Reviews

Shame on people who gave this movie good reviews. I went to see it based on your comments. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." This movie could have been so much better if the director had not included so many meandering courtroom scenes that served no purpose to explain or add to the plot. There were of course, too many clichéd visual tricks which got old fast, and after the obligatory, but generally good, horror shots ran their course, the audience became bored and fidgety. And why the judge's character got so much scene time is beyond me.

A basic flaw was that the many subplots were too shallow and vague (what's with Linney's boss being so threatening?) that left us expecting more. The priest was certainly a pivotal character, and yet he was mostly presented as a sweaty, nervous stutterer, acting more like a guilty child molester than a man of the cloth firm in his beliefs. Too bad the aspect of Shoreh Agdashloo's appearance was left so unsatisfying as well. The entire premise of her character as the expert on possession could have explained a lot about Linney's legal approach, and to be sure, if the director had used her more as an expert witness, the audience would have also been more on the priest's side, feeling more satisfied in Emily's demonic possession versus the epilepsy theory. It was such a major scene, such a major turn of events in the film to hear Agdashloo's testimony, and yet nothing really came of it. But then, everything in this movie left you waiting for more. Also, as someone already mentioned, the car accident was the most asinine ever.

There were just too many duplicated scenes in the courtroom and the lawyer waking up every night at the same time or looking glumly into her martini (we got it, we don't need to see it a hundred times). The movie basically just dragged you into a stupor. The priest kept saying, "I want to tell Emily's story", but the irony is that the movie, nor the priest, never really did.

What a nice movie! If you do not know who Richard Feynman was, then this is a great way to be introduced. He was a brilliant, eccentric, witty scientist who came of age during the 1930s and 1940s. This movie doesn't show his entire life, just the parts that lead up to his involvement with the atomic bomb and the Manhattan Project during WWII. It's based on his books called 'What Do You Care What Other People Think?' and 'Surely You're Joking. Mr. Feynman!' The Movie doesn't deal with his actual scientific work so much as his unconventional approach to it. It also deals with his first marriage to Arline, who was very ill with systemic tuberculosis. The movie takes you from his childhood and university years to his marriage and time at the famous Los Alamos Lab. I think I liked this movie because it doesn't come out and tell you what to think, it just shows snippets of his life and how he overcomes the sad times with humor and grace. I can't say enough about this film. It's that good.

I remember watching this movie with some high school girl friends and we absolutely loved it. It was a nice little sexual fantasy film with just the right tone, like Body Heat, but with well orchestrated sex scenes and a dreamy background. I could feel the longing in the characters. It was just a little bit naughty and a little bit nice. Too bad most of the lead actors never made it very big because how beautiful they all were. Even Christy McNichol was good. This line is added to make ten lines. This line is added to make ten lines. This line is added to make ten lines.

I read with amusement the disparate comments about this film. The bottom line is that it was not very good. I found it derivative and tedious, and people who claim that "anyone who says this film is no good probably has the intelligence of a goat" either works for the studio or is the director. Please don't shift the blame to the audience for a bad film! Carrie Anne Moss had no reason to be in the film except as a potential romantic interest, and even then there was zero chemistry between the characters. There is absolutely no way this film was better than Silence of the Lambs. It flailed around like a dying fish, hopping from one plot angle to the next. I found it very unsatisying.

Woody Allen is a genius filmmaker and writer. There is no debate. It's a fact. Look at the things he has written and any critcism reeks of ignorance. Forget about his private life, it has nothing to do with his work. Forget about taking Leonardo DiCaprio down personally for playing a character in a movie. (It is entirely lame to see people on these boards feel that Leonardo's characterization was a personal affront.) The list of great works by Woody is totally admirable if not astonishing: The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Small Time Crooks, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry, Everyone Says I Love You, Mighty Aphrodite, Bullets Over Broadway, Manhattan Murder Mystery, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Radio Days, Hannah and Her Sisters, Purple Rose of Cairo, Zelig, Interiors, Annie Hall, Love and Death, Sleeper, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* But Were Afraid to Ask, Play It Again Sam, Bananas, Pussycat, Pussycat, I Love You, Don't Drink the Water, Take the Money and Run... the list goes on.

'Celebrity' is a satire. People who don't understand satire and deadpan wit will not "get it". It's your loss.

This was visually a very pretty movie. The color of the ocean was so BLUE and the white sand beaches were so PRISTINE. The cinematography and tableaus created were so BREATHTAKING that the only pleasure one can derive fom this mess is an appreciation of the beaches in Sardinia. But all of that does not make up for a lack of plot or mischaracterizations of the protagonists. Madonna, who gets marooned on an island with a macho Italian steortypical guy reminded me of a petulant teenager. She related to her husband and Italain macho guy as a naughty teen would. No real depth of anything. The "funny" scenes were merely embarrassing. How could Guy Ritchie make something this bad? It doesn't make any sense after seeing Snatch and Lock, Stock. IT IS STOMACH CHURNING AWFUL people! I felt queasy with the slow motion fake-tears-chasing and the accompanying vertiginous piano: ping! ping! ping! This film was a romp on the beach with adults acting acting like thirteen year old dominant/submissives. (Madonna kissing macho's foot after she submits to him - bleh.)Most of the island scenes between these two adults were filmed like a home movie with the light shining on a worn out looking Madonna: "Look at me! See how buff and pretty I am! I can do push ups and dancie dance, and see how big my biceps are?" Oh my God. This was bad. Madonna doesn't act, she just plays herself. Just because she can cry on cue doesn't mean she is an actress.

I had high hopes for this little comedy, but it is terrible! The whole thing makes me uncomfortable. It takes place in some weird alternative gum drop sticky sweet universe. The dialogue is lame and stilted. There is no character development. We never know who Kate really is. She is one dimensional at best - afraid to show anything less than weird Hello Kitty perfection. I am suffering from sugar intoxication. I am disappointed.

Stop the presses! If you are good looking, you are evil. If you are ugly, you are automatically good. If you are ugly, no one will love you, unless you go through some sort of humiliating lesson that teaches you to appreciate people for what's underneath the exterior. This Farrelly Brothers farce and that message it sends is so lame that it defies explanation. If Gwenyth Paltrow and the Farrelly brothers truly believed in the premise of this movie (that beauty is in the eye of the beholder), then they would have never made it. I wonder how they could ever call women "elephants"? I hate this movie and I hate the message it perpetuates. It was the wrong way to portray the idea that "beauty is skin deep" by making fun of people in the crude and sophomoric manner that it did. Gwenyth Paltrow said that when she wore her 'fat suit' through a hotel lobby, people were dismissive and rude to her. She probably never had to experience a day without admiration and attention in her entire life, and it was a wake up call for her. This movie was offensive to all people, not just people who do not have society's current standards of admirable physical traits. It was offensive to the acting profession because it was so bad.

This is a beautiful movie. It seemed meticulous and thoughtfully crafted, and therefore plodded a bit, but the cinematography will see you through to the finish. Most importantly, it communicated effectively the reasons behind Frida's art.

I saw this because I am a fan of Toby McGuire and Benicio Del Toro. I never expected a movie in which the two appear to be so horrible. It was like a film school production, beyond bad. The acting was embarrassing, especially the woman who played the blond assassin. Benicio seemed like he didn't memorize his lines or something. You should see it if you want to learn about acting and what not to do.

This movie can break your heart. Just don't go into it feeling you have to figure it out right away. Let it wash over you as it happens. That way, it will be easier to take. It jumps all over the place, images and emotions, so you are confused and anxious, but once you get used to the presentation, it seems absolutely right. It was totally perceptive and genius of Innaritu to tell the stories of suffering by mixing it all up. Not only do you watch suffering as it happens, but you get insight into how and why the suffering occurred. You see everyday life mixed up with incredible suffering, and things like kindness and passion, or love for your own family and strangers all mixed up. It's all here, and you don't realize how all the emotions snuck up on you until you go home and think about it. Especially with actors who go all out like Benicio Del Toro and Sean Penn. They didn't hold anything back. I am really in awe of the cast and writers after seeing this film.

I agree with another reviewer that the humor and philosohical ramblings were too forced in this potentially good film. There wasn't enough angst to make the story seem profound or true, given the subject matter, but to me, that's typically what happens when Kelsey Grammar is in a movie. He's too sarcastic and cynical and doesn't have the ability to play a role without misplaced superiority. I could be wrong, but he's a ham (pedantic?) in everything he does. I liked Karen Medak's character, especially the restaurant scene. She was poignantly goofy. My favorite line: "Are you on drugs?" The way she delivered her lines was charming and refreshing compared to the rest of the cast. It wasn't a bad movie, just sort of irritating.

This movie is so bad it defies logic. Perhaps this is what happens when a director admits to not using story boards and deciding what to do when he arrives on location. Certainly it helps when your wife is Sherry Lansing. What an extraordinary waste of money and talent. It is without debate the worst film of 2003.

Perhaps it is a simplistic assumption that a civilization without the corrupting influence of men would be utopic, but after seeing this movie, I'd like to take a crack at it. Okay, not really. WOTG is an oddly beautiful movie. Del Toro and Phillippe are two "young, dumb and full of cum" criminals who carry out impulsive and assorted corporeal transgressions. Maybe the two are not that dumb, because we see a glimmer of street wise intelligence in their few conversations, much like alligators who function on instinct and pure necessity. It's a dvd worth seeing twice, or three times if you wake up at three am and worry about the TPS reports. The first time you are shocked, the second time you catch the subtle cynicism, and the third time you appreciate the script, Benicio Del Toro, James Caan, the music, choreography, costumes, and all the extras. Good work Mr. McQuarrie, it tickles me pink to think of what John Gray, Ph.D. would say about this movie.

Tommy Lee Jones is such an automaton actor that I wasn't expecting much, but from Benicio Del Toro, I was. To his credit, it looked like Benicio was trying his best to do some good acting, but the script kept him from flying. Friedkin chopped up the scenes. The actors have dirty faces, then clean, then dirty, then clean. Then blood here, then there, then gone. I know, it's only a movie, but geez. And how the f*** can 57 year old man with a bad back get stabbed in the thigh, hang from a waterfall and be able to fight to the death with a 6'4" special op buckeroo - who makes his own knife - is beyond me. I admit it was fun entertainment and people were actually laughing, but I don't think they were supposed to.

Good points were Benicio's face. So beautifully expressive. The scene when he is sitting on his bed and looking around speaks volumes, but I cringed when he had to say his lines. The burn your house down and chicken lines are a hoot. Oh, and Benicio sure can do a good bird finger.

There were lots of lost chances in this movie. I hate to be a back seat driver, but as a plot device, the audience could have been filled in with insight about Aaron's fall from grace through more dialogue with his girlfriend. Three more minutes of dialogue would have filled in the gaps about his personality and what he did to make the FBI want to kill him, and maybe hints of who those hunters with the big scopes were. Irene really should have broken into his locker and then we, the audience, could have been privy to some of Aaron's secrets, from his own mouth, while he explained things to her. Obviously there was some important dynamics going on between Benicio and Tommy Lee's characters too. It's the reason for the movie, so how come Friedkin didn't take 10 more minutes to develop this plot line? It was obviously very crucial to what made Aaron snap. And why didn't Aaron kill LT when he had ample chances? Okay, so it's a father/son thing, sort of like Abraham or WOTG when Longbaugh allows himself to be shot by the older mentor character instead of killing him. Freidkin obviously doesn't know how to help the actors show relationships, like for example, writer/director Chris McQuarrie does. I keep thinking of the scene in WOTG where James Caan and Benecio Deltoro meet at a bar and have a short conversation over cups of coffee. That little scene did more to establish a bond between them. It conveys some sort of unwritten code of honor and respect. Aaron obviously lived by his own code of ethics, but what, and why?

Freidkin is the one who should be drawn and quartered for this debacle. Not the actors. I even feel sorry for Connie Nielson, her part was so embarrassing. She just didn't fit. Imagine if Kathy Bates played that? Now that would have been entertainment. I just hope this film doesn't win The Razzies for worst picture of the year.