Home
search
more | tips
IMDb > Entangled (1993) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Entangled (1993) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 4 comments in total 

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
What an embarrassing web they've weaved, 22 May 2000
1/10
Author: The Duck-2 from CA

"Entangled" attempted to be a cryptic mystery, but instead achieved "what the heck is going on" status. Punctuated by nudity and sex scenes, one gets the feeling that someone added the "storyline" AFTER they conceived the great idea to film a softcore porn flick.

Characters are thin, motivations are thinner, and you never actually get the full story.

Since there aren't any other comments for this movie, I'll give a brief synopsis: American author wakes up hysterical in the hospital, fully covered in casts and bandages. Flashbacks ensue, and we learn that he has written one previous novel that was killed by the critics, his lover is a french supermodel who is up to something fishy, and he has just finished his second novel, which he eventually enters in a literary contest under temporarily anonymous authorship. Somehow he ends up mangled in the hospital, but how? We spend the rest of the miserable movie wondering not that, but, why do we care?

During the course of the movie, we find out about murder, deception, lust, power plays, double crossings, greed, and betrayal. Sounds interesting, but don't be tricked. It is forced, but worse, completely unlikely and highly contrived; the plot twists are not intriguing, but banal. A murky movie does not a mystery make.

Judd Nelson is completely pretentious and uncharismatic. He appears to have some intellect, but doesn't really lend believability to his lines (did he really understand some of the words he said?). Also, he can play the bandaged, mangled, be-stitched gimp to perfection, but the lover of a supermodel? I don't believe it.

Why did Pierce Brosnan agree to do this movie? I know it was in his pre-007, post-Remington Steele days when he wasn't too hot a commodity, but this was truly an awful script, and his role was farcical.

> Run. Run far away from this movie, before you waste 90 minutes of your precious time getting Entangled.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Once ,they wrote "Diabolique" and "Vertigo"., 17 March 2004
Author: dbdumonteil

Yes they did!Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac were second to none when it came to suspense and Hitchcock and Clouzot adapted their books with enthusiasm.

"Les veufs" is an absorbing psychological suspense,which Max Fisher(?)thoroughly butchered ;the novel was linear whereas the film uses too many pointless flashbacks ,and the plot was something like a cobweb where the hero got entangled in.The first hour is completely botched,using a ridiculous character with a Quebec accent and awful songs (the kind of music which passes for rock on made-for-TV movies ). The last third is more interesting,because it focuses on Garavan:unlike the other user,I do think the part was tailor-made for Pierce Brosnan(if he reads the book,he'll know what I mean),who is unsupported by the rest of the cast -the lead gives an abysmal performance-.

The final feud Garavan/Merkin was suspenseful on the paper -for instance never the "true" writer dares claim his work;the conversation between the two men remains full of insinuations ,but a lot of lines in the film were just thoughts in the writer's mind.So why not use a voice over?

One cannot always have a Hitchcock or a Clouzot.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Laughable, 5 October 2003
Author: shellemk from Milton Keynes, England

A film that you can't really get into. The story does not so much unfold as lurch drunkenly from pillar to post. You find yourself not caring about the characters or what happens in the end, although poor old Pierce does his best with a weak script.

This has almost reached the ranks of "so bad it's funny" - especially with the ever inappropriate music score. One particular scene, accompanied with horror-film-style music, had us laughing when I'm sure that was not the film's intention. I have never been so aware of the effect that a musical score can have on a film until we came across this one!

All in all, a completely forgettable 'mystery' not worth unentangling.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
So bad that you are interested to see what will happen next!!!, 29 December 2005
1/10
Author: CinemaLov from Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Look, you have a good casting! Roy Dupuis, Judd Nelson and Pierce Brosnan. What can make such a terribly boring and unspectacular movie with predictable twist? A bad director plus a weak direction in the script! The original script was changed many times during the movie and what we have? A movie we don't understand half of the movie. In fact, the story is present, We have Judd Nelson, a book writer, jealous of Roy because Pierce tell him Roy slept with his wife, Laurence Treil. And then, the story is not over, it continues, Judd discover that Pierce lies to him and then he want to make an end to this so this is all a big story. The twist at the end is quite good, i was impressed but it dosen't change the fact that it's a big thumbs down movie, specially for me, i'm a fan of the three main actors (Brosnan, Nelson and Dupuis) and they failed, but I don't blame them, Nelson was not as popular as 80s days, Brosnan was unknown at that time, trying to make a name for himself and same for Dupuis. But the big thumbs down goes to Laurence Treil, a tall girl who can't act. She's so bad that my rating goes from 5/10 to 1/10. An advice for everyone, don't waste you're time with ''Entangled''.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Newsgroup reviews
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history