Reviews

Indeed, why not??? I mean, regardless of the editing, which will be in the future looked upon with appreciation and jealousy, the movie is absolutely stunning...

Guy Pearce makes, as usual, the audience believe his feelings are genuine. He is able to transmit to the people watching every bit of anxiety, lack of trust and desire for the truth his character feels, doing it in a manner making you want to see the movie again and again.

THE MAIN QUESTION is: what if the movie were edited in the "traditional" manner? Would it have been less appealing? Well, it's a hard question to answer.

Mainly because the editing goes strictly linked to the title and the condition of the leading character, but also helps you in a very subtle manner to transcend from the position of viewer to the one of a character in the movie... It helps you identify to the character and beyond...

Maybe a slight reminder of the "Fugitive" theme, that only makes one appreciate both these films...

As for the cast, it is a work of genius. There are so many angles that could be debated here! Beginning with the talent Guy Pearce shows when playing roles of people with very troubled minds and lives, one can only speculate the very interesting idea of bringing 2 of the stars of the first installment of "Matrix" around for another challenging movie.

Carrie Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano really make even here a great team. Their characters have quite the same "talent" of apeearing to be "good" people, but being in fact very cool, calculated manipulators of people. They do prey on the leading characters "disability" and they do it in a very effective manner, until a certain point.

Why "disability"? Well, because even the character played by Guy Pearce uses it as a weapon of some sorts and at the "end" of the film we see to what effect.

What can I say besides: Enjoy!

Well, why 2 stars? Because of Ethan Hawke, who seems never to able to let down the audience: he plays a very convincing role, he does it in a very professional manner, too.

On the other hand, the drama is there. To be involved in a shooting with your own mother, to see your brother die in front of you, to get involved with his wife etc. are the very themes which make the movie very realistic (Murphy's Law does apply and not at all on the funny side...) and at the same time quite hard on the audience to watch.

Why ONLY two stars? To begin with, PS Hoffman does a very good job not convincing in this role. Well, he never does much anyway... Maybe the role is too much for the likes of him, maybe I expected too much of him, maybe Ethan Hawke been in the cast I wanted an Actor being able to cope with the high hopes...

I really think with a better casting the film would've been able to make even more waves than it already did...

Let's say that the editing wasn't too bad either, but maybe I remain a dedicate fan of "Memento", who absolutely blows you away in this regard.

It deserves to be watched, but...

Well, I am surprised it didn't score more... But hey, even Alexander the Great had enemies (I wonder who played his part in Oliver Stones' movie...).

So is there any reason whatsoever for the low scoring? Well, as you can find knots on a straight line, you can find reasons not to love this movie.

I won't comment on the choice of the two leading actors. They do just fine. Maybe more than fine. But the story, although not breathtaking, is filled with realism.

I mean the big boss doesn't get what should be coming to him, Sonny never finds a way to embrace a life of "they lived happily ever after" etc. But hey! Isn't that what life's all about? The realism is stunning, the bitter-sweet taste left after watching it is genuine and, above all, the entire time you have a feeling of uneasiness, as would the characters feel along the story... That's genius, if you asked me.

Maybe a downside could be the casting of Rome's Ciaran Hinds as a unimpressive cop...

I left at the end the perfect touch of the film... The music: not only AudioSlave's magic atmosphere at the right times, but the whole effect is stunning.

Enjoy!

Well, why only 2? Because I found only two reasons to watch it: Al Pacino and Robert De Niro.

Other than that, here goes: 1. The subject isn't at all new. There are so many movies riding on the theme of the "good" cop turned "bad" because of the sickness provoked by the scum not getting a just punishment, that I really don't have enough room to begin to evoke it. I mean, come on, couldn't they find a writer with at least a clue of the nice script??? 2. Everybody will see (OK, maybe not admit it...) that they LOOK tired and also ACT tired. Tired of the movie, of the story, of acting, who knows. As much as I do appreciate their role in promoting the film as a very fine piece of art in general, this movie does not give them a chance to do that.

3. Another reason to appreciate Michael Mann's work in "Heat". That was the first time they actually met on the scene, but the outcome was absolutely perfect... Here, the opposite.

4. Is the end kind of "getting back" for the fact that in "Heat" De Niro's character dies in the Pacino's one, and here vice versa? I am sure it's not a coincidence and at the same time I can say this: it's not convincing!!! I mean, OK, a "good" cop should never do that (be judge, jury and executioner), but that's a movie! An ending suggesting that a different kind of justice being found should have been found! 5. Slow pace? Well, that's an understatement! I yawn so much that if I had a dollar for every time I did during the movie, I would be able to buy my own Crown Vic...

To conclude: not a complete waste of time, but if you expect something of it because of the 2 stars you are gonna be disappointed!

Well, way to go, Sam Raimi! Just another stew of comedy, horror and fantasy to keep from going to sleep... Because this one is the only two reasons for the 3 stars... It really woke me up... But it only got 45 minutes or so of my time to see it...

The story isn't quite new (sic!) or even good. The special effects are quite good though, but that's about it.

Here are some of the reasons for the 7 stars I couldn't give it, formulated as questions: 1. As we all very well know, we are taught to be sharp, tough and relentless in pursuit of the final goal: MONEY. So why the attack on the bank? Aren't they the ones that circulate the money and make the world economy spin? 2. The gypsy theme is to be debated and not neglected (as the gypsy wins in the end...). Come to think of it, is this flick a propaganda for them? 3. Alison Lohman is clearly unconvincing in this role... He just isn't cute enough for the beginning, and at the same time not being able to gather empathy for the public. Or is she? 4. I really understand the combination between the horror and the comedy. But the sauce produced here is just not mixed enough...

5. Tom Holland's "Thinner" with Robert John Burke was a little more convincing...

I will only give this movie 3/10 for the brilliant (sic!) engineering behind it, that is the tech department.

As for the story, well it puzzles and annoys me: 1. Is there a need EVERY time for a conflict? Maybe so, but let's face it: what is the real target speaking of the public??? 2. I recognize the need for the ecological theme, but I really resent the advertisement for chocolate...

3. I'm really annoyed because of the child's obesity: for the old man to be obese is quite easy to understand, but the recurrent obese child theme must not be neglected...

Nice surprise! Opposed to the very nasty one, created by the comments of the people who don't seem to understand this movie.

To begin with, Lena Headey is the nicest surprise. I didn't think she could play a REAL part. But then she can and she does it beautifully. She creates a very credible Gina McVey, who captures your empathy at the beginning and rejects it at the end.

The theme of doppelganger isn't of course new, but is very well illustrated. It isn't revealed from the beginning, but has a very nice twist. I saw comments on how it should have been restricted to her. But then how can the writer suggest the theme of an INVASION of the cool headed and cruel hearted doubles who kill their "human" counterparts??? Because this is the real message. No one seems to have noticed the Chinaman terrorized by his wife, dropping his oranges on the stairs...

I admit the movie has no end... Is there a sequel in sight? Possible, even probable. But let's face it: the theme of a numerous doppelganger fight to "survive" is quite interesting! Envoy!

Don't even think about it! This is not your average anime-like cartoon or even a "let's get a family night out" movie! This is a decent flick, in some ways similar with Atlantis - The Last Empire, though not quite the same.

I would like to comment on the very end (so don't read it until you watch the whole film!), on a couple of themes: 1. The "hero" finds a way to peace by terminating HIS OWN BOSS. Well, very nice, but he's in the military! Well, the writer had to fine balance the military loyalty, the feeling of the "killing machine" and on the other hand the fact that the general made a military coup to take the power from the civilians... Think yourselves of the choices he makes...

2. The very final scene, with the monstrous statue being built... Well, in these parts of the world such a way of "honoring" someone is defined as "personality cult" and this is why I find it ungodly... If they found a way of naming the dome-town after him, or something like that maybe it wouldn't have been so awful... But this clearly ruins the effect searched for the end of the movie.

To conclude, not a waste of time