Reviews

19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Return to what makes MIB great
20 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I will admit up front, the entire MIB series are favorites of mine, and maybe--just maybe--that is because the two leads are among my very favorite living actors. Tommy Lee Jones is so delightful in these films, and this third one takes J and K to new territory that is a most wonderful surprise at the end.

And Will Smith--what can I say? He's just awesome.

While I thoroughly enjoyed MIB 2, I was a bit let down. But I chalked that up to the typical decline of quality with any movie's sequels. However, MIB 3 is, in my opinion, on a par with the first film. Mind you, it is imperative to have seen the previous two MIBs before seeing this one, or much of what makes it so great will be lost on you.

What I loved: the hilarious neuralyzer memory plants, the historical personas tied to MIB, the fabulous jokes about the 60s and 70s, and, of course, the surprise emotional content.

What I didn't love: Hmm. I'll be...I can't think of anything. Of course I could try to come up with something, but why spoil things? I don't watch any MIB film to have a thought-provoking, intellectually stimulating evening. I watch them to have fun, laugh, and ogle the men. Sometimes that's all I really need.

If you're a fan of the first MIB, this sequel is MUST SEE.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Fields (2009)
5/10
One redeeming quality--only one
16 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Passable to waste time. I was sick, so have an excuse for sitting through the whole film.

This film's premise is a promising one, but as other reviewers have noted, the promise isn't paid off, in part due to poor script and worse acting at times.

However, being always the optimist, I did find one redeeming quality. And herein lie the spoilers: The heroine character ultimately opts to save her brother over saving her parents or other relatives. As a student of evolutionary altruism, this is one of the few films to get it right--though I seriously doubt anyone involved actually thought of this.

IF there is such a thing as innate altruism, it would tie strongly to the preservation of shared genes. And because, in reality, the sister and brother share more genes than either one shares with their parents, it makes more sense from an evolutionary viewpoint for her to sacrifice herself for a brother than to sacrifice her brother for her parents.

Especially since brothers are much more likely, biologically, to spread their genes than any female is. It's simply biology at work.

So there you have it. The one and only redeeming quality of this otherwise useless film. Too bad. The premise, with 3 different times periods involved, could have been done so well as to make an outstanding suspense. Alas, that was not to be.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Disturbing backwards oedipus complex
27 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Warnings about how disturbing this film is cannot be underestimated. It seems to me to delve into a horrific oedipus complex turned upside down by Kevin's desire to torture his mother.

I rated it 7 out of 10 because, unlike so many films about spree killers, it takes no moral stand. It simply shows the potential effects of such psychoses on everyone, but particularly on the immediate, surviving family.

I am distressed when viewers feel we should hold the mother partially responsible. I believe this film shows the very real probability that the mother merely reacts to the obviously errant development of the child who becomes a psychotic killer. She does, indeed, seek help. Only to be rebuffed by doctors and experts--not to mention her consistently self-deluded husband--so labeled as an hysterical mother.

As a student of neuropsychology, and a long-term ponderer of the psychology of those who kill, I have come to understand that the biology of the brain of some killers is congenital. Genetic? Maybe. Maybe not. But inborn? Positively.

This film explores that possibility. Tilda Swinton plays the hapless mother of the congenitally disturbed Kevin, and does so brilliantly. Her character's growing fear of the title character, who plays her against her husband's life of denial (Reilly, played perfectly), is palpable. This grittily realistic woman makes you ponder how you would handle such a difficult reality.

Of course, that is exactly the point, in my opinion. My heart breaks for her, as she lives out the consequences of ignorance in the public, who blame her for her son's evil acts. Personally, my opinion is that no matter how lurid the childhood of killers, it is nature (in the formation of the physical brain), not nurture (in the rearing), that creates a killer such as Kevin.

Too many children have been raised with horrors far beyond those this title character endures; yet they do not kill. It seems to me this film points out that Kevin was born with no capacity for empathy, and, worse, with a keen appetite for torture. Particularly satisfying to him is the torture of his mother. It is disturbing in the extreme to see how well he ultimately conquers her completely. And in stealing from her a peaceful life, he condemns her to a fate worse than his own in prison.

In the end, it asks us to ponder how we would feel if it happened to us. Which causes much discomfort, because of the protective mechanism in our minds that leads us to find reasons it could not happen to us. But the point is--it can.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Melancholia (2011)
8/10
Strangely compelling
20 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I really only watched this movie the first time because I'm a fan of Kirsten Dunst. As I somewhat expected, my first viewing caused me to make all my usual comments about annoying "shaky-cam filming" and vague, oh-so-pseudo-intellectual dialogue.

The things is--I found myself thinking about this film over and over again in the following days. The next time I saw it was airing, I couldn't help myself--I tuned in again! By all rights, I should hate this movie, but I DON'T. I even found myself buying a DVD copy recently. So I had to ask myself "why?" Mulling it over this evening, while watching the movie for the 4th time (a real rarity for me!), I can only conclude that it's partly because this is no "shoot 'em up, hooray for the heroes" typical action-sci-fi film. This one is much more realistic in the sense that no one rides in to save the day, and the characters are left to deal with the gritty reality that is, after all, life.

Another reason is, I suppose, my own battles with depression of the kind seizing Dunst's character. Except, for me, it would have been nice to be able to say that a planet called Melancholia was causing it all. Fortunately, that demon of mine has been put away for now. Which, again, makes it intriguing to me that this movie compels me as it does--I don't normally enjoy revisiting such stark reminders of that state of mind.

I must add my admiration for Kirsten Dunst's acting ability. If she hasn't personally experienced the feeling of melancholy that comes with clinical major depression, then she must be one of the best actresses of all time.

However, for a very insightful peek into why I keep watching Melancholia over and over, see gsmishka's post on the boards entitled "A strange but ultimately rewarding experience." That post says it all much more eloquently.

Indeed, you will loathe or love Melancholia. In my mind, that's a good indicator of a great film.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Deeply moving food for thought
29 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
For me, finding this movie was one of those "finding buried treasure" experiences. I'd never heard of it, and no one I've mentioned it to in my day-to-day life has heard of it, either.

But, after the first viewing, I find myself watching it every single time I come across an airing. Further, as I note some other reviewers have said, I find myself thinking about this story for days afterward. Sometimes it will pop into my mind randomly in between viewings.

The one thing that keeps nagging at me after each viewing is an underlying idea brought up by the theme: (WARNING--BIG spoiler ahead) To me, as a big advocate of non-human welfare, this film's theme *should* bring to mind the human treatment of our sentient fellow animals. While the subject may not be happening at this point in time with humans, something quite similar happens every day with other animals bred and raised for human consumption and other uses.

And, having personally witnessed the depth of connection and experience of bonds in domesticated species, I have to wonder, after seeing this film, if there aren't times when these other species do--or would, if they can--have similar experiences amongst themselves. Do cattle wonder if there's a deferral for those raised at Farmer John's? It's heartbreaking food for thought. Yet, at the end, one is left with even more grist for the mind's mill. Are we really all so different--us and donors? Or us and cattle? Or us and pigs? Personally, I think not--social mammals are so very much alike in many ways.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kalifornia (1993)
7/10
Worth a watch just for Pitt's performance
1 October 2012
Kalifornia would be just an OK movie, were it not for the performance of pretty-boy Brad Pitt. In this film, he is anything BUT pretty. In fact, he's so convincingly creepy, it makes my skin crawl just to think about this role.

Whether or not he took on the role to battle type-casting is unimportant, because he does, in fact, show his acting chops amazingly well as the poor white trash monster. It's rare to see any actor take on the persona of a character so convincingly.

The idea of this film is a good one, and executed fairly well, but could have been done better.

In particular, Michelle Forbes character, Carrie, is extremely grating. Hers is a character who will fit into L.A. culture very well--bitchy, superior, and judgmental. I know I should sympathize with Carrie's correct assessment of the situation, but I just hate her too much to care. Of course, I could argue that without her bitchy superiority, there wouldn't be a story.

On the other hand, Juliette Lewis' character, Adele, is charmingly endearing, and I found myself wishing for Adele and Duchovny's Brian to wind up together.

Were it not for the cast, this movie would be unremarkable. But with the performance of the cast, I find myself watching it again and again over the years since its release. That must count for something!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
You don't have to be artsy or European to like this
16 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I must first admit I have not read the book. I also must admit I'm not European and I do take offense at the rampant accusation that all Americans will hate this movie. But, and this is important to other Americans, I don't like it for the reasons the Europeans who think all "Yanks" will hate it, seem to believe I should like it.

As a part-professional/part-amateur student of the biology of brain as it relates to emotional experiences, I found this movie fascinating, and the ending quite interesting.

Personally, I think all the esoteric rhetoric on here about the "deeper meaning" of everything in this movie is, to put it bluntly, crap. The fact of the matter is that we humans are very much swayed by our sense of smell. Who here doesn't know the experience of a smell sending us, unbidden, back to a childhood memory? What I gleaned from this movie was how powerful our "normal" sense of smell, the lack thereof, and the wish to have it, can truly be. To me, the final scenes were brilliant--a commentary on how humanity can be driven by what we believe to be love to extreme acts of brutality and violence. Was the crowd in the end so very different from Jean-Baptiste? I think not.

But, again, this is just my personal opinion. I loathe artsy "deep thought" and I equally loathe superficial repulsion. Maybe I'm in the minority. But if you enjoy thinking about the reality of human existence and how easily we are all swayed to misdeeds, then maybe you'll enjoy this film the way I did. I will certainly watch it again.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Confined (I) (2010)
2/10
Awful leading character in an equally awful movie
29 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have to agree with the other reviewers who point out how utterly implausible this movie is. Given that true events inspired this script, I would have expected so very much more. I'd rather watch a documentary on Bio or ID about actual stories such as this one. They are far more interesting.

Perhaps the biggest flaw to me is that the main character is absolutely disgustingly witchy. I can't agree with the other reviewer enough (spell that with a capital B--good line).

**spoilers follow** It's a good thing I don't have a neighbor like that, because I'd probably snap and whack her over the head with a shovel when I found her digging up my dead dog the very first day she lived next door! The villain is a far more sympathetic and likable character, and sadly I don't believe that's done on purpose. If it was done purposefully, then there's even more to dislike since the writers failed miserably at making that point.

If anyone can identify with this lead character, I feel sorry for their neighbors. The only good thing about the 2 hours wasted on this movie is getting some small amount of glee in rooting for the bad guy against the moronic idiots from the city.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Last Exit (2006 TV Movie)
8/10
Gripping and as real as it gets
24 May 2012
As other reviewers have mentioned, this movie moves along in a way that keeps you not only riveted and unaware of the passing of time, but also should leave you feeling the angst of the main characters.

I used to live in L.A., so this movie really hit home with me. The combination of excellent acting and well-written--and well-directed--script, makes it too easy to become steeped in the emotions of both women.

Having lived in their world, my deep empathy and understanding of the horrific day each woman is having was palpable, and created a need for some decompression time after watching. "There but for the grace of God goes me" is written all over this film. Especially if you've lived and worked in a city like L.A. After recovering from watching it, I felt a new-found gratitude that I got out of Southern California's every man (woman) for himself lifestyle--ironically the same year this movie was released.

This film is grist for self-reflection and thought about the pace of modern life in a city. It should be seen by all who get wrapped up in the daily stress and pressure from such a life, as a reminder of what is truly important in life. But also as a reminder that someone else may be having a day where their life is truly crumbling, so pause for a moment before lashing out!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bleeding (2009)
1/10
With absolutely no doubt the worst film ever
23 May 2012
Don't ask me to explain why I actually sat through this whole thing. Maybe it was curiosity after reading the other reviews. Could one film be THAT bad?? Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding yes. Sitting in a corner pondering your navel is time better spent.

Seriously, the other reviewers are not underestimating this movie. There is not one single teeny tiny thing that redeems this movie in any way whatsoever.

The acting and casting are just as bad as mentioned by other reviewers. But worst of all to me was the writing.

I can say without a doubt that my miniature donkey could've written a better script. A MUCH better script. By hand! It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically sad that there are good scripts that can't get made, and yet this script, that isn't worth using as toilet paper, actually made it to film.

Nope. Not a single redeeming quality in this film. There's not even any mildly entertaining nudity or killings.

Never, ever, ever, in my 40 plus years of watching movies as an avid fan, have I ever seen such worthless tripe.

Please do the world a favor and burn every single master copy.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deadly Pursuits (1996 TV Movie)
2/10
Horrible waste of time
1 May 2012
Even as Lifetime movies go, this one is so bad it's almost laughable. Almost, but not quite, which is why it's not even useful for a chuckle, like some bad movies.

The acting is stiff and forced. Which could be because the script was so bad that the actors couldn't get into their roles. But then, we're talking C-level acting talent to begin with, so you I can't blame the script entirely.

If, however, for some reason you enjoy oddly phrased lines delivered in monotone voices or with forced inflection, then by all means go ahead and watch this. Otherwise, change the channel and spare yourself.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Man of the House (I) (2005)
9/10
A whole lotta fun
23 April 2012
OK, maybe it's because I love Tommy Lee Jones. Or because I'm a Texan, with all the attendant deep-seated pride associated with the words "Texas Ranger." Seriously, for a Texan, any movie where the Rangers are out-foxing the FBI is great entertainment.

Or maybe it's because I have a brother who went to UT, even though our dad was an Aggie ("what's that spell?")(and though I myself attended an A&M affiliate, Tarleton). Or because I love dry humor. Or even because this film does have a certain "girl power" theme (although it's distinctly Texas 'girl power').

Whatever the reason, this movie is so much fun to me. It's not "serious cinema." You won't walk away pondering life or the deeper meaning behind the script. But I think you will walk away grinning if you share any of the reasons I listed above for why I love it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Maneater (2009)
8/10
Fun and Doesn't Feel Like 4 Hours
6 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not usually a fan of romantic comedies, because often they are so awfully unrealistic. So even though Lifetime Movie Network has played this mini-series as a 4-hour movie several times lately, I only watched it when it roped me in this evening.

It roped me in because it is so real. I have lived in both L.A., working in the entertainment industry, and now live in rural Texas on a ranch. There were so many delightful moments in this movie that hit close to truths I've known that I found myself laughing out loud.

But just to be fair, this movie does turn all the characters into caricatures of real-life attitudes I've known. But that is also what makes it so much fun to watch. And that the people involved actually do mature and learn as they go along is wonderful. I have a feeling that the people that gave this bad reviews, saying it was depressing, didn't see it past the first half.

In my opinion, this film is worth taking the time, and I honestly found the first half to be filled with hilarious one-liners and scenes. I suppose you should be someone that, like me, finds humor in pretty much everything about living in order to get the most enjoyment from this movie.

But if you are someone with a sense of humor that allows you to laugh at the absurd ways some people behave, I think you'll enjoy the time you spend watching Maneater.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Better than I expected, but don't pay for it
13 January 2012
Let me comment on the comparisons of this movie to "Mr. Brooks" or "Henry." This one is not in the league of those two very well-done films.

Unlike "Mr. Brooks," this one does not give more insight to the mind of a serial killer (or even to the interaction of other people with the killer) than an average "48 Hours" episode would. In my opinion, the characters here are flat or, at best, two-dimensional, while "Mr. Brooks" is amazingly written to provide real character depth. So if you're looking for a psychological thriller that *could* be real life, go rent "Mr. Brooks" instead, because you won't find that here.

But if you've already seen "Mr. Brooks" and have nothing better to do, AND you can watch this for free, then it's entertaining for a night. I especially enjoyed the last 1/2 hour or so, and it is there that this film finally becomes somewhat worthwhile.

On a whole, I was pleasantly surprised by some of the interaction and some of the surprises. But caveat emptor -- if you are a fan of depth of character and intelligent, probing writing and acting, don't expect this to be the 10-star movie some reviewers here seem to think it is.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caught in the Act (2004 TV Movie)
8/10
Just Plain Fun
3 January 2012
Especially for a made-for-TV movie, this one is just fun to watch. Lauren Holly in particular makes this so enjoyable. You just have to love her character! And I do agree with those that note that her accent is really good -- as close to authentic as I've heard in most movies. In fact, southern accents are my pet peeve -- they are routinely done so astonishingly badly. It grates on me so badly that there are movies I know would probably have been OK except that the bad accents were too distracting and irritating. But Holly does great, and as a result of the thick accent, she nails this character spot on! No, it's not some amazing film due for classic libraries. But it IS much better than the vast majority of made-for-TV movies. The dialogue is believable, and even the over-the-top outfits make sense in context(the first time I saw it I walked in part-way through and saw one of the "undercover" outfits and burst into giggles thinking to myself, yeah, undercover in being just bizarre enough to work in New Orleans!). Definitely worth a couple of hours.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mr. Brooks (2007)
10/10
Must see for fans of gripping psychological thrillers
9 December 2011
Mr. Brooks can be very unsettling. Of course, that is one of many factors that make it great. But it also means that this movie is NOT for everyone. However, if you love great writing, awesome acting, unpredictable plot twists and deeply authentic characters, then you must see Mr. Brooks.

This is easily Kevin Costner's best role ever, and he tackles it like a true professional -- creating a character that is every bit as complex as any real human.

Without exposing too much, I recommend this movie in part because of the disturbing feelings roused by Costner's character -- you want to hate him, but it's impossible to ignore his good traits as well.

In addition to stellar performances by nearly all cast members, Mr. Brooks offers discriminating viewers a great story, with robustly authentic characters, and surprises that are difficult, if not impossible, to predict.

As a fan of high quality, classic movies, I find few movies that actually do shock me with unexpected twists. This movie did just that, and it did so more than once. It is wonderful to relish such gripping story-telling that is, sadly, all too rare lately.

Another rave for the film comes from its lack of gratuitous anything. There IS violence, but its existence is integral to the story and no more. Even better are the scenes that don't exist -- those parts of the story that are told by inference only, allowing the viewer's imagination to fill in the blanks. When well-executed, as it is here, that tactic is so much more effective than anything anyone could ever overtly expose on film.

This movie does not disappoint, and it pleases on multiple levels.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In the Cut (2003)
3/10
Looking for a thriller? Watch Mr. Brooks instead
9 December 2011
Right off the bat I must say that I agree with another reviewer here who mentioned Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance and character as the bright spot in this dismal (literally and figuratively) movie.

I've never been a huge fan of Leigh's, but she does a terrific acting job with what she's been handed. Also, her character is the only human who ever smiles at all through the entirety of this dark-and-dismal-merely-for-the-sake-of-being-dark-and-dismal movie.

And there is my first criticism. It is far more effective to let the flow of natural human behavior take the viewer to a troubling place in the psyche than it is to try to do so by skipping story development and just having all the characters behave morose and bizarrely at all times and by using shadowy lighting.

This movie made me feel very sad for Meg Ryan. I actually watched the film solely because I thought it would be good to see Ryan have a chance to exercise her acting muscles instead of once again playing the formulaic perky romantic interest role that has made her famous.

Actually, Ryan IS very talented and would be excellent in a robustly dark role. I wish she would have chosen a more well-written script than this predictable and boring yawner.

This movie lives way down to my lowest expectations of modern movie-making with all the attendant predictable moments: sex scenes where power and dominance game playing between the partners is supposed to create intense tension (have these writers never had an actual moment of intense sexual attraction allowed to simmer? It doesn't appear that way, so sad for them); blurry and shaky camera work that is supposed to add I don't know what exactly; and dark, dismal, depressed and angry people who apparently have zero personality.

It is this last criticism which bothers me the most about this horrible waste of time. I'm no fan of predictability in modern films, but when that predictability is presented within a story of one-dimensional characters with less depth of personality than a computer game character, it is beyond frustrating.

There is no shortage of talented and imaginative writers in this world. Why on earth Hollywood persists in rewarding hack writing is beyond me.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inception (2010)
10/10
Great Soundtracks and Stories Return
1 December 2011
I have long considered Hans Zimmer an underutilized soundtrack composer, because, until now, his talent has not been given full rein to move the viewing audience to the emotional depths of which he is capable.

Inception unleashes that ability, in much the way the character of Dom seeks a supremely talented "dream architect." Nowhere is this more evident than when Zimmer's score plays during the closing few sequences, with no dialogue. These minutes are, in my mind, a demonstration of the ideal application of music in film, and I loudly applaud the filmmakers for this decision to let emotion, riding on the powerful waves of music, finish the story.

After all, many of us are not stupid, and we know what is happening without constant verbal exposition. Having seen Inception several times now, I still sob uncontrollably during this extremely powerful ending. That speaks volumes when one knows it is far more common for me to be sneeringly sarcastic by the end of a movie.

As delightful as this is, however, it is, I am pleased to say, only a portion of what makes this movie work for a rather wide audience.

First and foremost, the script tells a story that gives viewers of different experiences and age groups different things to think about. On the surface, it has its fair share of action and shoot-em-up scenes. But ultimately, for more mature viewers, the film has a lot to say about interpersonal interaction, and the ultimate place of relationship in reality, as opposed to the virtual kind (whether in dream states or on Facebook and other social media).

In this sense, Christopher Nolan has clearly matured as a writer and director.

Then there is the acting. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers an excellent performance. Like Nolan, DiCaprio has matured, and as he has, he became an authentic actor, not just a "star."

The genius of this film with regard to the acting, however, is the sparse use of big names, and the copious addition of incredibly talented character actors -- those people whose names may not be household words, but who pack an unrivaled punch of talent.

After all, shouldn't a truly good actor actually cause us to "know" different characters in different films, and not their individual persona over and over again? This is Inception's serious fodder, and why so many of the film's actors are multiple Oscar nominees, even if not common names in People Magazine.

There is also the intelligent use of special effects. Unlike so many modern films, the CG departments here didn't waste their talents with clichéd scenes of actors in slow motion martial arts moves, instead opting for judicious enhancement of the visual texture of the film. It is appropriate special effects, not merely CG for the sake of CG.

The appeal of classic films, for so many thinking film connoisseurs, is the way a well-executed script will take root in your mind and haul you along into the magnificent journey of a unique tale.

With the advent of modern technology pandering to nanosecond attention spans, too many filmmakers have lost the ability (or willingness) to relate a good story visually, relying instead on mere "eye candy". While special effects can wow an audience, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Inception gets this idea (this and the prior reference intended, which is understood once the movie is seen) and applies it exceedingly well.

I will admit I almost gave up on this movie half way through the first viewing. By the end I was beyond relieved I had not. Somewhere along the way this movie grabbed hold and wouldn't let me go. It turned out to be one of those films that one thinks about for hours after watching, and, like a good classic, has me returning again and again to catch the subtle ways in which the story unfolds scene to scene -- dialogue and visuals which may not be noticed until all is revealed. I've now watched it three times in less than a month. I've not watched even Casablanca that frequently.

So if Inception seems silly or trite upon your first viewing, I implore you to hang in there. If you value good stories and thought-provoking, suspenseful tales, I predict you'll change your mind before the end. The second viewing is even better, now that you know what is going on early in the film.

In fact, unlike many lesser films, I have only one serious quarrel with this movie, and it is relatively minor. It occurs early on, when DiCaprio's character says to Ellen Page's character, in the middle of a sentence, that "they say we only use a small percentage of our brains..." Science has thoroughly debunked this particular bit of nonsense, and I sincerely wish the spread of this myth would stop. Given the terribly bad opinion I have held of most films made since about the early 60's, this is such a minor error that I almost forgive myth-spreading.

This film is a minimum TWO-TIME must see, as it offers some new interesting morsel of thought each time around. It is what good cinema should be -- a fascinating tale well told in every way.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Next Stop Murder (2010 TV Movie)
1/10
Hitchcock rolls in his grave
26 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
As others have noted, this is just a very poorly done sex-changed redo of Hitchcock's classic "Strangers On A Train." However, this remake is done without the finesse of Hitchcock's direction, great acting, and well-written screenplay of the original.

Somehow the filmmakers and writers in this one managed to dumb down a brilliant premise and reduce interesting characters to predictable, one-dimensional caricatures.

I cannot fathom why anyone involved would have wasted their time with this seriously bad film. I recommend viewers not toss their time into the waste basket with the them. Find anything else at all to watch.

Better yet, go rent, stream, or find a TV showing of the masterful original. "Strangers On A Train" is never a waste of time.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed