Reviews

80 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
A Swashbuckle adventure that sinks as good as the Flying Dutchman
25 May 2007
With the second installment leaving viewers disappointed, many would expect Verbinski to finish off the trilogy with a solid patch up, that would complete the series with stellar recognition. Unfortunately At Worlds end tends to be more incoherent than the sequel, and even more pedantic, that it concludes to be a waste of talent.

Johnny Depp was sublimely memorable as Jack Sparrow in "The Curse of the Black Pearl", however with this installment he has turned a once named icon to a schizophrenic idiot, whose aimless adventure exacerbates the dull plot line to one similar to a Farelly Brothers script. Offcourse there needs to be humor, however since the adventure itself is disoriented, the humor surfaces as purely lame and unfunny. Keira Knightley has much better movies in her resume, that she does not need Elizabeth Swann as a driving force for her career, as God only knows that she may end up capitalizing on this mundane and overdone character over some of the other major projects, that could turn her into a highly acclaimed actress. Finally there's Orlando Bloom who may provide eye candy to many teenage girls but his acting skills needs such an uplifting as much as Gore Verbinski's directing.The only positive aspect was seeing the once villainous Captain Barbosa returning to his conniving and shrewd role BUT Geoffrey Rush wasn't powerful enough to patch up the loop holes in the movie.

At the end all what remains is sheer confusion, plenty of yawns and watch staring. At worlds end is a disappointment and 2 hrs:48 mins of a persons life, one cant take back.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Georgia Rule (2007)
9/10
A light hearted dramedy with its heavy moments...
13 May 2007
The buzz 'Georgia Rule' garnered from its production was enough to make any individual to drop in to the cinema to find out the outcome of Lindsay Lohan's lack of proffesionalism. However with Garry Marshall directing, one can be assured that his sugar coatings do wonders for films and this is no exception.

The performances were phenomenal- over here we have 3 mainstream actresses. Jane Fonda who looks stunning for her age, plays Grandma Georgia, a rule maker who burdens any visitor in her house with her 'Georgia rules.' For comic relied Jane Fonda nails the part of Georgia, and we see an icon in the film industry mellowing herself down to cooler roles - heck she ain't trying to win an Oscar now..?!!? Then there's Felicity Huffman, who proved she can still kick ass on the big screen as much as she could on TV. As Lilly, Huffman's portrayal of a slumping alcoholic, was touching and was a departure from her usual roles. Finally the spotlight of the movie - Lindsay Lohan who unequivocally gave the best performance. This is definitely her most mature role, and she will shock audiences as no one has seen her this grown up. Transcending and unforgettable, Lohan definitely takes the cake as Rachel.

The trailer was misleading, and what I expected was Lindsay to be playing another character too much like her ownself - however this movie surfaced the morals of family and trust. Yet another stunner by Marshall.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
8/10
Brilliant Third Installment -lets hope this is it though..!
3 May 2007
Every Spiderman movie brings with it the extravagant hype, and this was no exception. The dark satire that was to be expected, probably caused a lot of concern to fans, who would have wondered where the franchise was heading.

This definitely shone is terms of maturity. Mary Jane Watson's character has been transposed from girl to woman, and Kirsten Dunst provides the movie with a solid performance, shedding the 'girl next door' image. Unfortunately this cannot be said for Tobey Maguire. Spiderman's character has to remain uniform through-out the franchise, but when Maguire becomes Peter Parker, the same kid is conspicuous form the first installment. This has the writers to blame, cause there were a few scenes, that dealt with Peter's evil transposition which could have been scripted differently. James Franco shines with his charm and his on-screen presence, making his character quite lovable. The same could be said for Bryce Dallas Howard, who shocked me with her portrayal of Gwen Stacey. We see in this instance an actress (whose only mainstream role has been a blind girl in 'The Signs') starting to explore diversity at arguably a commencement point in her career.

A brilliant third installment, however lets hope it stops here..! this offered much more than the second installment, and gives a good end to the franchise.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dreamgirls (2006)
10/10
Dream-Musical to revive the Genre!!
1 February 2007
The pumped up beats, the glamorous outfits, and that Motown sound - YEAH! Something which the film industry's been waiting for since Chicago won a Best Picture Nod at the Oscars in 2002.

The casting is pitch-perfect. Jennifer Hudson is astounding, which keeps you wondering about her departure from American Idol due to insufficient voting??!! That voice, and those emotions pave the way for Oscar glory. Beyonce Knowles, though many critics have credited her as the weakest link in the movie, is far from being weak. Her radiant-glamour and her 20lbs less voluptuous figure, shine whilst "the Dreams" are on stage. She is far from being the weakest link. As Deena Jones, Beyonce has the voice, experience, looks and talent. Eddie Murphy actually acts, and "NO!" -he does not over-act, play multiple characters, or provides unneeded humor- there is a vein of emotions displayed vividly in his character -James "Thunder" Early - from his love between his wife and back-up singer, drug addiction, and winding career. Its too bad, it took Murphy this long to realise his capability and potential in a significant contribution to the film industry. Jamie Foxx - is easily the weakest link. His performance is insipid and it seems like he has been pasted in the scenes to give them attitude and ego-ism. Though its a very Jamie Foxx character, and is pretty much Curtis Taylor Jr. Jamie Foxx's on-screen presence and performance was not good enough. Anika Noni-Rose did not receive the acclaim she deserved. Sure she is the least known in the cast, but her portrayal of Lorell was spot-on, and was as powerful as Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson's performances. Her voice was amazing, and I hope this movie rockets her career.

The music especially the additional songs, gave this movie the final touches. Amazingly directed by Bill Condon, this is one movie, that lived up to its hype. Loved every bit of it.
34 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Happy Feet (2006)
1/10
By far the worst animated movie i've seen..
18 January 2007
There was hype alright - and way too much of it. I really didn't get the reason as to why this was made in the first place. It was a pure spectacle of bad dialogue and story telling, and the worthless use of A-grade actors. Nicole Kidman sounded like a Paris Hilton wannabe, and the rest of them babble out words to save themselves from boring the audience. The first 40 mins of the film just made me give up, cause there was no longer any reason to watch it. The only incentive to watch this movie is just admiring the cute and cuddly penguins...Besides that, I seriously Don't GET why this movie topped the box office for 3 Damn Weeks!!!
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
...does not get the facts straight one bit..!
5 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The concept of this movie is applauding - the impact of internet pornography on children in the vein of corruption and destruction of planned ambitions. However the approach to this, is something way less than reality or in fact its misleading.

Firstly,what I did not like about this is that it gives an opinion that this destroys every kids life i.e. anyone who is exposed to such material, and the fact of watching porn is something taboo. There is no indication of him using a webcam and indulging in disturbing sexual activities for pay, which happens to be the critical issue affecting tweens, and one that should have been given paramount recognition in this movie. Hence Justin Peterson solely watches pornographic material, and manages to do so in the movie,without any indication of self stimulation. His relationship gets ruined and he experiences perverse thoughts and visions...DUH - he's a teenager.

The whole message, was misleading. They could have done so much with this, and shown what 'really' happens with internet corruption, with more emphasis on chat rooms and the riveting impact of the web cam..! all of this was dealt with subtly or not discussed at all, hence the title 'Cyber Seduction', really has no place in this motion picture.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In Her Shoes (2005)
8/10
Great....but lacks Oscar potential....!
4 November 2005
Cameron Diaz's character Maggie happens to be the main focus of this movie. Maggie is a party girl, dates rich men, very fashion conscious, and quite quirky, a role pitch perfect for lovely Miss Diaz.However one thing that this movie lacks is Oscar potential.

This in my opinion is Cameron's 4th powerful performance. She showed she is more than just quirky in Being John Malkovich, Vanilla Sky, and Gangs of New York - especially the latter one, which she was very astounding. This movie on the other hand, lacks a certain ingredient to make it gain Oscar recognition. Toni Collete and Shirley MacLaine, gave good performances too, however even in this instance, none of these are powerful enough to gain Oscar recognition. Truthfully, an Oscar performance was the one she gave us in "The Sixth Sense" - compare the 2, though they are of different genres, she was remarkable in the Sixth Sense. Well remarkable wouldn't be a word i would use to describe her performance in this - i would just say "really good".

Its a pity for Cameron, she needs a complete breakthrough, cause she is an A-list actress, with potential - she just needs the right role, and no way was "In her shoes" the breakthrough role. Though it was a very good movie, the Oscar buzz surrounding the performances do not make it very well worthwhile. Sorry Miss Diaz....Maybe next time...!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Have fun...thats it - expect nothing more!
3 October 2005
Seeing "The Love bug", and knowing it to be a classic, you would expect this movie to stand out way more than the other Herbie movies - why? well cause its 2005, and people always seem to be hitching for that nostalgic feeling in movies, and secondly when they place Lindsay Lohan as the protagonist, why wouldn't it stand out? cause lets face it she is quite the most targeted teen star for all magazines, and she is a good actress too! However this movie didn't exactly stand out - instead whilst watching it, you realize that the main focus of this movie was bringing Herbie back, and hence the producers have completely neglected the storyline. This movie suffered from the "weak-plot syndrome" - and the only reason why many scenes managed to stand out was because it had some amazing classical vintage rock classics.

The integration of the classical Herbie tunes into this movie just showed the desperation on creating the nostalgic feeling. It caused a sense of anachronism i.e. this is set in 2005, so whats with the 60's music?? I guess its just a pure fun type movie. Nothing else - and perhaps i'll get myself a copy of the soundtrack - cause that was the only thing about this movie that truly ROCKED!!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Pacifier (2005)
2/10
I think I know whose gonna win the Razzie for Worst actor next year!!
22 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The opening credits of the Walt Disney logo is accompanied with a Navy-mixed version of the 'When you wish upon a star' tune. When the first scene opens and in its entire action sequence is revealed, you wonder if Disney actually signed in to this. Vin Diesel started out great, but once the plot of the movie began and the movie actually commenced, its then you realise that Diesel made the biggest mistake in his career - not only did he take on a role that he could not progress well at, he also turned himself into a Jessica Simpson-esquire male nanny!! The moment of glory occurred we got to see Diesel performing the "Peter Panda" dance - not just once - the same dance routine was also used for a second time to figure out the ending. The reason why i remained watching this crap, was because of Lauren Graham. I am a HUGE fan of Gilmore Girls, and this was a rare occasion when Graham played the leading female. Well, you could credit this movie with the word 'cute' - but plain cute does not keep people on their seats.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Enough with the degrading!!!!
18 August 2005
I guess the problem with this movie was that people went to see it, with the pure intention of reliving the fondness of the TV show - however obviously this is 2005 and DUH - things have changed, and so had the settings, and the characters of the movie. Having the same old TV show, reproduced into a movie would have been so boring. This had new additions - as for the Duke boys, i bet the TV show didn't have them as female perverts, but they would have if the board of media censorship permitted them. I loved this movie!!!. THought it was quite the flick, and Jessica Simpson was quite surprising. They should have fed her more lines - and made her character more important. Seriously this is not that bad!!!! The directing is good too!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Action packed, brilliant casting, unbelievable chemistry,humor - HAVE I SAID ENOUGH??
11 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
From the very first scene, seeing Brad and Angelina receiving couples therapy, the chemistry between the 2 of them is so conspicuous and unbelievable. Once the opening credits have ended, your intuition leads you to believe that Mr and Mrs Smith has great potential...and you are certainly NOT misleaded.

I caught this movie today with a bunch of friends, and it was unequivocal that along with myself all of my other friends enjoyed this movie to a great extent. The degree to which the humour has been integrated with the action is perfect. Angelina Jolie's seductive looks, and feminist 'chick' attitude make her perfect for the role - and to match this perfection, Brad Pitt very wisely made his decision to re-join the cast. I don't think i have ever seen such good chemistry between characters - and though in all the endless Oscar nominated and winning movies, their producers boast about 'chemistry',none are exactly conspicous. Brad and Angelina - are brilliant - and its a movie worth watching again.

The supporting cast seem weak as opposed to the protagonists. Vince Vaughn was cast for even more comic relief, and to a certain extent overacted and seemed unwanted! Adam Brody who would have shown up on set thinking he was on the set of 'The OC' gave a Seth Cohen-ish performance, and Kerry Washington took on opposite role when compared to the performance she gave in 'Ray.' I had such a great time at the theatre just laughing at every other scene - i don't see why critics gave this movie a fairly low rating.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A truly remarkable chick flick
28 June 2005
This feel good effect of a chick flick, is barely brought on screen in a sensible way. Sisterhood manages to achieve and capture both the fun side and the bitter moments with such reality, that you would feel for each character. With too much of movies circling around sci-fi, animation, comic book characters and thrillers this year, Sisterhood is undoubtedly the chick flick of 2005.Though been mildly blessed with the fairy tale charm,the sisterhood never steps out of reality.

Though the cast is relatively unknown it does not cause a lesser liking to the movie cause each the actresses sink into each of their respective characters so well, you'll forget who plays them, and think of who they are playing instead. Amber Tamblyn impressed me the most, her character had the most amount of changes, and each of her emotions from the sarcasm to the sadness was portrayed to perfection. America Ferrera, gave the most emotional performance out of all, and it is this character of Carmen that you would really feel for the most. Alexis Bledel who plays Lena is always welcomed on the big screen, eversince "Gilmore Girls" became a hit.

In conclusion - I'd have to make a confession - I am a 19 goingon 20 year old guy-young adult, and this was the first movie which made me tear. So as the tag line says "Laugh, Cry, Share the pants" - you'll find yourself doing just that....!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
BRilliaNT!!
26 May 2005
Robert Luketic was my main incentive to watch this movie. 'Legally Blonde' is my all time favourite movie and 'Win a date with Tad Hamilton' was n under-rated romantic comedy - two of Luketic's best.

Jennifer Lopez is definitely on my 'Last choice Actresses' list, and Jane Fonda - being her first film in 15 years, would be quite anticipating. Lopez or J.LO or whatever she wants to be known as these days, gives as usual just an average performance - its like seeing her once again in "maid in Manhatten"!!! But it's Jane Fonda's performance is what makes this movie outragous. Pure guilty pleasure from beginning to end.

What most people mistake about this movie is the fact that its a 'Meet the parent's' rip off. Such a belief is completely demented as Monster in law is gifted with its own originality.

I wont be surprised if Jane Fonda ends up with a Golden Globe nomination for Best Performance by an actress Musical/Comedy
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alfie (2004)
Shockingly MUCH better than the original
5 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
When remakes are released, it always leaves the doubt of it being better than the original. In this movie, where hi-tech gadgets have no role in the storyline, the update was brought out brilliantly.

Sure Michael Caine did get his Oscar nominee for his performance in the 1966 movie, but Jude Law's charsima as Alfie, couldn't have been better. The supporting cast was extraordinary. Nia Long gives her best performance, and Sienna Miller is gonna be the next hottie in Hollywood.

Truly inspiring, and its comedic touch was done to perfection. A typical 'guy' movie....finally something without violence
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"...and the scholarship goes to Hillary Duff"
1 May 2005
Finally what every Duff fan would have wanted - A SENSIBLE PERFORMANCE by Hillary!!! Considering her filmography - the despicable performance in 'Lizzie Mcguire Movie', her waste of time on 'Cinderella Story' and the completely unworthy ones in 'Cheaper by the dozen' and 'Agent Cody Banks', this movie launches Hillary Duff as an actress.....GAH!AT LAST!! Prior to watching this movie - i would suggest that you temporaririly erase from your mind, all of Duff's movie's. Unlike her ones before, this movie is inspiring and is truly a heartfelt drama. I was astound for what i considered to be a predictable chick flick turned out to be one of the unexpectedly good movies of the year 2004.

I would recommend this movie for every chick flick lover - its a must!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Miss Match (2003)
Perfeclty matched in every way...WHY WAS THIS CANCELLED?
15 March 2005
It is usually these unique shows that stand out - a story and plot which no one has ever witnessed will always be captivating, attention gaining and a ratings hit. Well it seems that this show failed to achieve these traits as it was cancelled just after one season. Alicia Silverstone is just brilliant -her character Kate Fox - coincidently quite similar but mature to the Cher Horowitz she played 8 years prior to this show, is not an every show character, and it was played to perfection - a well deserved Golden Globe Nomination. I guess it was just quite a crime to cancel this - all it needed was a few more seasons and the character 'Kate Fox' would have created icon status.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ray (I) (2004)
8/10
Jamie was truly amazing!
10 March 2005
Well the story of a man who obviously needs no introduction. Jamie Foxx was beyond 'great'. Almost every year, there is a performance that is sure to win the Oscar unequivocally. Last year Charlize took her award for her brilliant performance in "Monster" - and this year -it was Jamie Foxx.

However - there were the supporting roles that were also brilliant, but failed to get attention. Regina King gave a stunning and career defining performance as Margie Hendrix - but did not receive any credit. Curtis Armstrong - another BRILLIANT performance - which completely failed to gain any recognition.

As for the movie - it was good - not a brilliant piece of work, but a close call.Certainly worth watching - of you have 2 and a half hours free - just rent this.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Still Brilliant 36 years later
26 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Bob is married to Carol. Carol's best friends with Alice whose husband Ted is best friends with Bob. Things begin to heat up (in a good way), when Bob has an affair with a woman, and Carol becomes OK with it, and hence the 2 of them openly accept that having having sex with another person is OK, as there are no emotions involved.

For a movie made in 1969, this movie is brilliant. People tend to skip these lost gems, because they consider it to be rather 'ancient' - however it is so good, that if the same script and direction were used without any amendments, but with a different cast offcourse today, this movie would stll be a hit, and would even score at the Oscars. The performances are BRILLIANT, and are still Oscar worthy. Dyan Cannon was the most impressive - I certainly do not know how the 60's revolved, but at that time you would expect for a blonde actress, to play a quirky role. Dyan was everything BUT quirky. Natalie Wood, who i believe had a vivid resemblance to Catherine Zeta Jones, gave a good performance as well. What made their performance so good was that is seemed so real.

A must see for everyone. Take my word - WATCH IT!
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Closer (I) (2004)
8/10
Close enough to being one of the most twisted movies
17 February 2005
I have to admit that I have never seen such a twisted movie about relationships. There was 'We don't live here anymore' – however this is more twisted, that it van be passed as a thriller disguised as a love story. From the beginning to the end the movie is solely focused on 4 characters - Anna, Larry, Daniel and Alice. The twist occurs with the exchanging of partners back and forth amongst these 4 characters. Credit needs to be given to all these 4 actors. Clive Owen who plays the lustful Larry was my least favorite - I guess it was the nature of his character – a pervert who gets what he wants. Julia Roberts, gives one of her 'natural' performances again, Jude Law played the 'wimp' – if I am not mistaken for the first time, and Natalie Portman, who all credit should go to, gives the performance of her career – I guess it was time she took the time off that Star Wars crap, to give something more worthwhile. However, I do not see much 'Oscar' potential for this film. It may have been really good, but not 'Oscar' worthy, I guess it should not have aimed for the Oscars - it would have definitely been more successful if it was released widely as a holiday blockbuster.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best high school movie of the 80's
25 January 2005
John Hughes has to be the best director of all teen movies!!!this movie has become one of the most talked about teen movies of all time. With all its hype, this movie certainly deserves every speck of attention, because of its brilliance. 80's is considered to be the era of the underdog, when it dealt with movies. However forget about all of that - and watch this. It has the charm of 'feel good', together with the fabulous cast, all matched perfectly to suit their characters. Most impressive performance in this movie is by Judd Nelson and Ally Sheedy. The script to this movie is brilliant, and the directing is just the same. If this movie were only released now, with the same directing and script, it would still be a massive hit, because its pure teen fun.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Aviator (2004)
9/10
The best example of an all star cast performance
6 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Eversince i knew this movie was gonna be made, i was so anticipated to watch this - well who wouldn't - when it's got Blanchette, Beckinsale and Gwen Steffani playing screen legends?. Well after all that anticipation this movie was really worth watching.

Since this is a bio-pic the movie starts of with little kid Howard Hughes, as he learns to spell being coached by his mother. After this, the movie sifts to Howrad Hughes being a 24 year old director, on the set of his film 'Hell's Angels'. Well at this point after the first few scenes, when we get to see Leonardo Dicaprio for the first time playing this character. I was not impressed at first, cause to me it seemed to much like the character of Frank Abignail Jr., which he played in 'Catch me if you can' and he was just being typically Leo;i was not impressed, however my opinion was blown away as this character grew, as we then see the hidden spirit in the Hughe's character, played now to perfection by Leonardo Dicaprio himself. It was a brilliant portrayal, thought not still good enough for an Oscar, may be satisfactory for a nomination.

The best part of the movie was getting o see Cate Blanchette in a Phenomenal performance as Katherine Hepburn. I have seen many of Cate's movies, and WHAT A DIFFERENCE!! I believe it is these elements that the academy should take into account when considering for nominations - the wide variety of roles played. Cate Blanchette was SOOO good - she truly deserved the Oscar.

Kate Beckinsale played her character to quite the perfection as well. After seeing her in Pearl Harbor, everyone knew she had potential, but after such movies like 'Underworld' and 'Van - Helsing', this has been quite an accomplishment for her. The stuck up nature of an experienced popular actress of the 1940's, was brought out really well, that I was surprised she did not make it with a Golden Globe nomination.

The whole Gwen Steffani playing Jean Harlow thing had me disappointed, when she had only two lines of Dialog. Her appearance however was brilliant, and though there was not much dialog, the camera did focus o her a lot.

Cameo appearance by Jude Law also took me by surprise. John C Reily and Alex Baldwin, may not have given exceptionally good performances, but this seemed perfectly OK, as we were watching Leo, Kate, Cate and Gwen.

Watch this movie you will NOT be disappointed.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Suprsiingly GREAT!
4 January 2005
Consider the cast - there is Mathew Lillard and Seth Green. So i kinda expected a movie beyond stupididty, to an extent that its humor was so lunatic that i may have to switch it off half way.I was surprised however at this movie, cause this was really good. Sure it was silly at certain instances, but i guess it was just the direction that made the silliness in this movie perfectly normal.

Well not much credit goes to the performances. It was really great seeing Mathew Lillard playing an 'un-annoying' character - consider majority of his roles from Summer Catch, She's all that to the Scooby Doo series, they were all not very likable. However this is different approach for him. I never knew how short Seth Green was - well he never looked so short in the Austin Powers series and neither on TV's 'Buffy - the vampire slayer'

If anyones looking for a movie for movie night, this would be perfect. It talks about friendships and the determination to do certain things that one plans on achieving. Watch it - its not stupid.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Perfect (1985)
Neither perfect nor imperfect
1 January 2005
Many of the IMDb users considered this movie to be of no use spending time on - though i was thoroughly reluctant to watch it - i was glad i did - CAUSE I FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!! Well it was the 80's the time when compared to today, movies were not that great. Well with that in mind - i believe this movie is quite an accomplishment - i remember reading from one of the users of IMDb that this was a bomb, which almost ruined Travolta's career - but i really don't see why - well it is not brilliant - but it is FAR better than all the other razzie winning movies. Performances were not that great - Jamie Lee Curtis is very pretty - and as for John Travolta, he has a brush of Tony Maneiro and Danny Zuko in this character. Well though people may REALLY not want to watch it cause it has been considered as an underdog movie of the eightees era - those people can watch it just for the aerobic workouts - they really sizzle.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not that great - but worth for Dern's performance
27 December 2004
This movie seemed really good from all it's reviews and clips - however i must admit i was disappointed. The pace of this movie was slow - and it did not have a plot. Besides "Unfathfull" - this is the only movie i have seen on adultery - and when compared - this stands weak.

The performances can be given credit - especially Laura Dern's. That performance has got Oscar potential. Peter Krause gives almost identical performance due to the almost similar character in "Six Feet Under", Naomi Watts also gives a good performance, but because we have seen her playing these dark roles prior to this in "21 Grams" it looks all familiar. Mark Ruffalo - well i guess he is good in this movie - but i guess seeing him in "In the cut" and "You can count on me", makes his performance something more mature.

Well this is certainly not a movie that's good for movie night - i guess its just a critics movie. However Laura Dern is brilliant - and the Academy always gives room for the character of 'the dark wife' - like Marcia Gay Harden in "Mystic River." However - i guess for movie freaks - this should be a movie that should be checked out just for Dern's performance.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great work once again!!
18 December 2004
Sequels have always been classed as the underdog - especially for chick flicks - what more do you want after the first one? however this movie was an exception. While watching Renee reprise her role in this brilliant portrayal of Bridget Jones - you just cannot help wondering how much youv'e missed her. Renee Zellweger just sparkles - gives her another opportunity of earning another Oscar nomination. Here again we see all of the characters in the first movie - Bridget's friends and family. Though at a certain point, the movie seemed to deviate from its plot - it was all worth it because of Renne's performance. Great movie - and one of the best love stories this year.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed