Datasets:

denis1203

/

imdb3000examples

like 0

The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.

I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.

I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!

The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.

A very weak movie, mainly because of a poor story, but also poor acting in the case of Robert Downey Jr., and irrational behaviour by many of the characters. If you are someone who likes to switch your mind off and simply watch a movie for it's creativity or acting criteria, then you may like this movie. Personally I can't do that with a drama and found this too far-fetched.<br /><br />I'm particularly annoyed when a main character, that is supposed to be an intelligent person, continually acts like a complete imbecile. In this movie, if the main character acted the way a person would normally act in these situations, there would be no movie.<br /><br />The first highly unlikely act is when the main character, a successful attorney named Magruder, played by Kenneth Branagh, is leaving a party and happens upon a girl, Mallory Doss played by Embeth Davidtz, who is screaming that her car has been stolen. They are standing around in a tropical rainstorm as he badgers her into accepting a ride home.<br /><br />She tells him about her weird father who belongs to some kind of weird sect and does crazy things. When they arrive at her dilapidated shack in the poorer part of town, they notice that her car is in the driveway. Also the house lights are on and some objects in the house have been broken.<br /><br />Things are very odd, she's weird (looking like a tramp, she undresses in front of him until she's completely naked … oh yeah!). Also, the father's strange, the house is a wreck -- everything should have told Magruder, "hey this is too weird for me, I'm out of here!' But not Magruder, he sleeps with her and then, motivated by her story and sex, takes up the case of trying to have her father committed. It all screams set-up!<br /><br />Then, being the top-flight attorney that he is, he arrives late at the office wearing the same shirt he had on the night before, (a fact that all of the women in the office notice). Is it likely that a successful attorney would act like a 16-year-old? Magruder has upset the police in some of his cases so when he goes to the police claiming, with ample evidence, that the father is terrorising them, the police ignore him. I could have believed begrudging assistance. But no help at all -- not likely!<br /><br />It's just too unlikely.

I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.

I saw this movie at the AFI Dallas festival. Most of the audience, including my wife, enjoyed this comedy-drama, but I didn't. It stars Lucas Haas (Brick, Alpha Dog), Molly Parker (Kissed, The Five Senses, Hollywoodland) and Adam Scott (First Snow, Art School Confidential). The director is Matt Bissonnette, who's married to Molly Parker. All three actors do a fine job in this movie about 3 friends, the marriage of two of them and infidelity involving the third. It all takes place at a lake house and it looks wonderful. The film wants to treat its subject as a comedy first and then a drama, and I thought it needed to be the other way around.

My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.<br /><br />I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.<br /><br />Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).<br /><br />What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.<br /><br />People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).<br /><br />One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.<br /><br />Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.<br /><br />If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.

Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things. <br /><br />The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.<br /><br />Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy.

I saw "Paris Je T'Aime" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The "stories" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.<br /><br />The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.<br /><br />I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.<br /><br />There were only two "successful" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.<br /><br />The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.<br /><br />The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, "Paris Je T'Aime" was an awful cinematic experience.

Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it.

be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.<br /><br />The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.<br /><br />Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these "jokes" were just silly.<br /><br />This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care.

The idea is nice. Bringing so many stars in one movie is great. But.... too many stories, too short and lacking really any sense. No connection between the scenes. There were some 3-4 brilliant stories... but these were out of 18. The frame reminded me of "All the invisible children" - a movie which I liked a lot. Compared to it, however, "Paris Je T'Aime" lacks the intriguing short story, which develops - starts and has its end. And it lacks the topic connecting all those - children. I do not find Paris enough of a topic to connect 18 short sketches together.Perhaps for people who know Paris it is interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it...

Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible.

In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.<br /><br />

OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.

I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.<br /><br />It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.<br /><br />If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.

No Fireworks Despite Violent Action.<br /><br />Science fiction films that reflect quality are scarce indeed, largely because transposal of imaginative themes from the genre to the screen too often falls short of effective execution as a result of insufficient funding or inadequate invention, and unfortunately for its producers, this work is lacking on both counts, woefully so in the case of the latter. With essentially no budget with which to operate, it is a grave mistake to attempt the depiction of such a gamut of events as those within this scenario and, in particular, special effects of space opera warfare which appear only clownish, while seeds from the scriptors' imagination lie fallow due to some of the most fatuous misunderstanding of basic scientific principles to be found. Among these are frequent firing of weapons within a sealed environment, and a wayward law of gravity which enables freedom of movement of cast members while inanimate objects float weightlessly, but it is easier to accept these than it is to pretend that any of the episodes have a basis in plausibility. The plot involves an escape of life sentenced prisoners from a space station penal colony to a waste landfill upon our moon and their various attempts to obtain passage back to Earth, with some few capable players present who are execrably directed by first-timer Paolo Mazzucato, whose production team wastes effort upon such as holographic pornography while ignoring a pressing and basic requirement for the creation of states of suspense and of impetus.<br /><br />

I'm sorry, I had high hopes for this movie. Unfortunately, it was too long, too thin and too weak to hold my attention. When I realized the whole movie was indeed only about an older guy reliving his dream, I felt cheated. Surely it could have been a device to bring us into something deeper, something more meaningful.<br /><br />So, don't buy a large drink or you'll be running to the rest room. My kids didn't enjoy it either. Ah well.

Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.<br /><br />When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home. <br /><br />The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.<br /><br />The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity. <br /><br />This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.

*Spoiler warning*<br /><br />First of all I rated this movie 2 out of 10.<br /><br />The idea is good, but there are too many stupid errors in the movie, failing to make it the psyching drama that it might have been. First of all she never fights alone. After an initial very strange doubt from her mother (which is not believable when the mother proves to be so supportive and loving later in the movie) the rape victim is not alone. <br /><br />She is also unbelievably naive always falling into the Crew's strange traps. <br /><br />Her friends are unbelievably nasty.<br /><br />The thing that I find most unbelievably is that Ethan fails to control the crew when he changes his opinon. Ethan is very much the leader of the Crew (hey, they even say so) and people seem to think the other guy is a jerk, but when Ethan changes his opinion he just doesn't manage to convince even one single person in the Crew that he is right and that his former friend is wrong. Everyone just simply hates him... why?? The movie provides no explanation. How did he ever become the leader?<br /><br />A funny note is that my girlfriend thought I was watching Beverly Hills when she came in. Two actors from the same successful TV-series.... a cheap way to get viewers?

Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from ****

Bizarre take on the Cinderella tale. Terribly poor script, but Kathleen Turner turns in a pretty decent evil step-mother performance.<br /><br />Visually stunning in some parts, but that's about it. The period costumes range from the Elizabethan era to the 1990s. Fast forward until you see something interesting and save yourself the full 90 minutes of drivel.<br /><br />If you're really in the mood for a Cinderella story - I suggest "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" or "The Glass Slipper".

*****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****<br /><br />The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.<br /><br />The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.<br /><br />This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.<br /><br />All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.<br /><br />The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.<br /><br />The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women? <br /><br />Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.<br /><br />Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.<br /><br />Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,<br /><br />What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.<br /><br />For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:<br /><br />1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.<br /><br />2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well.

Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets.

Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store …<br /><br />This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show.

This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang. <br /><br />The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical. <br /><br />Disappointing: Sinatra <br /><br />Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary. <br /><br />Tolerable: Mr "i remember the numbers on my dice" <br /><br />Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)<br /><br />Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again.

Raising Victor Vargas: A Review<br /><br />You know, Raising Victor Vargas is like sticking your hands into a big, steaming bowl of oatmeal. It's warm and gooey, but you're not sure if it feels right. Try as I might, no matter how warm and gooey Raising Victor Vargas became I was always aware that something didn't quite feel right. Victor Vargas suffers from a certain overconfidence on the director's part. Apparently, the director thought that the ethnic backdrop of a Latino family on the lower east side, and an idyllic storyline would make the film critic proof. He was right, but it didn't fool me. Raising Victor Vargas is the story about a seventeen-year old boy called, you guessed it, Victor Vargas (Victor Rasuk) who lives his teenage years chasing more skirt than the Rolling Stones could do in all the years they've toured. The movie starts off in `Ugly Fat' Donna's bedroom where Victor is sure to seduce her, but a cry from outside disrupts his plans when his best-friend Harold (Kevin Rivera) comes-a-looking for him. Caught in the attempt by Harold and his sister, Victor Vargas runs off for damage control. Yet even with the embarrassing implication that he's been boffing the homeliest girl in the neighborhood, nothing dissuades young Victor from going off on the hunt for more fresh meat. On a hot, New York City day they make way to the local public swimming pool where Victor's eyes catch a glimpse of the lovely young nymph Judy (Judy Marte), who's not just pretty, but a strong and independent too. The relationship that develops between Victor and Judy becomes the focus of the film. The story also focuses on Victor's family that is comprised of his grandmother or abuelita (Altagracia Guzman), his brother Nino (also played by real life brother to Victor, Silvestre Rasuk) and his sister Vicky (Krystal Rodriguez). The action follows Victor between scenes with Judy and scenes with his family. Victor tries to cope with being an oversexed pimp-daddy, his feelings for Judy and his grandmother's conservative Catholic upbringing.<br /><br />The problems that arise from Raising Victor Vargas are a few, but glaring errors. Throughout the film you get to know certain characters like Vicky, Nino, Grandma, Judy and even Judy's best friend Melonie. The problem is, we know nothing of Victor Vargas except that he is the biggest gigolo in the neighborhood. We know that he knows how to lick his lips, and comb his fro, and carry himself for the sake of wooing girls into the sack, but that's all. We know that Nino plays piano, and quiet well, you could see it by the awards on the family piano. We know his sister Nicki, is a gossip-loving girl with an invested interest in watching TV. We know that grandma is a hard-working traditional Latina woman who's trying to raise her kids with conservatively in a world of excess corruption. Yet where is the titular character, Victor Vargas? He's in this movie somewhere, but we only know what the movie tells us. This is by far the film's biggest flaw. Victor Vargas isn't so much a character but a ping-pong ball, bouncing between scenes with Judy and his Grandmother, but we never get to know who Victor Vargas really is. This is important because as I've mentioned the only thing we know of Victor Vargas is that he's a sexually active teenager with a libido the size of Manhattan. He's a total Alpha-male. Victor Vargas is not the kind of character I sympathize with at all. Why should anyone? So by the end of the movie, in the aftermath of the climax are we truly led to believe that somehow Victor Vargas has attained ANY depth and learned the errors of his ways? How could such a two-dimensional character have any depth? If only the director had worried a little more about fleshing out his main character instead of worrying about getting that perfect hand-held shot.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas brings to life the world of the Latino inner-city neighborhood to the big screen. Something that few films have done before in the past. The film has been complimented for feeling so real, and I won't<br /><br />argue with that. I haven't seen this level of reality since CBS aired Survivor. Seriously, although the movie has some nice shots of the city, the writer/director Peter Sollett was way too dependent on close-ups and hand-held shots. This problem is particularly noticed in indoor scenes that are so claustrophobic I was forced to perform deep-breathing exercises to keep from passing out. As the film continues, the shots get tighter and tighter with faces cropped from brow to chin on the screen; you can practically smell Victor Vargas's cheap cologne. The overall effect is unrealistic in contrast. The indoor scenes of inner-city apartments make them look small and cramp, which is not true. I've been in those type apartments; I used to live in one. They're not splendorous but they have high ceilings and they're decent living spaces. By the movie's standards you'd think that these apartments were 5x5 cells of brick-and-mortar, chipped paint and cracked walls. Unfortunately, Sollett's constant use of close-ups and one particularly bad shot with a zoom-in on one scene come off as totally amateurish. But Raising Victor Vargas is only Sollett's second film, and his most well known, a solid effort in filmmaking that will hopefully get better as he continues to make films. One review I read summarized the movie as, `Ethnicity for Ethnicity's Sake,' and I cannot agree more. If Victor Vargas were truly a great film and story, then the characters' applicability wouldn't matter whether they were Latino, Chinese, etc. Yet if you were to take this story and stick it in middle-class suburbia with a bunch of teeny-bopper white kids the results wouldn't be such glowing reviews, and we'd see the film's flaws more clearly. Indeed, some other aspects of the use of Latinos in this film bother me. While some aspects of Victor Vargas are accurate others I have to question. For example, Victor, Nino and Vicky all share the same room to sleep. This set off an alarm for me because it seemed contrary to what I believe. Any self-respecting Latino family wouldn't have two older brothers sharing the same room with a thirteen-year old girl. At first I was unsure, perhaps I was wrong, but after speaking with my grandmother I knew my problem with this was justified. Considering how conservative the grandmother is, you'd think that Vicky would have been sleeping in her room.<br /><br />As a Latino who grew up in a somewhat conservative Cuban household, raised by my grandmother while my mother was working full-time, I could relate to the movie in many ways, which is why my critical viewpoints are bittersweet because I really wanted to love this movie. Unfortunately, my lack of respect for Victor Vargas sabotaged my feelings for the film. Maybe it's because Victor Vargas reminds me of those guys who were getting laid while I was playing with my Sega Genesis when I was seventeen. Maybe it's because without any further introspection by the film, Victor Vargas is merely a stereotypical hot-blooded Latino, who'll just end up shouting to girls from his car, `Hey bay-bee, ju want to get into my luv Mah-Cheen?' Either way I don't like him, so ultimately how can I like a film about him? So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go stick my hands into a bowl of grits.<br /><br />

Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.<br /><br />I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".<br /><br />Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.<br /><br />It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".<br /><br />It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.<br /><br />A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.<br /><br />Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.

.... this movie basks too much in its own innocence. It doesn't tell a story; it's more a big time snooze fest. While the actors are all personable, the story is so trite and goes nowhere. I think Victor Rasuk has great charisma, but deserves a real film from a real storyteller.

Raising Victor Vargas fails terribly in what it tries most to be: being real. Unfortunately, there is no reality to this film. The characters and situations feel completely artificial and fake.<br /><br />The reason? Bad directing. Peter Sollett uses all the wrong tools in his arsenal. It seems Mr. Sollett read somewhere that not lighting his film would give it an authentic feel. Wrong! It just gives it a badly-made feel. Similarly, shaking the camera does not give a documentary style to your film, it just gives the audience a headache and detracts from what's on screen instead of enhance it.<br /><br />Of course, what's on screen is so painfully fake, as if Mr. Sollett wrote his script with the only goal of trying to look "hip" to his Sundance buddies and show how "edgy" a filmmaker he is.<br /><br />Overall, the only lasting impression this film leaves you with is what a bad director Mr. Sollett is. Next time, how about taking a few writing and directing classes?

"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze. <br /><br />It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?<br /><br />And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them. <br /><br />And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors? <br /><br />So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button.

What a bad, bad film!!! I can't believe all the hype that has been lavished on this pretentious, amateurish excuse for a real movie!! I left the theater before the end, stunned by how bad the direction and camera-work of that movie were!! And to read adoring paeans that claim there is truth and reality in this film when all it is in reality is a brazen attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of reviewers and festivals by being cheap and tawdry.<br /><br />At least this film showed me once and for all that the Sundance Festival has become a complete joke and that being shown here is more a label of bad film-making than anything else.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. You'll want your time back! I know I did.

First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.<br /><br />Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.<br /><br />Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.<br /><br />What a sad waste.

How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.<br /><br />It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...<br /><br />It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.<br /><br />It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...<br /><br />And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.

I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.<br /><br />In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.<br /><br />This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those "festival films" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it "different", therefore good.<br /><br />Bad film-making is not "different", it's just bad film-making.

This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.<br /><br />Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.<br /><br />Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).<br /><br />This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).<br /><br />Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.

Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.<br /><br />Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.<br /><br />What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.<br /><br />I know I didn't.<br /><br />Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.

That this poor excuse for an amateur hour showcase was heralded at Sundance is a great example of what is wrong with most indie filmmakers these days.<br /><br />First of all, there is such a thing as the art of cinematography. Just picking up a 16mm camera and pointing it at whomever has a line does not make for a real movie.<br /><br />I guess we have to consider ourselves lucky the director didn't pick up someone's camcorder...<br /><br />Second, indie films are supposed to be about real people. There's nothing real in this film. None of the characters come across as being even remotely human.<br /><br />What they come across as being is figments of the imagination of a writer trying to impress his buddies by showing them how "cool and edgy" he is.<br /><br />Sorry, but this is not good writing, or good directing.<br /><br />What is left is a husk of a bad movie that somehow made its way to Sundance. Hard to believe this was one of the best films submitted...<br /><br />In any case, it made me loose what was left of my respect for the Sundance brand.

Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.

Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.<br /><br />"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.

After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!

I grew up on Scooby Doo Where Are You, and I still love it. It is one of my favourite cartoons along with Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Peter Pan and the Pirates and Tom and Jerry. This show though is good for kids, the voices are good(Don Messick and Casey Kasem are perfect as Scooby and Shaggy), the theme tune is tolerable and it has some nice animation. However it is rather disappointing. I normally don't mind Scrappy, but when he appears to be like the main character, it gets annoying fast. Complete with the catchphrase Puppy Power, Scrappy is somewhat more annoying than usual. Also half the gang are missing after the first year, somehow it didn't feel like Scooby Doo. And the jokes and the story lines were in general lame and unoriginal, very little chasing monsters or unmasking the baddies. All in all, not as bad as Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, but this show is disappointing. 4/10 for the animation, voices, theme tune and the fact it is nice for kids. Bethany Cox

While I have never been a fan of the original Scooby-Doo (due to its horrid production values), it appears like Shakespeare compared to this pile of crap brought to us by Hanna-Barbera! Without a doubt, Scrappy-Doo is about the most annoying and awful character created for children (and this includes the Teletubbies as well as Tommy the Tapeworm). Whose bright idea was it to create some sort of short mutant dog and enable it to speak and then saddle the Scooby-Doo characters with it?! Whoever it is deserves to die or watch this show (I think death is preferable). The bottom line is that the little dog is simply unfunny, annoying and grates on the nerves--and this is only in the BETTER episodes!! After many years, it would have been better to just end the franchise than create this mess! I can see why in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie they made the villain Scrappy-Doo--since practically everyone hates him!

This movie is one long chiche after another. First of all, though they did their share, there is a unwarranted dope scene where John sniffs weed like an idiot. The wigs and accents are terrible. They sound worse then the old Beatle cartoons. John is the nasty, envious, closet homosexual, slave to Yoko he is portrayed as being in the discredited Albert Goldman book. They even keep spouting song titles in regular conversation "it was always just the Two Of Us"! John would not have been mean to his fans like this either. Like his death showed us he was too nice if anything. The one funny scene is where a dumb Beatle fan only recognizes John and asks him to sing Paul's Yesterday. An insulted John says something along the lines of "Sure and while I croon why don't you get down on your knees, put on your wife's wig, and lick my liggin". That made me laugh for days. Really this movie is funny in how serious it tries to be while coming off ridiculous. John and Paul also did not sit pontificating all day, they were funny light hearted guys who even during The Beatles break up where far more personable then portrayed here. Forget it.

I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.

My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.

I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.<br /><br />Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.<br /><br />However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.<br /><br />There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.<br /><br />The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).<br /><br />Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.

Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.<br /><br />You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to "suspend disbelief"; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me. <br /><br />Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an "F".<br /><br />After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work. <br /><br />LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the audience goes: "What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?"<br /><br />In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.

Wow. I do not think I have ever seen a movie with so many great actors that had such a pivotal role so miscast. Justin Timberlake is perhaps the single worst actor to land a bigtime role in a movie with the star power and money behind it that Edison had.<br /><br />His acting was PAINFUL to observe. The story was OK and all the other characters were played by professional actors, heck, even LL Cool J was fine since he has had numerous small parts to cut his teeth on. How the director and movie company figured that Timberlake was ready for this role there is no way to comprehend.<br /><br />His character ruins the entire experience since every time he is on screen you are actually rooting for the corrupt cops to cap his sorry ass, and he is supposed to be the hero... I would not waste money on this one at the theater or on video. MAYBE if you have HBO and have NOTHING else to do at 2am on a Saturday night and you are drunk and stoned, this may be OK.<br /><br />Watching Timberlake in this role was like watching a human 'Kermit the Frog' act in a Hollywood Blockbuster, just didn't work at all.

That is the only question I am left with. Why did this movie suck so much when it had such a great cast? Why was the writing so bad, it left the audience completely unconnected with the characters? Why did it not make any sense at all? Why did the studio take a perfectly good premise and "Hollywood" the hell out of it when all it needed was good, smart story telling? Why? I never understand why movies that start out good turn into a pile of crap by the time they're released. I hope for the sake of Freeman an Spacey, who are Oscar WINNERS, that this never is released to the big screens in America.<br /><br />As someone that holds a Bachelors Degree in Journalism, the whole story is just utterly laughable. I just...think the script had potential, but the execution turned it into a cliché, and an awful one at that. Just. No.

i saw this movie at the toronto film festival with fairly solid expectations. the movie has a great cast and was closing at the festival so it must be good, right? how wrong i was. <br /><br />i knew we were in trouble when before the film the director was talking about how when he was directing an episode of wiseguy he met an unknown actor named kevin spacey (a director/writer of wiseguy making his feature debut = blah)... well the director/writer of Edison must have some incriminating pictures of kevin spacey killing a homeless man, because i cannot see how he (along with the other actors in the film) would ever agree to be in this disaster. <br /><br />this movie is absolutely appalling! it's a mixture of every cop hard boiled cliché ever. there is nothing new with Edison. the acting was bad and the direction was even worse. it looked like that aforementioned episode of wiseguy. this was the best casted direct to video movie i've ever seen. <br /><br />some examples of just bad silly moments in Edison... morgan freeman dancing around his apartment for no reason to rock and roll music... justin timberlake getting creative criticism from his belle while his apartment is surrounded by candles... llcoolj driving a vintage firebird... 3 guys being shot in the head...<br /><br />this movie is the opposite of good.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM EDISON!

Three tales are told in this film, that seemed to have been shot without knowledge of this being a combined vignette film. The makers relate the three vignettes by having them all connected to shrink Martin Kove, although you never see some of the leads with Kove.<br /><br />The first vignette has sexy Vivian Schilling, a woman afraid of everything under the sun(she makes Adrian Monk look brave), having a paranoia laced evening at home alone. You will literally scream at Vivian for doing some ridiculous things. She spends the majority of her time in a nighty which shows off her amazing features. But her film is the worst if not the most nail-biting.<br /><br />The second vignette is owned by Bill Paxton as he portrays the roommate from Hell. His geeky roommate allows him to take complete advantage of him, and Bill does so whenever he can.<br /><br />The last vignette was funny as a man fears that death will take him at any moment, much like his pal who choked to death on an olive.<br /><br />Not very interesting, as the movie as a whole seems chopped together with very little thought involved. A must for Bill Paxton fans.

Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane.

This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.

This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. Let me say that again: THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.<br /><br />It had all of the ear-marks of a bad movie: continuity errors, bad writing, bad acting, bad production value, bad music. I thought that there were a couple points to horror movies. The first is that it is supposed to be suspenseful enough to scare you. This movie gets and F in this category. The second point is that when a character dies, or something bad happens to them, we are supposed to care. This movie gets an F in this regard as well. <br /><br />The first story, a woman gets mauled by wolves after being afraid that this would happen to her. The next story, an OCD guy dies from not being careful and talks to a dead friend of his. Oh, and then there is the horrific, nail-biting story of a bad roommate. Come on, could you pick topics a little more interesting and a little less common than being alone in a house, being anal-retentive, and having a roommate? Turns out all of these stories where hallucinations, virtual reality induced by a Doctor who in turn uses it himself. Wow, stupid.<br /><br />Let me explain something, I enjoy watching bad horror movies and laughing at how bad they are. I couldn't do that with this one. It was utter pain to sit and watch. Do not under any circumstance watch this movie. You WILL regret it.

This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.

This should have been a movie about Sam and his wife, the glorious Peter Falk and equally glorious Olympia Dukakis. That would have been a movie worth seeing. Instead it's a Paul Reiser vehicle, with a little Falk thrown in. The wonderful Elizabeth Perkins is also in this movie, but you'd hardly know it. I presume Reiser is under the impression that he's a giant movie star who needs an appropriate vehicle. He's not. Even more galling is that Reiser took the trouble to hire some of the best women character actresses on the screen today and then shoved them all into his background. Dukakis does not show up until the last 15 minutes, but when she does, the screen glows. The story is about Falk and Dukakis really, but we're subjected to a pointless, silly, preposterous road trip in which Reiser gets to show how very cute, precious and oh-so-deep with psychological insight (wrong!) he can be. For instance, In a restaurant scene that I imagine Reiser had hoped was "Cassavetes-like" there's a laughably false confrontation between Reiser and Falk that is so patently ridiculous, I was embarrassed for Falk.

I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and "cute" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.

Did anyone else notice whenever they are in the car each time the camera takes a new angle they switch roads. Like in one scene it is a one lane residential with sidewalks, next they are on a multiple lane highway with a divider, next a two lane country road with double yellow lanes. I can understand a low budget but that was just sloppy film work.<br /><br />I also read the other reviews and disagree that it was a bad movie. I think that if you are a fan of Paul Reiser and his comedy then you may enjoy this movie. If, however, you find his work/not funny then I would recommend staying away from this one.

This movie could have been 15 minutes long if it weren't for all the bickering between son and father. Very predictable. Both Male "stars" need a good slap in the face! Would you like some cheese with that "whine?" Two chuckles...and a headache. I can understand why the mother left her hubby after 47 years...I don't know how she lasted that long! The first 5 minutes made me want to turn the movie off wishing I had never paid the $3.99 to watch it! The movie didn't flow well and was painfully long. I kept watching my watch hoping time would fly faster...It didn't. The script had so much repetition that it had to be easy for the writer to fill space. On a positive note...the scenery was pretty, fall being my favorite season. The car, the 40 Ford was also quite nice. This movie gets an D- rating approaching an F

Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable.

This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.

Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.

Why me? Why should I be subjected to such slaughter of what could have made an interesting plot?! At least if I can warn other people off, it will have been worthwhile.<br /><br />I had to watch this horrible movie for a college course. Otherwise, I would have looked at the synopsis on the back of the thing and steered clear. The movie was slow, had PAINFULLY little character development, and centered around the idea that a creepy little white man can become cool if he hangs out with an LA-style token black man.<br /><br />If you want to experience the stereotypical LA feeling of dizzying superficiality - watch the movie. Note, though, that this movie does not DEPICT what we have come to think of as an "LA lifestyle", it is a wonderful example of the products that ARISE from it.

If there is a hell, it contains a screening room in which GRAND CANYON is playing over and over again on an eternal loop. One would hope that the presence of so many marvelous actors - Danny Glover, Alfre Woodard, Kevin Kline, Mary Louise Parker - would help make up for the presences of Mary McDonnell (whose penance is to watch her own films for all eternity)... But, no. Apparently they injected those other actors with a serum made from McDonnell. The entire affair is pretentious, overblown, insulting (if you are deaf or know anyone who is, be prepared for your blood to boil at the ludicrous TDD scene). GRAND CANYON is filled with obnoxious, self-involved people, but never gives us a reason to like/understand/sympathize with or even tolerate them. With rare exception, they are insufferable losers that the gene pool would be better off without. There's no plot to speak of, no character development (these people won't EVER develop), no break-out performance and the most arch writing you'll ever encounter in a film. The best thing about GRAND CANYON? Its title. This is one large HOLE of a movie.

I first didn't want to watch this film, for the trailer gave the impression of a common and too expected film...but as I recently had the pleasure to discover the surprising "Mensonges et trahisons et plus si affinité"" which was beautifully directed and written by Laurent Tirard (screenwriter of "prête-moi ta main"), I changed my mind and decided to try it, thinking that "Prête-moi ta main", would be as good as "mensonges...". And it is absolutely not. The script is not bad, but it is not as well directed as "Mensonges...", the actors not as generous (especially Charlotte, as boring as she usually is) as Edouard Baer or Clovis Cornillac, and too be honest, I still don't understand how such crap can have such a success, even with such a casting... Anyway the story could have been a pretext to create so many interesting plots, but it is not as good as Tirard's "Mensonges..." though it's also written by him. Easy, unsurprising, and lazy work. Totally overestimated!

This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor "Robot Jox". This must be also the reason why its most common name is "Robot Wars" and not the alternate name "Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars".<br /><br />"Robot Jox" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.<br /><br />Just like "Robot Jox" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that "Robot Jox" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.<br /><br />What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.<br /><br />Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?<br /><br />For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.<br /><br />You can better watch a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode, for some more action and likability.<br /><br />3/10

There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction.

This film has a weak plot, weak characterization, and really weak special effects that I question why I lost valuable life by watching it. It has random characters who add nothing to the story and seem like excuses for the director to get his girlfriend in the film. The robots are sad and the main "hero" 'bot is turned on by a huge knife switch. If this movie weren't so bad it would be laughable, but there's nothing funny about it. The main antagonist is one of the only redeeming characters, and he is killed. It's sad when you root for the bad guy, because he's the best one to cheer for. When all is said and done, this movie was better left on the cutting room floor, or never funded at all.

I'm a Jean Harlow fan, because she had star quality. I don't think her movies are good and I don't even think that she was a good actress, but she certainly was Great in comedies. Every bit of comedy in The Girl from Missouri is very good. But this movie is perhaps more like a love story. Jean Harlow is wonderful in this one and you can forget the rest of the cast - their performances bring nothing new. It always impresses me much to think that Harlow's beautiful body was that of an ill woman. Well, in this movie she does look beautiful.

Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.<br /><br />Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.<br /><br />If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress.

Thank you Hollywood. Yet another movie classic utterly ruined by a cheap, shallow, effect-heavy and redundant remake. The original "Planet of the Apes" was an intelligent and thought-provoking movie with a very clear message. It was a movie that focused almost entirely on dialogue, which sounds very dull but was in fact very interesting. <br /><br />This movie, on the other hand, seems to have done away with pretty much ALL the dialogues. Instead of a great movie we get an incredibly stupid two hour chase movie. Dialogue has been reduced to a mere minimum, character interaction and development are non-existent and most of the time it's extremely hard to figure out what's going on. Instead, we get a bunch of pointless action scenes, some marginally funny one-liners and some very hollow quasi-intelligent conversations. <br /><br />The only thing worth mentioning about this movie is that it looks absolutely fantastic. The make-up of the apes is magnificent, and the sets and backgrounds are beautiful too. However, this does not distract from the fact that "Planet of the Apes (2001)" is a very shallow and simplistic movie, filled with paper-thin characters, stupid dialogue and a nearly non-existent plot. Please Hollywood, stop ruining great movies by turning them into senseless blockbusters.<br /><br />Oh yeah, the ending did not make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />* out of **** stars, mainly for the visuals<br /><br />

Warning: Spoilers Galore!<br /><br />Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.<br /><br />Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.<br /><br />The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.<br /><br />Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.<br /><br />Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.<br /><br />Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.<br /><br />Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.<br /><br />The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.<br /><br />The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.<br /><br />Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.<br /><br />Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.<br /><br />It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'<br /><br />The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.<br /><br />Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).<br /><br />No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...'

If there's one thing that annoys me most in seeing a bad film, it's seeing it done by experienced film-makers who ought to know better. This "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes could have used some imagination, to say nothing of essential elements of character development. Nova, the girl in the original Planet of the Apes, was a better developed character than Daena in this version, for all that she does not say a single word. One certainly expected a lot better from Tim Burton, a man who has hitherto combined an incredible visual imagination with intelligence, wit and humour, all of which were notably absent from this production.<br /><br />There were problems in basic plot development. The first big mistake was allowing the humans to talk. This was the fundamental difference between apes and men that made *all* the difference in the original film. Even while he was mute, his ability to communicate was what marked out Heston's Taylor as being different from the other humans. In the current film, Mark Wahlberg encourages the (talking) human slaves to revolt, but there is no overpowering reason for them to have not revolted and reclaimed their emancipation already. They are dexterous tool-users and have the ability to communicate in order to form plans, something mute humans can't do. It needs no man to fall from the stars to save them. Indeed, since he comes from a technological civilisation and finds himself in a pre-technology era without (at first) any gadgets to help him, it is Wahlberg who ought to be at a disadvantage, not the humans who are used to living there.<br /><br />It was sad to see Helena Bonham Carter working so hard to generate some kind of spark between herself and that unresponsive brick wall Mark Wahlberg. Her best scenes were with the villainous Tim Roth.<br /><br />The humans were practically ignored until they were needed in the third act, at which point Daena started showing some actual interest in Davidson (Wahlberg), and a young boy suddenly changed from part of the background to a feisty gung-ho freedom-fighter. This was poor character development. (Estella Warren, in particular, looked as if she would have been capable of a great deal more than she was given in the script). Wahlberg's puzzlement at the end as to what these humans see in him was certainly shared by me, as he has scarcely interacted with the humans throughout.<br /><br />Creating the apes: half a plus point and two minuses: Ape make-up was excellent on the males, particularly Michael Clarke Duncan who has incredibly expressive eyes (which was why he was so good in The Green Mile), and the makeup design allowed him to use them fully. But the ape females looked like nothing on earth, neither ape nor human. The minuses were the ape jumps which looked about as realistic as Flash Gordon's rocket: jumping apes looked as if they'd just been fired from a catapult, they had none of the long-limbed grace of genuine apes. Secondly, the poor sound mixing - when the gorillas roar it is quite clearly dubbed from some animal, probably feline, making them sound ridiculous and unrealistic.<br /><br />In the original film, the various "human" things the apes do and say are handled as light relief ("I never knew an ape I didn't like." "Human see, human do!"). Here, the apes just talk matter-of-factly exactly as 21st Century humans do, and there is no humour in it at all. The only genuinely original idea was Ari writing with her feet.<br /><br />Nothing made me cringe more than the "V-Ger from Star Trek" moment near the end of the film. First of all, the apes had apparently been able to read Roman lettering in the distant past, for them to know the name of the Forbidden Zone in its partly concealed form. Secondly, the mysterious inscription giving the name is merely covered with sand which Wahlberg just brushes away, something any ape could have done centuries ago. This moment was, for me, far worse than the much-maligned ending of the movie.<br /><br />Things of that nature, however, are typical of most science fiction movies of today. Back in the '60s and '70s, they generally didn't have the budget to make convincing futuristic sets, but they dealt with genuinely original themes and ideas which were truly science fictional. I'm thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1967 Planet of the Apes, THX1138, Soylent Green, Silent Running and the 1972 Solaris. The first Planet of the Apes even utilised the only scientifically valid and physically possible method of travelling forward in time. However, this film includes just about every bad science fiction cliché going: space storms, anomalies and worm holes straight out of Star Trek; the planets of the solar system and their moons apparently all visible together as large globes (in reality from any one planet, all other bodies, even their own moons, are just points of light); a conventional rocket powered shuttle travelling from Saturn to Earth in a matter of minutes instead of years; two-thousand year old equipment firing up and fully working the minute the hero presses the button. To say nothing of a conveniently bulletproof internal glass door. In a contemporary setting, you'd have to explain *why* it was bullet proof, but because it's "science fiction" you don't have to!<br /><br />Overall, Burton's most disappointing film.

This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.<br /><br />The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.<br /><br />Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'<br /><br />From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.<br /><br />The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.<br /><br />The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.<br /><br />Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.<br /><br />This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.

The acting was bad, the script was bad and the ending was just terrible...the only good comment i could make about this movie would be the special effects and make up...but apart from that...this movie would be one of the worst movies of 2001...why on earth did they have to remake such a perfect movie and ruin it...why!!!!

I have seen and liked the original film, and expected more from a remake than this.<br /><br />GOOD: Effects and makeup are good. No complaints about the score and visuals, they are adequate, and the performances were okay (Tim Roth was excellent, the other principals were fine, and a handful of the "supporting supporting actors" did very well with extremely limited roles). The action scenes were exciting and fun.<br /><br />BAD: The escape from the ape city was terrible. The characters are going in circles, then suddenly someplace in the middle of town there are tunnels to escape. Plus, what escape route leads through everybody's bedroom?<br /><br />The story was pared down to include as much action as possible. I like action scenes but the original film had more meat to it and deserved more respect.<br /><br />Finally, the ending was completely nonsensical as presented. Without seeing the inevitable sequel, there is no justification for it.<br /><br />

I read somewhere that Hollywood should concentrate on remaking bad movies and leave the classics alone. We can only hope. While this remake wasn't a total waste, I still wish I had the six bucks back to go toward a DVD of the original. Lots of violence and one of the worst endings I've ever seen. This version doesn't add anything new. It only reiterates why Hollywood should leave the good stuff alone.

After looking at monkeys (oops apes) for more than one hour, I was feeling like one too. I was an ape, spending money on this movie. Please people, hold you money in your pocket and go see some funny movie like Bridget Jones's Diary..

Apart from Helen Bonham Carter, there is nothing worthy about this movie....And the surprise ending?! The thought of a sequel is even more annoying. Save your money, wait for the video and ignore that too.

I have to admit that this "re-imagining" of the original 1968 film was a huge disappointment. Specially when taken into consideration that this is a Tim Burton film. He is defenetly one of the most original and, might I say, cool directors Hollywood has produced.<br /><br />I am personally a great fan of his work, but something obviously went wrong with his latest flick, The Planet of the Apes. I really enjoyed the original film. When it first came out people expected just another cheezie 70's science fiction film, but a very surprise anding totally proved that theory wrong. It had indeed a clear cut message. An obvious anti-war message. Fear of the cold war, where it was taking the world and fear of the use of nuclear weapons played a big role in the mind of the film-makers. Those reasons made the film rise above all expectations and it became a instant classic. Although, the new film, the "re-making" or whatever, leaves us with nothing. No message, no ideals behind it. It is just another money-minded summer blockbuster.<br /><br />Visually Tim Burton does not let you down. The dark and creepy settings were excellent and of course the make up was terrific.<br /><br />Obviously that is not enough to keep people intrested in a film. There has to be an exciting plot or storyline. In this movie the plot is highly uninteresting and it is extremely badly thought out. The script is very lame and it is full of gaps. It looks like this film had been written in a big hurry. The explanation for why the apes where there, and why the ruled the planet was indeed very stupid and proved the script-writers ignorance.<br /><br />It raised a lot of questions, which had no reasonable answers to.<br /><br />For example; Why did the apes speak English?, why were there other ape-species than chimps on the planet (given that there were only chimps in the space ship that crash-landed on the planet) Where the hell did all of those humans come from? How were a few chimps able to evolve into a huge raise of all kinds of monkeys in only a few thousands years. (I mean it took a few million years for us to evolve from monkey to man!)<br /><br />And finally, the bad surprise ending was just plane dumb. It was probably just thrown in because the original film had such an end, then they felt that the audience were expecting the same kind of ending. The ending also raises a lot of questions, which I KNOW, don´t have intelligent answears. Did Theid learn to work the space ship?, which was power-less, and learnt to fly back in time and take over the earth single hand?, and, what did he do, breed with all the women? And lets say that that would happen, I higly doubt that history would stay the same, like Washington would be built exactly like it is today! (I mean wouln't there be a huge banana instead of the memorial?)<br /><br />Well, just to say something posative about the film. Some of the cast was great. Helen Bonham Carter's character was interesting and well-acted, as for Tim Roth as Theid. He was very good, a little exaturated at some points of the film. Michael Clark Duncan was also fine. I was not happy with Marc Whalberg. He is not much of an actor, and plays here a very macho colour-less character. Very unbielevable and is nothing compared to Hestons character in the original. And the main female character had no reason or place in the film. She was just casted for the looks. Hardly said a word throughout the entire film.<br /><br />Well, I think that in the future when people think about the Planet of the apes, they will think about the original one. The latest will soon be forgotten.

What a disappointment, especially in light of the budget provided, the technical resources available, and the talent assembled. Isn't the fundamental rule for science fiction/drama to create in the audience the willing suspension of disbelief. POA 2001 creates a plausible beginning, suckering us in, but thereinafter Mr. Burton forgets that his moviegoers have working brains. The over the top libertarian of Helena Bonham Carter's chimp, the worthlessness of the humans' lockup, the ease of their escape, their extraordinary skills of horsemanship (this is an astronaut and a group of human primitives suddenly riding full tilt), the massive and immediate human rebellion all are too unbelievable. Mark Wahlberg never once projects any sense of real fear, danger or comeuppance in this world turned upside down. Compare to the original, in which Chuck Heston's nakedness metaphorically captured his utter helplessness and astonishment at his turn of events. The uniformed Wahlberg preserves his modesty, but also his apparent sense of management and control in an inherently wacky situation, and we never really wonder about his well being. Unlike Heston, he seems never to be in real jeopardy. Tim Burton should have used some of the f/x budget for some competent screenwriting. In fact, after this inferior fiasco, I wonder why Hollywood's producers ever bothered to settle the screenwriters and directors strike threats. Let them walk. Trained monkeys could have done as well as they did in Planet of the Apes 2001. I'll bet the repeat viewings of this effort will be nonexistent. It could have been a new franchise, and a wonderful new step for imagination. Another opportunity lost.

This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.<br /><br />At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.<br /><br />This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes". Here's how I would have written it:<br /><br />An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.<br /><br />But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying.

Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.<br /><br />It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King.

Spoilers I guess.<br /><br /> The absolutely absurd logic of the ending ruins the entire movie. I just couldn't get over it. And what is wrong with Mark Wahlberg's character? If I suddenly found myself crashed-landed on a planet full of talking apes, I'd be all like, " AAAAhhhhHHH!!! Run for your lives! The monkeys have inherited the Earth!" But he's all like, "talking apes, okay. Next?" That's pretty jaded I'd say. He must run into even stranger things on a regular basis. Besides that, this is Rick Baker's best work yet. This film is a true testament to how far we've come in the monkey makeup field. 3/10.

Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out "he's lost his gun!" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.<br /><br />If anyone else out there also saw "Sleepy Hollow", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In "Sleepy Hollow", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. "Planet of the Apes" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like "Total Recall" or "Tango and Cash" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other "big" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in "Mars Attacks" or "Beetlejuice") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going.

This is a bit of a first for me, the first time I have ever been disappointed in a Tim Burton film. POTA isn't a bad film (great sets, costumes and the odd great performance) but it could have been made by any off-the-shelf hollywood director. The pacing was very odd, the last third was just spent waiting for the film to end, by myself and the cast. Tim Roth was excellent, probably the only pleasure in the film. Come back Tim.

This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that

while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...<br /><br />so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...

This is the worst movie I have seen for years! It starts ridicoulus and continues in the same way. I thnik when is something going to happen in this film,,,, and the the acting is worse. The ending lifts it a bit and saves the movie from a total flop. Mark Wahlberg is a bad actor in a bad movie. Sorry Tim Burton Batman was good but this one sucks.

I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10.

Being a big fan of the "other" PLANET OF THE APES films, I rented this DVD despite my aversion to all things Tim Burton. Once again, he doesn't fail to disappoint with his uninspired direction. Even the ape makeup looks second rate, which is unforgivable considering the monstrous budget of this monstrosity. Mark Wahlberg proves once and for all that he is not an actor (as if BOOGIE NIGHTS wasn't proof enough). I was embarrassed for genuine talents such as Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter. No doubt their paychecks motivated them since it couldn't possibly have been the cliche-ridden screenplay. I rented this DVD on a special $1 night and I still feel ripped off.

This Tim Burton remake of the original "Planet of the Apes" from 1968 (and starring Charleton Heston) is a far, far cry from the quality and plot of the original.<br /><br />Certainly special effects have improved since 1968, but writing has not. The characters were boring and the dialog was awful. I sat through the entire film with a friend (who thankfully only rented it) and completely understood why, before Christmas, all of the "Planet of the Apes" toys at Target were in the clearance bin.<br /><br />My advice to Tim Burton: don't put this on your resume.<br /><br />My advice to everyone else: watch the original 1968 "Planet of the Apes" movie.

I had VERY low expectations for this alleged "re-imagining" of the original -- and they weren't even met! What were they thinking? (Answer: They weren't.) Please don't waste your time on this Hollywood trash fest. Clip your nails, balance your checkbook, do anything besides watch this. Remember: If you rent stuff like this, it will only ensure they make more.

What ever happened to one of the most innovative and brilliant storytellers of our time? Well, he made the kind of typical summer action fodder that could've been directed by anybody available out of film school...and in fact, they probably would've done a better job. They would've at least have put half of a thought into the dreadful script.<br /><br />Mark Wahlberg plays an astronaut who traveled through some sort of wormhole and landed in a planet ruled by apes. (gasp!) Except this time around, the apes squirm through groan-worthy dialogue, nonsensical plotting, and showy special effects that constantly reinforce in my mind that this money could've been put to about 10 independent films that would have been considered 'masterpiece' next to this tripe.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy the superb acting talent that is Tim Roth, his performance as evil ape leader Thade is nothing more than an intense composition of slouching and heavy breathing. Luckily for him, the makeup allows he as an actor to maintain some dignity and most of the crap-dialogue is hidden behind his groans and sniffles.<br /><br />And alas, the always dependable Hollywood tradition of taking the male and female leads and hooking them up at the end without any relationship development or cause. And the "haha, we're so clever, aren't we?" way that Hollywood intermingles references from the original POTA into this one. Sigh...<br /><br />Instead of seeing this, spend the night in and call up some friends and rent 'Ed Wood', 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Batman', or even to a lesser extent 'Sleepy Hollow', and reminisce about the days when Tim Burton was a man of vision and originality...not shame and ridicule.

I really looked forward to see Planet of the Apes, but it was a huge dissapointment.<br /><br />The settings and masks are great, but that is the only good aspect of the film. All other things are really annoying. Mark Wahlberg is not acting, he is just in the movie, looking stupid. The other actors are also not very good.<br /><br />But the worst point of all, is the story. It is absolutely ridiculous! For example: the apes are lying unconsiousness on the ground, but the humans don`t attack them, no, they wait until they are up again! This is just one example for the stupid story, but it would take too long to tell them all.

Well, it turned out as I expected: visual overload but nothing else added to the original. What did surprise me however was that the storyline was fairly drastically changed compared to the 1968 flick. Initially this awoke my interest, but what eventually surprised was that the new twists and turns (a) were apparently invented in order to present us with a typical Hollywood-like product and (b) made the whole storyline improbable! The 1968 story was breathtakingly straightforward, and included no time-storms or any bogus of that sort: it just stated that when you come home after a long journey, things might have changed a bit. Earth might have fallen in the hands of apes, for example. Like many 'old' movies, it's main ingredient was suspense (hell, does anyone understand that word these days?). In this Burton movie, an attempt has been made to turn the whole thing into an action movie, but at what cost? Surely, the images are overwhelming, and a lot of time and money has been put into the design of a complete ape-culture (even ape-music!), but what's wrong?<br /><br />First, the suspension of disbelief is made very hard, because the apes have a lot of Hollywood-human traits. I refer especially to Ari and the slave-trader. These traits include emotional skills like irony, sarcasm, and an overtly displayed array of 'subtle' emotions. It makes you forget that the apes are apes, which is essential.<br /><br />Second, the humans TALK. Of course, we can imagine that humans will never forget how to speak, but the fact that the apes had speech and the humans didn't made the ape/human role-switching very tangible and stressing in the 1968 version. The wound in the throat that Charlton Heston gets there is essential to his survival and his later regained speech essential to his uniqueness and the interest that Dr. Zira has in him (so, no need for things like human rights activists or ape-human love in order to explain things).<br /><br />Third, the fact that they talk ads a great deal to the implausibility, but is a necessary twist in the new movie, since Capt. Davidson has to play the Hollywood-let's-save-the-whole-world- and-have-a-good-ending-for-everyone- and-still-make-it-to-the-lounge-bar- for-a-cool-diet-coke character. Oh my god, will they never learn? I new it from the start, when there was only one guy who got lost! They were in need of a hero! And then the script writers go on reasoning: we need one guy... so, why would one guy get lost... because he tries to save an ape from an electromagnetic storm... implausible! But it's necessary because it shows the audience that he respects apes! Since, in these modern and politically correct times, we can't have a xenophobic ape-hater like Charlton Heston's 68 character loose on the screen: let's give them a bubblegum version!<br /><br />Fourth, okay, the general twist of the original 'discovering the truth' of the 1968 film to the modern version (he finds that his own mother ship crashed on the planet ages ago and that their lab-apes developed their society, where Heston simply discovered that just, somehow, the apes overtook the earth while he was away) is nicely done. The second, battle-part comes as an anti-climax. That's because this movie has added the first two Planet Of The Apes movies in one plot. Nice try, but the chill you feel when Davidson and you discover that he's lost on the planet forever just washes out due to the uninteresting battle-part.<br /><br />Fifth: the ending!!! For chrissakes, who came up with that?! (a) Davidson crashes TWICE with his escape pod, which seems an unsteerable object, while the chimp manages to simply land gracefully? Come on, who'd believe that? If the pods are really small space crafts (Davidson simply flies off into space at the end) and not merely escape vessels, he might have managed a safe landing at least once, no? And what about that ending???? I mean, in the original film it was clear that everything took place on earth. But here: the whole movie takes place on a distant planet, and suddenly the same (there's a Thade statue) ape culture is on earth??? How come? Did the apes of the far planet evolve technologically, flew into the time storm and colonised earth before Davidson's mission took off? Why is Thade worshiped? Stupid stupid stupid.<br /><br />Helena Bonham Carter is even adorable and beautiful as an ape, but I'd expected no less. I preferred her ape above Estella Warren as a human, but maybe I got some loose wire in my head. Nevertheless, the only convincing apes were Tim Roth as Thade (wonderful!) and Ari's household ape (the ex-general, but I forgot his name).<br /><br />Nonono, a lot of things could and should have been added/altered to the 1968 pic, but not the plot, at least not in that way. It was simple and clear and needed no additional explaining. It was nicely tongue-in cheek and caricatured. Don't stylize everything...

Oh my god. the idea that this movie is a thriller is an absolute joke to me. besides the point that it seems to be written by a 5 year old. the plot, the acting and even the props and filming of this movie were all beyond disgrace.<br /><br />I am not usually this critical about any movie, cause every person has his/her style. But this movie, however, was probably the worst movie i have seen in 2008. I can honestly believe that this movie is unknown, and i think it should stay like this, for movies like these are making the thriller genre a joke.<br /><br />I advise anyone that is a fan of thriller movies, or even simply movies to stay far away from this one.

It says that a girl named Susan Montford both wrote and directed this "movie." No wonder she has no other credits to her name for writing or directing. She made a severe vocational error in choosing this as her career. This is one of the worst human creations of this millennium.<br /><br />The fundamental thing wrong with this movie other than its ridiculous story of a woman running away from four weak thugs, is the blatant and complete lack of LOGIC.<br /><br />**After she leaves the mall, she gets approached by four thugs as they surround her. Tell me, what woman would aggressively SHOVE a potential attacker while being surrounded, and insult them verbally? I don't mean after an attack had already started, because then of course it's completely normal for someone to fight back. But she shoved that guy and pretty much escalated it to the next level. No woman would do that unless she 1) had a weapon, 2) has the confidence of knowing that backup is very close, and so is relatively safe from harm, or 3) the attackers are so young, and weak looking that she's pretty sure she can take them. None of that applied in this situation, so she was just acting like someone that's asking to get raped or mugged. And by the way, when the security guard approached, as SOON as he came within viewing distance of Kim Basinger, why wouldn't she immediately either run towards him for help, or scream?? <br /><br />**When she drives off after the security guard gets shot in the head, she drives into a deserted part of town, and crashes. She had a good three minute lead on the pursuers, instead of simply running off on foot in a diagonal direction behind houses and climbing fences and continuing, she gets out her Red Toolbox and starts messing around under her hood. I understand she was trying to fix her car, but she should've ran.<br /><br />(I didn't even mean this to be a chronological summary of the movie, because I loathe people who do that in their reviews, but it just so happens that every main sequence of this movie has something so blatantly stupid that I have to comment on it).<br /><br />**Why would she carry a loud, Red Toolbox as she's trying to sneak away in the dark? When she does get caught, one of the jokers demands for her to open the toolbox. First she resists, then eventually opens it. And takes out a wrench. This scene here is so rich in subtle overtones of the complete failure of dramatic effect I have to break it down, it's one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie. When asked to open the box, she's resisting at first as if it were her plan to somehow get one of the thugs to open it themselves out of anger after she didn't open it, in the same way that someone in some action movie might have some device that an enemy demands that person to touch/push/open/manipulate, and once that hero refuses to open it, the enemy grabs that device, only to have that device automatically dispense a chemical/shoot him in the face/render him unconscious, which was the hero's plan all along. It feels like that's what they tried to do with Kim Basinger here, as she opens the toolbox dramatically and quickly takes out a WRENCH and dispatches one of the thugs, and somehow GETS AWAY from him and the three other thugs.<br /><br />**Throughout the rest of the movie, basically what you see is this suburban house wife, sneaking around the woods as she carries her Red Toolbox, taking out various tools used as weapons to KILL HER ATTACKERS.<br /><br />**When she was running away, how did she end up moving BACK to where the thugs were? I think it was the scene where they had that radio playing loudly in tribute to the dead dude. She somehow crept up on them when I thought she was moving AWAY from them.<br /><br />**Finally, this whole premise is so weak because the whole reason she's being chased in the first place is because from the thugs' perspective, she was a witness to a murder they committed against the security officer earlier, and so they felt they had to kill her. How ridiculous. As one of the thugs even said, they could've just left town and returned back to whatever city they drove from, no one but her had seen them anyway, and she probably didn't get the license plate. Even if these possibilities wouldn't work in their favor, how is raising hell and hunting down someone to kill them improving your chances to get away with the original murder?