe; couldn't wait or the third one and when it sucked, I still appreciated it for the characters keeping it together. But now after seven years, other films, my deteriorating youth, comes ANOTHER sequel to make us forget about how the third one was such a debacle. So they put the over-obnoxious Chris Rock into it; give Mel Gibson a haircut; make a convuluted and familiar plot to it; give it some heart; usual perils/recycled jokes/recurring characters who serve no purpose to the story (Mary Ellen Trainor), and you've got "Lethal Weapon 4"!

Now who the hell torches Hollywood boulevard in a metal suit?

There's no way in hell one can take the slide off a 9mm with one hand (let alone 1.5 seconds)...

Was this a recruiting commercial for the LAPD?

If Gibson has a makeover, why can't others?

They're obviously running out of ideas (since the third one)-- isn't Murtaugh supposed to retire soon? What about Riggs?

Don't get me wrong: this film had its moments, but it's time to put this series to bed! ...Or maybe I'm getting too old for this s***!

This is an interesting film. Dark- possibly. It's no "Star Wars" or "Indiana Jones", and I think that so many people were expecting just that in 1982 when released. I was in 5th grade, and it was the first R-rated flick that I saw in a theatre, and I was amazed at what I saw. First, I wasn't expecting the usual bulls***-summer movie, so what was shown was a precursor to what the not-so-distant future had in store. I don't think audiences from the Y generation will much like this with their limited attention-spans. But it's astonishing with how many of Scott's "future" premonitions have come true: corporations owning the world; the increase of the Asian population in Los Angeles; flying police cars-- oh, maybe not that one...

I just looked at this last night on DVD, and I miss the original cut. Ford's voice-over wasn't that bad. It was well-written. And I found myself reciting that missing voice-over when watching the scenes that the VO was once present. But without the voice-over, there is a surreal effect to it. It seems more eerie. And the original ending wasn't a "pat-Hollywood ending"-- just gave it some resolution, that's all. The new ending looks like a foreign film's. Not bad, but not all that good either.

I think that this movie's got such a tight following because it wasn't real popular and was in fact shunned ny the critics when released. The ingredients of a cult classic! But I do not think that this was a great film, either. For one thing, Scott focuses more on the visuals and the sets rather than character development & story (something that Lucas is obsessed with in the new 'Star Wars' films). But the acting isn't bad-- Rutger Hauer is one weird-ass guy! Brion James is a true stupid replicant thug, and Daryl Hannah is great as the "little replicant lost" role. Joanna Cassidy is as smart as Hauer (but not anywhere near as strange) & sexy. Harrison Ford is different in every movie he's in, although he tends to overact (but never over the top) at times. The opening shot even reminds me of the docks at Long Beach at night (what they may look like 20+ years from now).

A ubitiquous film that will always be remembered, and won't be lost like "tears in rain"...

I rented this movie about a year ago, thinking that I was really missing out on such a "critically acclaimed" film. I didn't, and the ninety-odd minutes were the longest I had that whole weekend. The clerk at the video store who rented to me even gave me a funny look. Now I know why.

Mike White is possibly a talented screenwriter, but he wrote a piece of dreck that is implausible, unsettling, and not very fun to watch. My guess that it received so much appraisal is because the critics had nothing else to give props to. Either way, the main character is grotesquely creepy and ugly; the high-definition picture looks more like I am watching a home movie or a bootlegged tape and is distracting/annoying. Buck is not a nice guy, and I don't know if he's sick, retarded, depressed, or all three. And then the nursery rhymes over the soundtrack gave it more eerie.

Another reason why I'm so vehement about this movie is because I met an old friend from high school a couple of years ago and he hadn't changed, whereas I did. Very similar to the paradox between Chuck and Buck. He was also kind of creepy and weird, very much like Buck. So this one came too close to home.

Either way, a waste of talent, time, actors, and videotape.

Lay off this- get the ""Virgin Suicides" instead.

"'Chicago' for Best Picture... WINNER ! Catherine Zeta-Jones for Best Supporting Actress... WINNER !!!"

It all makes me sick how rigged the Academy Awards are nowadays.

I saw this film last weekend with my girlfriend and her parents, and I was somewhat entertained. But no, it was NOT Best Picture material. And CZJ's part was so small it wasn't a supporting role-- but more like a cameo. Either way, she was no better than she was in "Entrapment", "Traffic","America's Sweethearts", etc. The film was not horrible, but it was not too great, either. I'm glad that this wasn't as bizarre or clannish as "Moulin Rouge", and I do not know why musicals are the rage now.

My opinion is just an opinion. I respect other people's opinions and the editing was well done as well as the dancing and acting. I was exposed to musicals as a child ("Mary Poppins", "Oklahoma", even "Song of the South") and I do not understand them. I never knew why the heck they sung and danced instead of just getting on with the movie. But perhaps that is something I'll never know.

But I do know that I will be hearing the soundtrack again soon and possibly buy the DVD for my sweetheart next month.

When this film came out, I was in eighth grade. I thought that the Russians were going to take over the world and land in our schoolyard just like in the movie.I mean, it was the Cold War! So this was encouraging to me. Not even a year later, I began to see just how dumb this movie really was from the dialogue: "...waking up with their throats cut..."; to the editing (I learned that the raid on the airbase that the jet fighter that exploded five times was supposed to be MULTIPLE fighters...Just looked like the same one blowing up five different times); to the story structure. If there was an invasion, the Soviets wouldn't of done it conventionally. Not since they had nuclear power-- this wasn't Afghanistan, for peet's sake!

My father was a technical advisor on this movie and was very proud of it. To him, there "were no boring parts". But in fact, it was boring. And it was painful to watch fine actors such as Patrick Swayze, Powers Booth and Harry Dean Stanton in this mess; the plot and the events were a bit incoherent, as well as the action (see above); and the "climax" between Swayze and the Russian colonel was ridiculous!

Just the other day, my girlfriend heard the word, "Wolverine" and asked if I ever saw this. I grimaced and said yes. She replied, "oh, that was sooo good!"

I was hoping that she was going to mention, "X-Men". That was certainly better than this!

But at least my dad would love her as a daughter-in-law!

I am a die-hard Star Wars fan (and have been since I was six when I saw the original). Yes, I have a life. No, I don't go to Star Wars conventions or spend paychecks on the toys. And I am quite stirred reading some of the prior reviews to this film from others. I do not disagree about some aspects: the dialogue is painful to hear, and Mark Hamill & Carrie Fisher actually made these actors look good (with the exception of Ewan McGregor & Samuel L. Jackson). I think George Lucas DOES need to hire back Larry Kasdan for rewrites.

But yes, this movie IS slower than your average flick you have today. I can thank M-TV, reality shows and drugs for their contribution in the reduction of attention spans in today's society. I had a 55-year-old tell me that this was boring, what does that tell you? Hello? Berkeley, anyone? Lucas keeps with the same pacing he did for "The Empire Strikes Back" in 1980. And that was a great film! I'm 30 now and I still enjoy it!

My only complaint would be the acting and the dialogue. Hayden Christiansen is not the best actor for the part, but he is certainly better than the little sh*t in the previous film. I can say that if you're a fan of flicks like "American Pie", "Loser", "Charlie's Angels", Vin Diesel and "Lethal Weapon", then skip this one. This is a film for all of those who have the kid in them- not the adolescent.

I guess James Bond has now sold-out-- I'm sorry-- UPGRADED to teen-age audiences. I mean, aren't they the ones who ultimately control the box office? Let's make sure that we tailor these films for them because it doesn't matter how believable the action is, they're teen-agers-- what do they know? Look how Charlie's Angels did! And that was definitely for kids between 12 to 17. You know, we need more American Pies, Spidermans, Jay & Silent Bobs-- let's make sure that we get 007 in the mix now!

Bond was always good fun, but now it's neither good nor fun. It's time to stop at the 20th Bond because both he and Austin Powers are really showing their ages! I'm embarassed that I was ever a Bond fan after seeing this dreck! They're trying to spoof themselves after what Austin Powers did a few years ago. The action is just superfluously ridiculous! An invisible car! Halle Berry oxygen-deprived for 5 minutes & then of course, surviving! A weak Rick Yune attached to an IV and then springing to life in order to suddenly escape Bond!Madonna's title song!.............. PLEASE !!! I guess we're just that stupid now! Sure, Bond films have had a checkered past, but now they're doing anything for a buck these days! Do the filmmakers actually think that they're going to top "The Lord of the Rings"? Guess so.

I'm not shaken or stirred anymore and M "would have no use for me" after reading this-- so some things are better off dead. This is roadkill.

Back in 1981 I was nine when I saw this film. I saw "Raiders of the Lost Ark" the day before, and I was still pumped up to see this. Good: NO. Entertaining: YES. Sequel-worthy: NO. But when I was 9, that was a whole different thing- I thought Gene Hackman was one of the worst actors around then. Ah, youth...Now that I'm 30, I bought this on DVD along with the original Superman, and this one is so hard to watch. The scenes look as if they ran out of things to say/do; the dialogue itself is painful to hear, and the pacing is so slow. Is it a tradition to show all of the characters for the first 1/2 as if they were doing a reunion film (so TV movieish)? The movie had its moments, but there were some rather silly parts to it, too. I thought one of the most moving scenes of the film was the last part where Superman/Clark Kent kisses Lois making her forget the whole mess. The dialogue there was a little better than the rest (they probably had a different writer on that part). The special effects weren't as good in parts, and they only got worse in the later flicks. All in all, this film shows its age and would be more entertaining to 12-year-olds and under (perhaps that was why my parents looked bored when they took me to see it).

It was November, 1999 and I saw TWINE on the opening day. I was underwhelmed. Yeah, the boat chase got me pumped up, but then it just stayed in second gear throughout the rest of the flick. Denise Richards was horribly miscast and just, well, horrible. She obviously never watched a Bond movie before, and she just walked through the role as if she were doing "Wild Things 2" or something. I was glad to see Judy Dench do something more since she is certainly more charismatic than the old men in the previous films. Sophie Marceau delivered, but she wasn't repulsive enough when you saw her true colors. Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond ever. Sean Connery was never playing Bond as long as I've been alive, so Pierce Brosnan is by far the best to me.

But the franchise is falling apart, and they're running out of ideas: the climax reminded me of "The Spy Who Loved Me", I saw traces of "The Living Daylights," "Goldeneye", etc.

Put the franchise to bed after "Die Another Day", please.

...Something that I've heard again and again throughout the eighties and nineties. It's only Stallone 's and Hauer's best performances in any movie that I've seen them in. I read a positive comment (which encouraged me to write this) about this film. I was 9 years old when this movie came out: tried to sneak into it when it played in the theaters (failed), saw it a year later on cable, and I LOVED IT! I resembled a little Rutger Hauer and lived in Los Angeles at the time, so I found myself almost relating to this film. But I was so impressed that it wasn't like all of the other dreck that came out that year, too.Now international terrorism is simply a satire in today's films until 9/11. However, I think that "Die Hard" changed the industry forever in a bad way. To them more is better- to me, more is more. This movie does not glamorize violence (like the before mentioned) and shows how serious it is when it hits home. This movie did not play very long in theaters (in 1981), and hardly anyone can recollect it. It was made on a modest budget, and so many films have surpassed it since, it is now been archived.

I wish Stallone returned to this kind of role: he's so enamoured with John Rambo, Rocky Balboa, every other action-hero-cardboard role that he lost credibility. Hauer went down a separate but equal path in demonstrating his difficulties with other directors, he's a strait-to-video icon.

To this day, I still remember the lines "...I do not enjoy killing-- but it's my job!" and "...now this is for the press...Now you may drop the child, but don't drop this..."

Why can't people watch this instead of Steven Segal movies? I guess Serpico's out, Marky-Mark's in...

Why does everybody think that Steven Soderbergh is a cinematic God? True: he IS more versatile than he was when he started, and his ability to take risks has enabled him to be where he is now. I think Soderbergh's film here was well-made; an excellent ensemble consisting of Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Cheadle, Guzman, and co.; but for something like this to be nominated for best picture? Me thinks that it's because this movie was released in December. It's an excellent documentary, but this is not a film that inspires hope-- it inspires despair instead. I guess what Soderbergh is trying to convey is, "if drugs were legalized, then we wouldn't have this sort of violence and anguish that I have shown you for the last two-and-a-half hours...See?"

Well, that's an opinion, but legalizing drugs is like letting loose a box full of rattlesnakes on a playground.

Perhaps he can handle his drugs, but I know a lot of people who can't.

Maybe HE should watch his film and relize that !

I'm done.

When I heard about the premise to a movie with Russell Crowe being released in December, 2001 (one of the best actors of modern cinema) playing a schizophrenic mathematician, I thought, "B.F.D." With acting from Crowe, powerful performances from Jennifer Connelly (whom was always easy for me to look at, but I didn't think she was THAT good), Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer, Paul Bettany and others, I found myself so engulfed with it, I was wondering, "when's Russell going to go schizo?" Only after the first hour, I was amazed how Akiva Goldsman (and it IS the screenwriter who deserves credit as much as Ron Howard)told this story with such clever execution! (And he's no mathematician, either!) NOW THAT IS STORYTELLING!

But it was also the resilience of Jennifer Connelly's character that also gave me a sense of hope that there are still compassionate people in this world who still love others despite their flaws. Most people in society today would completely divorce themselves from a situation like that.

I'm pleased that the movie won Best Picture last year, but if it were released in May instead, we would probably of gotten something like "In the Bedroom" as the winner.

Timing's everything.

This film has traces of Pulp Fiction embedded in it, but it's got a little "Swingers" and other films to it as well. All in all it's an entertaining movie which ends without epiphany for these characters (like .....). This film has multiple stories but does not try to be alternative and cool. It just wants to work! Sarah Polley (whom I never heard of at the time but follow her work now) was great; Katie Holmes wasn't quite Katie Holmes - and that was good; Fichtner's good; but my favorite was Timothy Olyphant who did a kick-ass job of a charasmatic bad-guy (it was hard not to hate him by the end). I've read the other comments and these people just take this thing TOO seriously! It's not the movie of 1999, it's not "Pulp Fiction", it's just "Go". I have this movie on DVD and heard Doug Linman's commentary: he sounds like he had a lot of fun making this. I had a killer time watching this. I guess if I came in with different expectations I would've hated it like everyone else on this site!

This is probably one of my faves when it comes to the "we're Americans & we're going to kick ass"-type movies: because we don't. I was denied entry into the army (4-F) shortly before the whole Somalia incident began in 1993. After seeing this movie back in January of this year, I was glad that I couldn't/didn't go. I got this sinking feeling the more the soldiers's plans dwindled until finally escalating into chaos. Jerry Bruckheimer actually produced something more edgy, gritty and a little less polished than his previous films which made me find this believable. Ridley Scott (whose films I've admired except for "Hannibal") once again has proven himself a versatile director: a man who never makes the same movie twice. The film doesn't have to preach a political message, but instead the warlord in the beginning states to Sam Shepard, "this is our war- not yours." To me, that was enough. "Black Hawk Down" is more occupied with showcasing the true ugliness of war and doesn't try to prove itself over "Platoon" or other anti-war movies. I was also impressed to see that Josh Hartnett wasn't an animatronic puppet and could actually carry his own instead of simply being the same dude with a wardrobe change. Ewan McGregor does a decent job without trying to upstage anyone else. My father (who is a retired army officer & a Vietnam vet) pointed out that he worked for generals who were as incompetent as Sam Shepard's character in his career. Being that I am the same age as a lot of the soldiers were at the time this movie took place, I was able to identify with the characters, and didn't feel as if they were cliches of guys from Hollywood Vietnam or WW II movies. I think a lot of the critics (who have never even seen danger in their lives) compare this film to Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" or anything from Oliver Stone, because they feel that that is the true formula to a war film. That is like trying to mold every sci-fi film into a "Star Wars."

I know that a lot of people didn't like this film for various reasons; (too violent, not enough character development,not enough sex, possibly racist, etc...)but in the same year of films such as "Planet of the Apes," "American Pie 2," "A.I.," "Rat Race," and many more forgettable flicks, this one sure stood out as one of the best films of 2001.

I'm not a big-time sports fan, but I do like football and I DO like Oliver Stone movies. To me, Mr. Stone always delivers some poignant message in his films (even in "U-Turn"), so I checked out what Ollie had to say/do about football (a subject I thought he'd never tackle- no pun intended)and I was STOKED! It did seem like a long movie, but his films are never really short anyway. I felt like I was watching a football game on a Sunday afternoon with the pre-game, half-time, and post-game specials along with it (and most appropriately, it WAS on a Sunday afternoon when I saw this). Stone always has so much going on in his movies that it can be chaotic at times. But such is life. It was multi-charactered and each one had something interesting about them: i.e., Dennis Quaid as the 'John Elway', Cameron Diaz as the cold and pragmatic team owner, James Woods as the slimy doctor, John C. McGinley as the soulless sports writer, Jamie Foxx as the hero/villain, and LL Cool J as his nemesis (still, one of my favorite characters, "J-Man"). I've got this on DVD and I think the deleted scenes just make this epic well, more epic. But don't see this movie if you A. do not like football B. have ADD C. if you think that this is a family film because it's about football...

I will never watch football the same again. Thanks, Oliver Stone!

I missed "Out of Sight" when it hit the theatres in 1998, but I saw it when it came out on DVD, and I've got to say the film Academy ran out of movies to cite as "Best Original Screenplay". There wasn't a lot of elements in this film that were original, except for how the story was composed (and even that gave me deja-vus). Still, it was more enjoyable than some of the other crap that was out there, but the film was just way too over-rated. It was entertaining, yes- George Clooney reeks 'cool' wherever he goes- the characters were interesting (Don Cheadle, Albert Brooks, and Steve Zahn as the idiotic 'Glenn'.) I was slightly disappointed with Ving Rhames- one of my favorite actors and they barely gave him anything to do. It seemed like a "token black-guy/sidekick" type-role, and I'm surprised that Mr. Rhames (with the aptitude he has) didn't see that as well. It was probably the money- he's not a cheap actor. This was better than "Erin Brockovich" (over-rated as well) and "Traffic" (............). I don't think Steven Soderbergh is any more special than the Farrelly Brothers and IS NOT THE NEXT STEVEN SPIELBERG!

I have this movie on DVD and I watch it over and over again, and Alan Ball and Sam Mendes have shown me the omphh that has been missing in other films for a long time. I subscribe to a lot of the accolades to this film, but I do not think that it deserved Best Picture. It was an excellent film- but not an important one. As a kid, I grew up in suburban Orange County where there was truly a lot more than what seemed. I've seen comments posted that state that all of the "corruption" just isn't there: "fascist, repressed Marine Corps colonels; middle-aged men obsessed with high school girls; drug distribution amongst teenagers; etc." Well, I have news for those soccer moms who like to live in their hermedically sealed worlds and listen to Celine Dion- "LOOK CLOSER"! Kevin Spacey deserved Best Actor and Annette Bening was quite impressive as the two-faced housewife. The supporting characters were just as good and this movie never seemed to drag. It is not for everyone: it is unsettling, disturbing and somewhat raw. But a majority of conservative societies don't want the kind of in-your-face dynamic which this movie has. Well, okay. That's why they have movies like "Stuart Little."