...on which it fails. (MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD)
The story: It makes absolutely no sense (as some others have pointed out, this is due to the re shooting of the end to make it more palatable to the average sissy audience). But I realize that if they had tried to stay conform with the new ending then they would have to take out ALL the visual gags. Now, I am not a huge fan of making everything air-tight logical, but what they wanted the audience to swallow here in contradictions makes star wars seem like a factual documentary in comparison. So why make a write off even more of a write off by adding a non-fit ending? I don't know. What can you do when the story falls apart? In what types of movies can you just sit back an ignore logic errors? A screwball comedy? A kill-fest? A psycho-nightmare? A super hero movie? None of these surface, so we are stuck with a terribly written movie (that had an ultra-thin story to begin with) trying to take itself seriously.
The humour: There was barely any. A shot at AOL here, and pun on Microsoft there. A bit of over-the-top depiction of a conservative's wet dream. Not nearly enough to make this a 'fun' picture.
The suspense: There is none. The entire story is evident after the 'square dance scene' (15 minutes into the picture) - and I hadn't seen any trailers nor the original. BTW: That isn't square dance what they are doing - but I digress (I was young, I needed the money ;-) ).
Actors: Bette Middler did surprisingly well. Although she usually gets on my nerves she plays an attitude similar to her role in 'ruthless people' -something which suits her. All others looked bored out of their skulls. Kidman? Lets not go there. She's just not an actress. How she ever got a leading role I'll never understand. Brodderick has had better days, as had Loviz. Glen Close? I almost felt sorry for her, having to deliver that totally contrived ending monologue full of contradictions. I have to applaud her for getting A MILLION VOLTS THROUGH HER LIPS AND NOT EVEN A SMUDGE MARK TO SHOW FOR IT. The 'plan' she has does exactly the opposite of what she wanted to do from the very start. Sheesh, They must have fired the continuity guy/girl after the first day and forgotten to refill the job. Walken? He was OK, but I have seen him MUCH better. I hope he loses that 'I shat my pants'-walk. It looks like Jack Palance in his last movies. Maybe it's the same medical condition?
The computer graphics: Texture mapped boxes without shadows or depth as houses? Puhleeese. I could do better on my laptop in half an hour. The robot-dog looked ridiculous.
Resume: 2 out of 10 (because I actually sat through it. The movie DOES hat a good point going for it! At 93 minutes it is mercifully short.
The story: It makes absolutely no sense (as some others have pointed out, this is due to the re shooting of the end to make it more palatable to the average sissy audience). But I realize that if they had tried to stay conform with the new ending then they would have to take out ALL the visual gags. Now, I am not a huge fan of making everything air-tight logical, but what they wanted the audience to swallow here in contradictions makes star wars seem like a factual documentary in comparison. So why make a write off even more of a write off by adding a non-fit ending? I don't know. What can you do when the story falls apart? In what types of movies can you just sit back an ignore logic errors? A screwball comedy? A kill-fest? A psycho-nightmare? A super hero movie? None of these surface, so we are stuck with a terribly written movie (that had an ultra-thin story to begin with) trying to take itself seriously.
The humour: There was barely any. A shot at AOL here, and pun on Microsoft there. A bit of over-the-top depiction of a conservative's wet dream. Not nearly enough to make this a 'fun' picture.
The suspense: There is none. The entire story is evident after the 'square dance scene' (15 minutes into the picture) - and I hadn't seen any trailers nor the original. BTW: That isn't square dance what they are doing - but I digress (I was young, I needed the money ;-) ).
Actors: Bette Middler did surprisingly well. Although she usually gets on my nerves she plays an attitude similar to her role in 'ruthless people' -something which suits her. All others looked bored out of their skulls. Kidman? Lets not go there. She's just not an actress. How she ever got a leading role I'll never understand. Brodderick has had better days, as had Loviz. Glen Close? I almost felt sorry for her, having to deliver that totally contrived ending monologue full of contradictions. I have to applaud her for getting A MILLION VOLTS THROUGH HER LIPS AND NOT EVEN A SMUDGE MARK TO SHOW FOR IT. The 'plan' she has does exactly the opposite of what she wanted to do from the very start. Sheesh, They must have fired the continuity guy/girl after the first day and forgotten to refill the job. Walken? He was OK, but I have seen him MUCH better. I hope he loses that 'I shat my pants'-walk. It looks like Jack Palance in his last movies. Maybe it's the same medical condition?
The computer graphics: Texture mapped boxes without shadows or depth as houses? Puhleeese. I could do better on my laptop in half an hour. The robot-dog looked ridiculous.
Resume: 2 out of 10 (because I actually sat through it. The movie DOES hat a good point going for it! At 93 minutes it is mercifully short.