Reviews

I watched the rerun of the show when I was 15-16 and at the time I thought it was the best show ever. I still like it.

The acting may not be the best and the show lost its touch in the end (as usual) but it was classy, intriguing and entertaining. And it was the show that broke the "houswife TV-woman" once and forever. The girls could and they did. But they were still girls. They dressed with taste, fell in love, wore bikini and didn't treat men like dirt. They were tough but feminine.

And the truth be told, I was really ******-off when they made a remake out of the show - Charlies Angels movies. Non of them had that little extra that the show had.

What happened? How could "the father" of Terminator and the guy who made a brilliant sequel to "The Alien" direct this sentimental and poorly acted piece of trash? Thre's no argue about the special effects - they're excellent, and it's OK to show a tragic story like that, but why put a dumb love story in front of it? It's modern versions of "Romeo and Juliette" like this that made the original story stereotypical. They're just too many.

And what's with the casting? First of all there's DiCaprio - oh, boy! Second of all there Kate Winslet - she's a good actress but all the time I thought that Rose was like 20-somethingm and then I find out that she was 17! Excuse me, but Kate Winlset couldn't possibly pass for 17! She didn't look like 17 at all! There're plenty of other good actresses who could be 17 back then. Take Natalie Portman. She's both talented and very beautiful.

It's disappointing to see what James Cameron did this time.

I give it a 3 for the visuals.

My friend brought it over and we watched it... well, it's a good thing I wasn't tempted enough when it went on theaters, otherwise it would have been a total waste of time and money.

You could think that he plot is interesting and with a good cast and crew it could have been an OK movie but... it's not.

I don't know nothing about the crew, but the cast is just bad. Vin Diesel can't act and it goes for the rest of them.

While watching the movie I couldn't help noticing that the movie was a Star Wars/Matrix knock-off. Well, mostly the Matrix - the third movie.

And special effects aren't that good either. Not to mention the lines, the acting and everything else.

I don't know why critics cal it bizarre and macabre. I really don't. Dark -yes, bizarre - no. It i s sad and with lots of emotions, specially with the Pinguin's story. They say it has elements of S&M but I really don't find anything of that sort except for Catwoman's whip.

This movie is deeper than its genre and villains aren't just some crazy freaks dressed like on a masquerade. They have strong motives with strong feelings involved. Catwoman (a great performance by Michelle Pfeifer!) isn't just a sexy chick who likes steeling jewels - she's on her personal crusade and Pinguin... well, by the end of the movie you really feel sorry for him (strong performance by Danny DeVito). Again, I think Michael Keaton is the best Batman and he carries his costume well.

You can totally see that it is a Tim Burton movie, because he has an unusual style and is a very talented guy. But also the music is fantastic and fits the emotions.

Here I want to comment almost all of Bond movies and the whole Bond-thing.

James Bond is an overrated genre and character. The hero doesn't have to be the perfect man with all the prince-charming qualities - this hero would be just boring. And James isn't that perfect man, but everybody say that he is! Well, think again! To start with this whole Bond-girl idea. I am not a feminist, but this is the most humiliating part an actress can play. OK, I can agree on the fact that he changes his lover in every movie and 2-5 times per movie (if he has needs...) but they are all stupid, helpless and ridiculous. In one movie, he gives her a automatic weapon to protect them and she falls in the water by trying to shoot! They all were bikini and no matter how bad he treats them they still jump in bed with him. And he does treat them bad. There was one time when he almost broke a girl's arm and kept slapping her in the face. The other time he called her a bitch and stopped a tape in her under-ware. Excuse me, but how in the world can people call that kind of guy a gentleman? Am I missing something? The women started to look more respectful in the '90 and beyond - to match the time and ideals. But they still have names like Christmas, Jinx etc. And before it was Honey and Octopussy...

Well, enough about women - let's talk about his famous license to kill: OK, let me just say that - nobody has that right. That's why we put people in jails. The only situation in witch you can get away with murder is war. But you're ain't in no war, pally! So put away that gun of yours until you really need it! War. Yeah, that's what he is supposed to prevent, right? Well, it looks like he will start more wars with that attitude, neither than prevent. Killing people - is this another type of tough negotiating? Hm...

Of course he has to kill since the bad guys are communists... oh, please, give it a rest! This ship has sailed! It's not even interesting anymore! And talking about brutality in Bond movies is like opening another Pandora's box.

Yeah, Mr. Bond, you really know how to blow!

Well, first I liked it. I really did. May be because of that "temper-struggeling theme" (like "The Shining"), but now...

...I really don't care about the movie. I think it's OK, nothing special; and the special effects aren't great - the Hulk looks like just another drawn character. But it isn't the worst movie, it's just average.

And there's Eric Bana. Well, first I thought he was OK. He did OK in the movie as well, but the big turn off came when he starred in "Troy" - that really bad movie. Both historically/mythologically wrong and just bad when it comes to acting, scenery... and it's just laugh-making.

But "Hulk" is OK. I can totally watch it on TV again when I'm all alone in the house and there's nothing else to see or do.

It was an effort to watch the movie - it was just that good. It is about real lives of hundreds of pour girls who are being fooled to the West... to sell their bodies.

The acting was good, except some Russians expressions that we don't use when we speak or even write. But that is a very small mistake that we can all ignore.

The story is a horrifying reality. Althouhg Lilja didn't live in Russia, but in either Latvia or Litwania, the actors are Russian and they are good! So, like I said it was hard to watch the movie. It really affected me. Lukas Modysson did a great job.

MADONNA: What did you do to me? GUY RITCHIE: I made you look old, really old.

Or is it how she really looks without all that make up? Makes you think...

Of all the castaway-movies this is the worst. The movie about the real survival is "Castaway" with Tom Hanks. But this one isn't about survival - they manage pretty fine, considering that they have time to argue and lie in the sun.

Or was that a new vision of "The Blue Lagoon"? In that case, it sucks! I understand the concept of a spoiled society girl being rectified (a little Shakspeare rip-off might think?) but this is insanity! A strong grown man slapping, and KICKING a small woman (cuz Madonna is petite) and she falls in love with him? There are different ways of changing people and this is not a good one. It's not even "tough love", it's being a jerk to man who takes advantage of the situation. It's men like this one abuse their wives.

And furthermore, a movie like this one was already made a long time ago: it's "Overboard" with Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel and is MUCH better than this load of sand and seaweed. That one was a light comedy with no abuse whatsoever.

All I can say is: BUUU, MADONNA! Even you can do better.

Take it from someone who read Homeros original "Illiade" and knows a little something about Greek myths and legends - the movie is crap.

1. Cast - a British Orlando Bloom as an Eastern Trojan prince? All of the actors were chosen only because they're on top of their carriers. All of them but Peter O'Tool. He was a veteran surrounded by amateurs. And that Krueger-chick is a lame travesty for a Helen of Troy.

2. The plot - I will not tell the story considering those who haven't seen the movie, but one thing just must be said - IT IS NOT HOW THE LEGEND GOES. Peterson changed it all, he made the story average and DRY. He took away that little something, that not only makes the story epic but also intriguing.

3. Gods - WHERE ARE THEY? If the movie was based on a true story (that probably happened some thousand years ago) no gods would be needed, but it is based on a Homer's epic poem where gods were the ones who carried the story. THEY WERE THE REASON TO EVERYTHING and played a very big part in the development of the war and people. Without them the story became so dry it was painful to watch.

Yeah, it was painful to watch, what Peterson did to the story, and that people actually like it. It ruined Brad Pitt for me, before I even got to now his movies better :(

And even if we drop Homer and legends and all this, the movie - the movie itself (acting, casting, war scenes, lines...) is bad. It's just a bad movie. Pitt is stale and woodsy, Krueger's only plus is that she's young and Bloom is none.

If you want an entertainment antique saga which is both entertaining and faithful watch Homer Simpsons "Odessy" (with Agness Skinner as Helen of Troy :)

First Aiplane and Naked Gun - now this!

You can see that it is a Zucker quality. Though I like the fist two movies, I must say this is the best one. This movie contains the least "potty- humor" and is sort of... classy.

Everybody in the cast does a great job, and I was really impressed by Charlie Sheen, but the star in the picture is of course Leslie Nielsen. He is a veteran and a master of comedy. He doesn't need to make funny faces or anything to be funny. He's just him.

I can honestly say, I didn't waste those 85 SEK for the ticket (85 SEK is about 11-12 US dollars).

I just don't understand why everybody makes such a fuss over this sit com. Sure it's funny sometimes, but it's all bad! We can start with the cast and the acting: IT'S LAME! Did those boys and girls ever take acting lessons? If so, they must have had some pretty lousy teachers, because non of them can act. It's just constant waving and hysterical screaming and yelling. The producers should have hired clowns instead. And the actors got payed for that? And so many awards! Such a waste of time and money...

And the plot. Does it say something? Well, yes, one thing - friends are very important and it's good to have them. And I totally agree. Sure, the atmosphere is warm and friendly, but there is nothing else they can tell. It's just sex, dating and stupid skeleton's coming out of Monica's stuffed closet.

Just lame.

Director Leonid Gaidai had a talent for comedy like no one else. His adaptation of the great humorous book is also great and gives a lot of good laughs.

The acting... it's just excellent. It only shows the respect the cast and crew had for the authors - Ilya Ilf and Evgenij Petrov. And there is no doubt that Archil Gomiashvili, may he rest in piece, was and is the best Ostap Bender ever. He was really meant to play this part.

I say, this movie may not be perfect but it is totally better than the "12 chairs" by Zacharaov.

It's just great.

The movie was based on a very bad book with a horrible language and style. It's no secret that the movie is better than the book, but it doesn't make it good.

The story that turns violent ruthless criminals into men of honor and the horrible world of crime into something beautiful and almost royal.

It's unnecessarily violent and why did Brando put paper towel in his mouth? I mean I like him as an actor, but this character is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't understand how anyone could give an Oscar for that film! It's just stupid!