Reviews

take over the animation house, this is what one can expect. I'm embarrassed to say that I was in a hurry and picked this up thinking it was the original 1964 Rudolph. I had thought that the cover had changed and there were now "special features" on it. This is nothing like the original. It is actually a pointless little bit of fluff.

Some good action scenes, some gruesome scenes - definitely suffers and pales in contrast to the grim reality of our post 9-11 world. This film fails to make one really care about what happens to the characters in the film. The courtroom war of words comes off like a theater group just going through the motions. It is one of those undertakings that says "hey you! look what happened to these guys!". Then leaves us no wiser from the experience. No moral or new awarness to take with you. Good cast, good story, but an unfortunately lame production.

Not for everyone. Obviously gyno-centric, this film deals with how women "can" feel about themselves or about their sexuality. The juxtaposition of older women with younger women through their answers to the questions is its most interesting feature, both by the differences in attitudes and the similarities. This is a film for women, by women, about women, without much reference to men. The film may serve to induce more confusion and self doubt in males than there already is. It leaves more questions than it answers. This is pure monologue with no real intention to facilitate better communication between the sexes. Very blunt, it can be as abrasive for men as it is romantic for women. This is by no means a clinical study and should be seen for the simple entertainment value that it has. I am a little concerned about the dialogue dismembering and objectifying the female anatomy, because that has been a long standing and common complaint by women against men.

that's not Shakespear, but then neither is this.

The poetry of Shakespear reduced to simple conversation? Playing second fiddle to hightech gadgets?

Bill Murray as polonius? Hamlet as videographer?

Shallow, pointless, silly and pathetic. Do yourself a favour and just bypass this one, unless you feel like a good laugh (in all the wrong places).

If you really want to see it on film, then try Hamlet (1996) Directed by Kenneth Branagh. You "can" read the book or listen to it on tape.

The acting was animated, talented, and aggressive but forced and incompletely motivated. We watch a collection of actors "acting" and Mel Gibson just wandering around lost in his palest most insipid screen appearance I can recall. He is far too strong a presence for the role of someone only marginally relevant to the plot. His character could have been eliminated from the film altogether by adjusting the screen play without affecting the story one way or t'other. In fact I would humbly suggest that the character should have been excluded altogether. I say "character" not Mel Gibson. Do you remember the first Lethal Weapon film? - Conspiracy Theory? Mel Gibson can do "humane crazy" with the best of them. The character of the police detective could have been left "off screen" as the point was the detective's affect on the hotel resident's and could have been better expressed indirectly in the responses of the residents of the hotel to an investigation, especially in light of the fact that they are all delusional to begin with. Instead, we are made to endure a confusing interplay of characters and poorly rendered threads of plot that give us no climax no tension and no reason to really care about what happens to them. It's the same affect you get when a great big delicious yawn begins to form inside you, and then just dies halfway through uncompleted.