Reviews

It's what I'd like to call a "meringue movie;" light and fluffy on top, looks good diving in, but there's really not a lot of substance there. Although the screenwriters prove adept at comedy, mixing in some funny bits here and there, they unfortunately absolutely SUCK at romance (the crowd actually groaned during someone of the more "sensitive" moments). If someone could rewrite about 10 minutes of the script (the cheesiest of the cheesy romance bits) it would be a decent little flick. As it stands now, it'll be one of those romantic comedies that you watch once, feel like you barely got your money's worth, then immediately forget, forever.

Reasons to go: Reese cute as always; Jon Heder (aka "Napolean Dynamite") in another movie, with a few funny scenes; Donal Logue (albeit, sadly underused for most of the movie); Mark Ruffalo, charming as always.

Reasons not to go: "I paid $9 for this crap!?"

And a final warning to Cure fans: cover your ears during the opening credits; the cover version of "Just Like Heaven" is atrocious. But open 'em up for the end credits when you're treated to the real thing.

Well, that does it, I'm officially giving up on Atom Egoyan films. I've now seen Exotica, Speaking Parts, The Sweet Hereafter and Felicia's Journey and hated (and/or been bored by) them all. If you like artsy movies that jump around a lot and aren't shot well, maybe Atom is for you. If you want an engrossing story with well developed characters, in a movie that's going to make you happy you invested 90+ min of your life to, run ... run far, far away from Atom films.

Anyway, if you're a fan of Bob Hoskins ... maybe ... if you're a fan of Elaine Cassidy ... stronger maybe ... if you answered no to both of those, and you're debating whether to get a jump on your '05 taxes or watch Felicia's Journey, go with the taxes -- it will be time better spent.

Imagine the dumbest movie in the world. Now multiple that by 10, and you have the dumbness that is Suspiria. Interesting? No. Suspenseful? Hardly. Scary? Try again. Granted, I saw this movie for the first time in 2005. (Maybe in 1977 it was a landmark achievement? If that's the case, raise my rating to a 2.) Granted, horror isn't my favorite genre. But nevertheless, I found this movie a total waste of time -- I mean, there was absolutely nothing redeeming about it; not the plot, nor the sets, nor the acting, nor the music ... nothing.

At the end, I said to myself: "I want those 98 minutes of my life back."

My confidence in using IMDb ratings to guide my rental selections is a little shaken after this one. 7.3? 7.3??! I thought this movie was a total snooze fest, which is a bit ironic considering ...

Yes, it has entertainment value, but definitely not >7 worth. The performances are all fine, but the plot just isn't that captivating. I'm not sure what Hillary Swank and Robin Williams, two actors I usually enjoy, saw in their respectively roles that enticed them to do the movie. I realize that the movie is supposed to be more about Pacino's character's inner struggles than solving the central crime, but for a police drama, I still need an interesting crime, an interesting investigation, a few interesting twists and turns, etc., to hold my attention; and this movie lost its grip on me long before the close.