Reviews

First of all, given the fact that it is labelled as "comedy", I was expecting something along the lines of "There's Something About Mary", but nothing could be further from the truth. It's not a comedy at all. "Drama" and "tragedy" would have been a more accurate label.

Quite a sad story, indeed. Excellent pacing and very competent acting by the leading characters; particularly the Buck character - a 27 year old man-child who's unable to move on with his life after his childhood friend, whom he reunites with at the start of the movie, rejects his sexual advances.

This movie reminded me of "One Hour Photo", "The Gift", and (most of all) "Enduring Love", as all of these movies feature a likable "stalker", who has no malicious intentions towards the target and you actually sympathize with him.

A unique, well-made, thought-provoking movie that does a great job at avoiding clichés. Recommended.

Obviously, a rehash of "Fatal Attraction" (exactly the same plot), but I liked it.

Former sweetheart Molly Ringwald is rather impressive as a deranged (but very charismatic) sociopath. Excellent performance.

The good girl was less impressive, but cute nevertheless.

The protagonist is the one I had a problem with. Seriously, as a female, I don't see the attraction. A dumb jock with no substance and a stupid goatee - jeez, I fail to understand what anyone would see in him.

I'm surprised that the movie doesn't have a larger male fan base, though (given that both lead females have naked scenes).

By the way, I can't help but notice that they tend to cast kinky-haired girls as antagonists. Think "Fatal Attraction" and "Swimfan", for instance. Coincidence?

I wasn't expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Griping, entertaining, and not as clichéd as you'd expect a stalker movie to be.

Emily Browning was probably a poor choice to play the lead - she doesn't look like a mother-of-two and stepmother to a teenager (she doesn't look a day over 12 herself to be honest). Actually, she can't really pull off the whole rock star look, either. However, her acting more than made up for the less-than-convincing physical appearance; I was impressed.

The rest of the cast were tolerable, but not top notch. Except for the antagonist, who did a pretty good job overall.

I appreciate a movie that isn't boring and predictable, and "Plush" meets my requirements, so I won't hesitate to recommend it.

Seriously, it looks like people either really love or really hate this movie. It has an extremely low rating on IMDb (currently 2.5), which, in my opinion, it doesn't deserve.

Alright, so it's a dumb movie. But, come on, it's a comedy... for kids! It's not supposed to be serious or realistic. It's supposed to provide entertainment. And it does... to some extent at least. It does have a few funny moment, you have got to admit.

Kathleen Turner is miscast, though. She makes a terrible antagonist. Her performance was weak to say the least. Then again, the same can be said about most of the cast.

I did find the sex joke between two toddlers amusing, but yeah, it WAS kind of inappropriate, as many reviewers have pointed out already. Not a big deal to me personally, as long as it's funny, and it was.

So no, it's not "the worst movie ever made". I thought it was watchable, and, in fact, somewhat entertaining.

Then there's those, who have left raving 10 star reviews, saying that this is this movie is "genious"... you guys must be out of your minds.

It is nowhere near "good", let alone "genious", but, like I said, it's a dumb comedy for kids, that some adults might find mildly amusing at times. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not sure whether this movie was good or not, but I kind of liked it. It was peculiar, but in a good way (not like Solondz's Wiener-Dog I saw recently).

The "Celtic Tiger" part was of no relevance to me - I wouldn't know whether it portrayed 2006 Ireland accurately or not; I was viewing this movie as a regular stalker flick, and, as such, it was quite engaging.

The acting was good, especially by the lead male. Kim Cattrall's role was not a major one, so her accent didn't bother me, especially since everyone in the movie had sort of a "neutral" accent. Having been to Ireland, I can say that none of the people in the movie sounded like the natives I met on my trip to Ireland.

The set-up was very good and engaging, but the movie declined significantly upon the doubles's entering the protagonist's house. There is no way something like this would happen in real life. It was just not believable. I was also sort of offended by the way they chose to portray the wife - as though they were trying to say that women are generally dumb and shallow, and the only thing they care about is for a man to pay attention to them. This is inaccurate and there is no way a wife would mistake a stranger for her husband of many years. Perhaps they were meant to imply that Jane knew all along that it was the double (if so, I must have missed it), in which case, perhaps, I would have seen it differently.

The ending was also kind of weird, but very original and somewhat satisfying and thought-provoking.

All in all, an enjoyable movie, and definitely superior to many a stalker flick I've seen lately. Would recommend.

It has always been a mystery to me as to why Matthew McConaughey is such a big deal to a lot of people. He is not that good an actor and he is not really that physically attractive (I'm a woman). His performance and his looks are generally very average, and actually below average in this particular movie. One word: massively overrated.

The movie itself is quite poor, too. Not funny in the least. And complete lack of chemistry between the 2 leading characters is very obvious. So this attempted "romantic comedy" fails on both fronts - it's not really romantic and not really a comedy.

Sarah Jessica Parker is just playing Sex and the City's Carrie Bradshaw all along (the facial expressions, the gestures, the very character), as that seems to be the only character she is capable of portraying. In fact, it just felt like an impossibly long Sex and the City episode, not a stand-alone movie.

Honestly, I don't think they could've found an actress that was LESS suitable for the role of Paula than SJP...

Zooey Deschanel was kind of cute in this movie and, surprisingly enough, her performance was semi-tolerable (compared to the leads at least), although I usually consider her a horrible actress. The age gap between her and SJP was painfully obvious, and the fact that they had nothing in common and were forced to act as friends/roommates, made the movie all the more awkward to watch.

It goes without saying that the plot is predictable to the point of nausea. Lazy writing, banal storyline, bad acting, boring characters, and general lack of realism and entertainment value make this movie almost impossible to sit through.

Not one I would recommend to anyone...

One word to describe this: forgettable.

I would've been disappointed had I paid to watch this, but since I didn't - there isn't much to complain about. Waste of time? Yeah, a bit. Pointless movie to be brutally honest.

It's a very typical rom-com. Very formulaic and predictable. I might also add that it was surprisingly unfunny for a comedy. I didn't laugh once.

Even with such a star-studded cast, it failed to make an impression. Everyone starring in this movie are usually great actors (and you gotta say that the acting was above-average), but the bad script/dialogue makes one wonder why they agreed to star in such a turkey.

I liked Jordana Spiro in this. I thought she was most convincing in her role. Everyone was good, like I said. So, basically, the only thing going for this movie, is the talented cast.

Perhaps 40+ divorcees, who are trying internet dating, might be able to relate to this... then again... maybe not. I wasn't.

It is, by no means, a movie I would refer to as "great", but, compared to the other "Lake Placid" sequels, this is, indeed, a significant improvement.

I liked the original with Jane Fonda; that's why I kept watching the sequels, but, up until now, the sequels have been simply horrendous. Perhaps, that's the reason why I actually liked this one; it was a significant upgrade from the previous sequels.

Yancy Butler was, of course, the highlight of the movie. I don't think it would've been worth watching without her.

I thought the main downside was the fact that the movie lacked the subtlety of the original. This one was clearly going for more action and more gore. And that was a mistake if you ask me.

Also, I'm not sure why they called it "The Final Chapter" as the ending suggests a potential sequel.

To summarize: A below-average movie if viewed by itself. If, however, you watch it having seen other "Lake Placid" sequels, you will be pleased to find that this is basically the only sequel that's watchable.

A very average thriller that it's very entertaining. Too predictable, unexciting, and banal. No tension, no suspense.

Whoever picked out the cast, is clearly not suitable to pick out actors for movies, and should be fired immediately. All wrong. The Mum's plastic nose was very distracting. And the girlfriend? Why was she even necessary? Her stumbling around half-naked in a tiny bikini for most of the movie, without actually adding anything to the story, served no purpose whatsoever. People watch thrillers for suspense; not to see a swimsuit model. The actor playing the troubled son was probably the most miscast actor here. It is hard to imagine someone less convincing than him in this role. The main character - the stepfather - was also miscast. This guy doesn't have what it takes to pass for a psychopath. I wasn't convinced by his acting or intimidated by his character for a second. In a word: an exceptionally lousily-cast movie.

Don't even get me started on character development. There was none.

The story sounded intriguing enough... but only in theory. It is sad how they took a promising plot and made it into something as flat and boring as this movie turned out to be.

Stale, suspense-less, predictable, badly-executed wannabe thriller (read: snorefest). Basically, very average. To say the least. Wouldn't recommend.

Not sure why this is labelled as "thriller"; there are hardly any thrills.

The lead actress is not convincing in her role, and is rather unlikeable to boot. Some Carrie Bradshaw wannabe that you have no interest in and no desire to root for. Bad character development plus the acting is mediocre at best. Disaster.

The "bad guy" is not convincing, either. Not menacing at all. His supposed obsession doesn't seem real at all. In fact, he gives out the vibe that he intensely dislikes the broad rather than is obsessed with her.

This movie is highly unrealistic. I'm not sure who's supposed to be the target audience. No one really likes a movie they can't relate to in any way, right?

And the only way for the audience to know when they are "supposed to" be "thrilled" (or scared) is the sound effects. In fact, they were the most "threatening" thing about this movie.

Waste of time, basically.

This wacky movie is so bad, it is actually somewhat entertaining. It is apparent from the very start that this is going to be an extremely stupid, lame chick-flick, but you're kind of obligated to watch to see just HOW dumb it's going to get. And it doesn't disappoint.

Obviously, someone just pulled the script right out of their backside as it is hard to imagine a more unrealistic and unlikely sequence of events.

Alicia Silverstone, however, is very good. She shines in her debut performance, despite the fact that she is playing a terribly-written character.

The male lead was far less impressive. In fact, one of the worst performances I've seen lately. It really doesn't help matters that he's playing an annoyingly dumb 28-year old, who, in fact, doesn't look or act any older than Adrian. I did not feel any sympathy for Nick to be honest. He was neither charismatic, nor in any other way likable. A protagonist that leaves you indifferent (I'd say annoyed, actually)... not a good sign.

As for the movie itself. Well, it was a trainwreck. An amateurish one at that. The recipe used for this movie was: "Lolita" plus "Fatal Attraction" minus all the thrills and suspense plus a healthy dose of "lame" multiplied my 10 equals "The Crush".

Watch it as a comedy, not as a thriller. Then you'll probably enjoy it. Trust me, there are laughs to be had at the expense of the screenplay writer(s). Just when you think that it simply cannot get any dumber... it will surprise you!

First of all, even though I'm not a huge fan, I thought Mark Wahlberg's performance was great in this. Reese Witherspoon... I'm not so sure. Her character was dull and uninteresting. I don't know whether the character was written this way or it was the actress's interpretation of it, but even though she was supposed to be the leading female, she felt more like a supporting character. Her character is so boring and average, you have no desire to root for her at all.

Another major distraction: Wahlberg's character seemed totally out of place with the rest of his partners-in-crime. Not only they looked much older, they were far more intimidating, and totally a different "breed" if you see what I mean. The actor was trying his best, and he did generally give out the menacing psychopathic stalker vibe, but the character was unconvincing at times. For instance, there should've been some kind of a back story on him. A bad boy like that who's seen all kinds, just doesn't develop an obsession this intense with a random chick after one date.

Despite the fact that the movie is far from realistic, it's still an entertaining watch and a solid stalker thriller.

Not perfect, but could've been much worse. I like Thora Birch and how she's always cast to play odd, eccentric (and, in this case, dark, twisted and sinister) characters. It suits her and she does it well. However, in this movie, her performance was weaker compared to other movies I've seen her in.

A half-decent psychological thriller despite the fact that not a lot of people will probably be able to relate to any of the characters, which somewhat lowers the entertainment value. Plus the relatively implausible plot. These are probably the 2 main weaknesses of this movie.

Nevertheless, I thought it wasn't a bad film, though they could've done a better job on building the suspense...

There is nothing that I could say that hasn't already been said about this movie. It is certainly a masterpiece; everything about it is perfect.

I'm into Russian classics, and "The Idiot" has long been my favourite novel. I have read several translations, and seen all the adaptions. This one is, by far, the best.

I see that Lydia Velezheva's Nastasya Filipovna is criticized quite harshly, but, personally, I though her performance was astounding. As a matter of fact, she was my favourite character. I was, however, surprised that they chose to cast an actress that was physically very different from what I'd imagined Dostoevsky's (novel-based) Nastasya to look like. For one, she was supposed to be 25, wasn't she? The actress seemed to be at least 10 years older. Knyaz Myshkin looked much younger than her, too. But this could have been done on purpose, to portray the Knyaz's odd, unlikely obsession with someone, who is totally unsuitable / wrong for him.

Basically, the casting was perfect, except for two characters - the eldest of the Epanchin sisters (Alexandra). Same issue as with Nastasya - far too old for the role. Alexandra was supposed to be 25 as well. The actress appears to be over 40. Moreover, she just looks out of place in general. I don't know why, but this particular actress was a poor choice for this role in my opinion - she doesn't fit in with the rest of the cast for some reason. Then there's Yevgeny Pavlovich Radomsky (Aglaya's suitor) - he just doesn't "look" like Dostoevsky's Radomsky, and I didn't think his acting was on par with the others.

Having seen several Russian classics' adaptions, I couldn't help noticing that Russian actors (even those that aren't top notch) surpass the American / English ones by *miles* in their performance. I wonder why. Are they taught differently, is the selection process done differently, or is it in their nature? Also, in America, it seems that a good actor is defined by how comfortable they are in front of the camera, and their talent is measured by their personal charisma. Take Will Smith for instance. It is commonly agreed upon that he's one of the best American actors, but I am yet to see a movie where he is playing an actual character (in essence, he plays himself in every movie). Perhaps, that is the difference. The Russian actors I've seen *were* actual actors. My definition of a good actor is someone, who can *believably* portray a different character each time and capture the essence of that character, so the viewer only sees the character, and never the actor. Which, by the way, was masterfully done by each one of the actors involved in "The Idiot". Mironov was most impressive as Knyaz Myshkin, and so were all the other characters, even the minor ones.

I cannot even imagine who'd they cast if they ever decided to produce an English version of the movie. There aren't any actors around that could portray Dostoevsky's characters half as well as the cast of Bortko's "The Idiot" did. Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet, and Haley Joel Osment are, perhaps, the three actors that I'd say could possibly pull it off, but no-one else comes to mind really...

Anyway, it goes without saying that this is my favourite movie. I never get tired of it. I just wish they would translate the movie properly, which would provide a greater exposure to the English-speaking world, as it deserves to be seen by a wider audience.

If this movie comes on on TV, you might as well watch it. But paying for it isn't really worth it.

It isn't as bad as some reviews suggest. More or less watchable. Obviously, nothing original or remarkable about it, but watchable.

It's a typical teen slasher, like many before it. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.

The acting was sub-par, obviously. The story line, as expected, was not very plausible. The killing scenes were less than creative. But all this is to be expected from this type of movies, so no surprises there.

Everything about it is just average or below that.

Will do to pass time if there's nothing better and it's free.

First of all, why would the devil waste his/her time trapping him/herself in a lift with a bunch of unremarkable humans? I mean, if the devil wanted to off these people for whatever reason, I'm sure s/he would have done it without having to resort to the lift charade.

Are we really expected to believe that the devil has nothing better to do with his/her time, and can't find more creative ways to entertain him/herself?

It was kind of obvious from the start who the supposed devil was, and the attack sequences were really tacky, so it wasn't a very engaging movie to watch. Not much suspense, stupid storyline, predictable.

I kept falling asleep, so one word: borefest.

Trust me, I would never see this movie on my own initiative. Having seen a couple of Paris Hilton movies before, I can tell you that watching this annoying, ugly, pigeon-faced, arrogant, dumb skank trying to act, is my idea of torture.

I got to watch this atrocity when I picked "dare" in a "truth or dare" game. And let me tell you: it *was* torture. I think this has to be one of the worst movies ever made, and I mean it. How dumb can a movie get? Not much dumber than this, I assure you.

I think I lost at least 10 points off of my IQ by having to sit through this brain-damaging crap of a film.

What can be worse than a dumb movie? A dumb movie that takes itself seriously! Believe it or not, the makers of this sh*tfest are actually trying to convince the viewer that this is a real movie. Not fooling anyone, ofcouse. This is a pathetic *parody* for a movie, starring the dumbest and ugliest bimbo I have ever seen (close second is Jessica Simpson, but at least she isn't ugly, unlike Pigeon Hilton).

"A beautiful sorority president"? Are you kidding me? Have they seen her face? And the crackwh*re looks at least 10 years older than her character is supposed to be. And who produced the script for this stinker? Hilton's intellectual equal, it seems.

Urgh, awful. Beyond awful. Only brain-dead imbeciles could possibly enjoy something as crappy as this so-called movie.