©-DR- UNE AFFAIRE D'ETAT de Eric Vallette (2008) p2
08/11/2014 09:22 par tellurikwaves
©-DR- UNE AFFAIRE D'ETAT de Eric Vallette (2008) p2
08/11/2014 09:22 par tellurikwaves
André Dussollier : Victor Bornand
Élodie Navarre : Katryn
Denis Podalydès : Louis Flandin
La presse
Pour Première, il s'agit d'un "polar tendu et mouvementé"avec des rôles qui sont joués à la perfection par les acteurs."Après 10 min seulement du film, il s'est passé de quoi remplir un an de films français ordinaires": quelle énergie!
Le Figaro, quant à lui, pense qu'il s'inscrit dans"la lignée des polars ambitieux des années 70,avec l'aisance et l'aplomb des grands films américains."
«P***, quel film !»
Les scénaristes Franck Magnier et Alexandre Charlot ont la connaissance qu'il faut pour décrire les rouages de la politique avec un regard acide : ils ont en effet écrit six ans durant à la rédaction des Guignols de L'info. Le réalisateur du film Eric Valette y a d'ailleurs filmé nombre de leurs sketchs.
Cinéaste sous influence
Henri VerneuilCanicule - Yves BoissetPour Eric Valette, ce film s'inscrit dans la lignée des films protestataires à thématique politique des années 70, amplement inspirés de faits réels, style notamment illustré par Henri Verneuil ( I comme Icare) ou Yves Boisset ( Le Juge Fayard dit le Shériff)Le réalisateur déclare en effet avoir voulu réaliser «un film du même style que Mille milliards de dollars »; sa réalisation se voulant «du Boisset new look».
Du livre à l'écran
Le scénario est tiré du roman «Nos fantastiques années fric» de Dominique Manotti, paru en 2003. Écrit par une professeur d'histoire économique contemporaine, ce livre est à la fois un thriller et un portrait au vitriol de la corruption des sphères politiques durant les années Mitterand.
Tout le Ciné
Une affaire d'Etat pour Eric Valette
Décrit par son auteur comme un «western politique», un bon thriller dont les méchants, tous propres sur eux et bien nés, se fondent dans un monde politique bien vérolé.
Avec Maléfique, Eric Valette transforme un essai original où le surnaturel se mêle à l’univers carcéral. Original et audacieux dans le cadre d’un cinéma fantastique français surtout préoccupé de copier les Américains.Sept ans plus ans, non sans que nombre de ses projets aient échoué et qu’il ait tourné deux films fantastiques aux Etats-Unis ( One Missed Call et Hybrid), il aborde avec Une affaire d’Etat le thriller fortement teinté de politique.
Politique, corruption, réseau de prostitution de luxe, clientélisme, Françafrique, magouilles diverses et coups tordus au plus haut de l’état… Beau programme qui débute par l’explosion d’un avion chargé d’armes au-dessus du golfe de Guinée et la prise d’otage de ressortissants français par les rebelles africains. Trempe là-dedans un certain Victor Bornand ( André Dussollier), proche conseiller du président de la République et codirigeant d’une fondation visant au développement de l’Afrique.
Amant d’une Madame Claude ( Christine Boisson) fournissant des filles aux élites, il emploie aussi un ancien barbouze ( Thierry Frémont) qui élimine un photographe maître chanteur, tue accidentellement une call-girl qui trahit le secret « professionnel » et, piégé au domicile de sa première victime, abat un flic. Chargée de l’enquête, la partenaire du policier dézingué ( Rachida Brakni) mène l’enquête et, patiemment, remonte à la source…
Dans un style très années 70 qu’il revendique, Eric Valette illustre le scénario de Une affaire d’Etat à la manière de l Henri Verneuil de Mille milliards de dollars et de Yves Boisset et son Juge Fayard. C’est-à-dire très efficacement, sans gaspiller ses munitions en discours et palabres, tout entier au service d’un récit concis, clair malgré ses nombreux méandres et intervenants.
De Rachida Brakni (loin du cliché de la flic ethnique) à Thierry Frémont (que j'ai apprécié pour la première fois)en tueur entraîné dans une spirale qu’il ne contrôle plus à André Dussollier en crapule policée particulièrement à son aise sous les lambris de la république, les comédiens sont tous formidables, justes dans la sobriété de leur jeu.
*
Certains s’expliquent dans un bon making-of pédagogique de trente minutes qui commence sur le roman de Dominique Manotti et son adaptation et embrayent ensuite sur l’interprétation la réalisation, la photographie, la musique et le montage. En presque une heure et fort du témoignage d’hommes politiques (Michel Rocard en premier lieu), un excellent documentaire éclaire sur l’historique et les diverses implications (financières, géostratégiques…) de la Françafrique.
Par Marc Toullec (03/05/2010 à 10h00
©-DR- UNE AFFAIRE D'ETAT de Eric Vallette (2008)
08/11/2014 07:11 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR- UNE AFFAIRE D'ETAT de Eric Vallette (2008)
08/11/2014 07:11 par tellurikwaves
Nan...celui-ci est un très bon film...
meilleur selon moi que 99 % de la production U.S actuelle
en tout cas bien meilleur que le film mortellement ennuyeux,pondu
par Robert De Niro avec Matt Damon,traitant d'un sujet similaire
malheureusement je trouve très peu d'éléments pour étayer mes dires...
*
*
Une affaire d'État est un film français réalisé par Éric Valette en 2009.
Résumé
Un avion chargé d'armes explose au dessus du Golfe de Guinée. Une escort-girl est assassinée dans un parking parisien. Plusieurs milliers de kilomètres séparent ces deux événements et pourtant... Nora Chayd, inspectrice aux méthodes musclées, enquête sur le meurtre et bouscule sa hiérarchie.
Victor Bornand,Monsieur Afrique officieux du gouvernement tente d'étouffer la crise politique déclenchée par l'explosion. Quitte à avoir recours à son bras armé Michel Fernandez, un ancien des services de renseignements.Nora s'approche dangereusement des sphères du pouvoir. Les meurtres et trahisons s'accumulent. Au nom de la raison d'Etat ?
©-DR-Films nuisibles,craignos,ou juste chiants diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 12:24 par tellurikwaves
Déjà consacré bien trop de temps sur des mauvais films
(déjà en les regardant...parfois pas en entier...)
Voici la fin de la liste...
Plus envie d'aller à la pêche aux affiches et critiques négatives...
Pour moi tous les films qui suivent sont mauvais
Au fil des jours,j'ajouterai d'autres titres
On peut compter sur CANAL !!
*
*
CE QUE JE SAIS D'ELLE D'UN SIMPLE REGARD
LA TAUPE
ANNA KARENINE (avec Keyra Knightley)
CORONADO (2003)
FATAL GAMES -1991 (Wynona R/C;Slater)
TETE BRULEE (1996)
EVOLUTION (Duchovny -2001)
THE DUCHESS (Keyra Knightley & Ralph Fiennes)
MR BROOKS (Kevin Costner)
WANDA NEVADA (Peter Fonda & Brooke Shields)
LA MAISON DES OTAGES(Mickey Rourke)
ANGEL HEART
THE OFFENCE (Sean Connery)
30°COULEUR(2012)
CONTREBANDE
R'N'ROLL CIRCUS
©-DR-Films nuisibles diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 12:00 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR-Films nuisibles diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 12:00 par tellurikwaves
Bon çui là j'lai bien cherché 
*
*
About as much fun as passing a kidney stone
Author: mikerichards from Milton Keynes, Bucks, UK
28 November 2001
The veterans of the most terrible experiences are not boastful people, when asked about their recollections they might nod their head, swallow a gulp and say 'I don't want to talk about it.'Please understand when I say 'I don't want to talk about it.''Soldier' is quite possibly the worst movie in history, it sets new depths for bad plotting, excruciating acting and dreadful direction. Words alone cannot describe just how bad it is.Although NYYYYYYERRRGH! comes pretty close.
Whichever way you look at it (and I advise you not to look at it at all) this movie is capable of inflicting lasting psychological damage on the unprepared. If you want to be prepared for it try chloroform during the opening credits.This is a buttock-clenchingly terrible film. 'Soldier''s name should be mentioned in hushed tones whenever more than two movie fans are gathered together. It should serve as a reminder that even if 'Rocky IV' was loud, horribly fascistic and unwatchable; it was never *THIS* loud, horribly fascistic and unwatchable.
It is rumoured that if you play 'Soldier' backwards you get a good movie. This is not true, you just get an unfathomably bad movie - in reverse.
Do not watch this movie.
Do not be tempted to rent this movie.
Certainly do not buy this movie.
Even if its buy one - get one free.
Do not watch if you are a big fan of Kurt Russell.
*Especially* if you are a big fan of Kurt Russell.
Just one final question.
'Who do I sue first?'
This movie can't make up its mind. It's billed as an action flick, tries to get deep and sensitive... It's just plain stupid! I can't even begin to say how awful it is. I think Attack of the Killer Tomatoes had a better storyline! Your money would be better spent on buying a bottle of booze for an alcoholic. If you see this movie don't say I didn't warn you!
This movie sucked in the worst way possible. It borrows parts from other sci-fi movies and rearranges it in the most atrocious way. Granted, there were some good effects, but effects alone don't make a movie. The plot could've been plucked from some episode of one of the numerous sci-fi shows on TV. Come to think of it, Soldier should have been a made-for-TV movie. It sure as hell looked like one.
Avoid this stinker at all cost.
Anderson is the director of "Soldier." His previous films include "Event Horizon" and "Mortal Kombat." Based on those, and now especially on the incompetent, amateurish mess that is "Soldier," it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the first idea how to tell a story, or even how to make a good movie.
He wastes an interesting premise, from screenwriter David Webb Peoples (the writer of "Blade Runner" and "Unforgiven," the latter an Oscar-winner). He wastes a surprisingly effective performance by Kurt Russell, who does a remarkable job showing the human feeling awakening beneath the stoic, near-robotic surface of the trained-from-birth title character. (What he's doing in this turkey, we'll never know.) He wastes the talents of a highly experiences artistic and technical crew, all of whom of have done much better work in previous films.
He wastes them by making an inept and frequently even laughable grade-Z action snoozer. The plotting is clumsy, the subtext obvious -- and I don't know when I've seen a movie so clearly expensive that looks so cheap. Visually, it's like an ultra-low-budget made-for-cable flick, something on the level of a late-80's Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle you might see on Showtime at 3am. This cheap look is difficult to reconcile with the fact that they obviously spent gobs of money on the thing, but somehow Anderson pulls it off.
A big, stupid, post-Apocalyptic action movie is one of the easiest genres to pull off. "Waterworld" was bad, but at least it was marginally watchable. "Soldier" is absolutely awful, and Paul Anderson demonstrates he can't even do a brainless testosterone movie. Catch it when it shows up on MST3K in a couple of years, but for now, avoid, avoid, avoid.
All I can say is why did I spend six bucks to see this. The final scene induced nightmare visions of Ripley holding Newt in Aliens. Oh and by the way can you say MATTE PAINTINGS children why sure you can! Oh wait no you can't there is no dialogue in this movie.
Incredibly disappointing.
Some of the reviews, I read before going to the cinema compared Soldier to Blade Runner and Terminator. The only thing they really have in common is that they are set in the future and have emotionless heros. Soldier was filled with gratuitous violence, something I don't usually have a problem with when it has a purpose in the plot, but in this instance it was quite unnecessary.It was so bad that I walked out of the theatre half way through the movie, just as Kurt is about to defend the colony from the evil soldiers.
I'm not a Paul W.S. Anderson basher - that is, I think he's a generally poor director but I don't devote my life to criticizing him endlessly on Internet message boards - and I think he's at least handled the visual aspects of most of his movies quite well (hate it or not, "AvP" - which I didn't care for - was atmospherically in-touch with the other movies, and "Event Horizon" felt like an "Alien" sequel itself).But really. This movie is absolutely terrible. It's easily Paul's worst movie, which is saying quite a lot. I'm even a decent fan of Kurt Russell so for me to say his performance sucks beyond belief here would be like a Jim Carrey fan admitting Carrey is too over the top in his earlier comedies - it's not going to happen.
The movie basically rips off every futuristic/apocalyptic action movie you can think of, including "Alien," "Blade Runner," "The Terminator" and of course Kurt's "Escape from New York." The problem is there's no substance here.The direction is slipshod and lazy - the action scenes are boring and none of the characters stand out at all. The hero is a dull, emotionless waste of space who has one facial expression preserved throughout the movie: The Kurt Russell "Cold Stare." (tm) You'll know what I mean if you've seen a Kurt Russell movie before.
Anyway, if you're a Paul basher then you'll hate this. If you're not a Paul basher you'll still hate it. I don't have a problem with simplistic action movies - but at least make them ENTERTAINING! I was dead bored watching this.
Soldier is a gruesome story of a soldier who has been replaced by people who have been designed and shaped into being top class soldiers. The violence in this movie is horrific. There is so much violence in fact that the main character Kurt Russell has only about 5 words to say in the whole movie. I'm sure the script writer had a point to this story when writing it but it didn't transfer onto paper. Actually I would think that the script would be about a page long and the screenplay 1000 pages long. There's really nothing to it. After an hour of watching Soldier I was very very very restless and was contemplating quitting the movie, but I stayed and just became even more restless. My advice to the people who are thinking of watching Soldier, DON'T!!!!
This movie is so terrible, there's no one I can recommend it to. Kurt Russel is staring into nowhere for about the half of the movie, the script has no original dialogs or events.
I counted: Russel says 10 sentences in this tragic work. Mostly things like "Yes, sir!".
I gave it a 1 out of 10
This movie stinks!
I thought i had seen some bad movies, but this one tops my list. Everything about this movie is bad from the acting to the sets. On the paper it all seems like a good Sci-Fi movie, but belive me it's only on the paper. We have all seen it before: The single hero who gets rejected and takes revenge. Kurt Russell must have been in desperate need for money.
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 11:38 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 11:38 par tellurikwaves
Pour être tout à fait honnète je n'aime PAS Joachim Phoenix...
j'ai retenté...mais c'est la dernière fois
en plus le film est d'un chiant !
*
*
I Loathed This Movie
Author: PseudoFritz from sf
16 July 2009
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It's not uncommon for me to disagree with the critical and/or popular consensus concerning a given movie, but usually if I dislike a movie that other people admire I can at least recognize what they see in it. But for the life of me I can't read or hear anybody praising this movie as "romantic" or "sensitive" or "touching" without shouting "WHAT THE F*$% IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?" "Two Lovers" is hollow, false, manipulative trash. It trades on the (utterly FALSE) stereotype that depressed, uncommunicative, inert people are "deep" and "tormented" rather than "undermedicated."
Leonard is "artistic" simply because he uses black and white film in his camera? Please. His humiliating neglect of Sandra somehow leads to her saying "You're so kind to me"? You're f%$&*%$ kidding me. Michelle is damaged enough that yeah, she might get herself mixed up with a trainwreck like Leonard. Maybe the filmmakers intended to show us that Sandra was ALSO emotionally crippled, thus explaining why she turns all of his abuse and neglect into "he loves me!" (like Krazy Kat getting hit in the head with Ignatz's bricks, which she receives as kisses), but I missed it.
If Leonard's parents are so blind that they can't see that their son is a basket case, are Sandra's parents also so indifferent to the hell that their daughter will end up enduring, if she marries this man? When Sandra's father asks Leonard point blank "Are you a f#$%-up?", I wanted to shout at the screen "YES HE IS! You know that too, or else you wouldn't be asking!"The only way I could possibly consider this movie to be a success on any level is if I were told that the filmmakers INTENDED us to see Leonard as a monster, and that the audience is INTENDED to view the uncomprehending ignorance of this fact by everyone around him with revulsion.
There is absolutely no one to root for in this film, not even the girl who is supposedly in love with suicidal Leonard. You have to wonder what in the world is wrong with her to put up with the treatment that results from the senseless pickle her boyfriend has gotten himself into. It's frustrating to watch a film in which depression, stupidity, and ignorance are treated with so little insight. I walked away from the movie thinking that all the characters deserved a swift kick in the pants. Pathetic people behaving badly does not an artful film make. And there is not a funny or witty line uttered. Oh, there was one moment of sense in the film, although I am sure we were supposed to snicker cynically when the good girlfriend says she likes movies and Leonard asks her to name one; she says, "The Sound of Music." Too bad she didn't go watch it instead of taking up with loser Leonard.
This movie was so shallow and so predictable that half way thru I hoped Leanard would jump off the bridge again and finally succeed. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? He doesn't deserve the GOOD girl. He doesn't care about her and he spends so much of his time following the psycho around that you don't care what happens to either of them by the end. The only people I really felt for were his father and mother because he treated them with such disrespect. How immature, grow-up and take some responsibility for yourself. This is Typical Hollywood CRAP where the "ONLY ONE FOR ME" disses you so 2 minutes later you find your next TRUE love. There was so much wrong with this movie that if I started writing about it now Joaquin Phoenix would be old enough for REAL retirement before I would finish. Thank God this is his LAST Film.
If Juoaquin Phoenix wants to change to a rapper, it would probably be better for his career. This movie is easily the worst of the year, if not the decade. In a performance that is part Brando, partly incoherent gestures and mumbling throughout Phoenix is terrible. He shows no emotion other than a hang-dog personality and total depression. There is zero humor in the film. It was so boring I wanted to cry myself. His performance should be required watching in all film schools, as a sterling example of bad, bad acting. I urge you not to see or rent this film. Life is too precious to waste two hours on this monumental flop.
My wife and I despise G, Paltrow as an actress and especially her character.. She was herself, and I never for one minute believed she was a real live character. The music was no good either. As for Gray, he should be ashamed for himself, for such a bad effort. As for the plot I reveal no details because it was so illogical and full of giant loopholes that it worth mentioning if only to persuade you as another reason how bad this film was and is. A real stinker!!
It's one of the most thinly written movies I've seen recently. OK, we get it from the very start that Phoenix's character is depressed and tries to commit suicide. Then for the whole duration of the movie he's trying to act normal, trying to choose between one hot brunette, that's he doesn't love (but doesn't mind banging), and one hot blonde, he's mad about. We never know what are the reasons for his condition, and we don't know anything interesting about him or his two lovers. For the film that tries to be serious psychological drama it's pretty shallow and underwritten. And allusions to Dostoevsky that are dropped by the film-makers and picked up here on the Board are just an attempt to bring some weight and cultural baggage to otherwise vaporous script.
The primary male character, Leonard, played by Joaquin Phoenix is uninteresting and portrayed as a complete loser. That two intelligent, attractive women would show the slightest interest in such a hopeless loser is just unbelievable. Are we really meant to believe that these two women would fall head over heels for a grown man who is an idle assistant in his family's dry cleaning business and lives at home? Both at work and at his parent's home he behaves like a spoilt child. When I got to the scene here he is a car with three women on their way for a night out and I watched and listened to interminable singing and juvenile behaviour, I decided enough. If this film had more depth later on, then I wasn't prepared to watch the tedium to get there. What were these fine actors doing in something this bad? This film is tedious, unconvincing garbage.
I chose this movie because of its rating and good reviews. However, in the end I had to skip through it as it was so tortuous. Difficult to watch and difficult to understand why Jaochim is doing what he is doing. It wasn't funny and I don't feel it had the deep meaning that other reviews have alluded to.It could have been a lovely film - great acting but just a terrible story line. Apart from being lost, I cannot really understand the central character's behaviour.User reviews saying this is the film of the year or a deep artistic experience are just way of the mark for me.
I have been a die-hard Joachin fan since first seeing him in Clay Pigeons and I was disappointed to hear he had retired from acting. After this performance, I'm glad about his decision because it was clear he had no interest in performing. There was something off about him throughout the film. Drugs? Booze? Illness? I don't know, but something was way wrong. His timing was off; he had marbles in his mouth, there was no evidence of the intensity he's famous for...I could barely watch this train wreck.
As for Gwyneth, she did as much with the character as she could. I agree with other comments about Isabella--she was superb. But then she could add class to a Jello commercial. There was more than a fair amount of overacting by all the male characters and, with the Isabella exception, the female characters were flat. Both fathers and Gwyneth's married boyfriend played like caricatures. How did this movie achieve such high IMDb ratings?
An alternative title - The Three Women. That's the two lovers of the title plus the wonderfully understated role of Leonard's mother. Isabella Rosselini is a minor miracle playing her with the optimum mix of unfettered neurosis, love and ahead-of-the-curve understanding that immediately reconfigures the worth of the naive love that Leonard and the other two women have for one another.
If James Gray were able to work this in more, i.e. without the regulation marginalising of the role to simply offset the swing-and-roundabout romances, it might have been a fascinating film. Instead it ends up as a rather mono-dimensional record of Leonard's hapless management of an improbably fortuitous glut of attention and where that fits on his personal oy-vey-line of woe. The film opens with an abject suicide attempt, for goodness' sake; it is too much to overcome in the rest of a very sombre 100 mins. 3/10
With a silly storyline, two usually excellent actors sleep-walking through their roles, and an odd set of parents skulking through their home observing every move their psychotic son makes, this film seems written directed by someone who has no practical idea about how men and women flirt and seduce each other. I am growing weary of having dreariness, bleakness, and social awkwardness equated with depth and genius. Moreover, the happy parts didn't make me happy, the sad parts were dull, and the rest of it could have been better. Isabella Rossellini was great though, and cinematography was all right, Brighton Beach looking as grim as expected, so I'll give it a 3.
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 11:18 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 11:18 par tellurikwaves
J'aime bien Johnny Depp habituellement et j'aime bien Maria Bello...
encore faut-il un bon réalisateur ! J'ai détesté ce film
*
*
Boring & Completely Unimagined
Author: keithgate from United States
30 March 2004
I was dragged to this movie on a couples night out and the only other option in our one-screen theater in our little town was Starsky&Hutch, which only topped this movie because of the likable actors of Stiller and Wilson. Those that continue to sing the acting acclaim of someone like Johnny Depp are in my opinion either infatuated with him as the opposite sex or just simply uninformed about what "good acting" really looks like. Although I hadn't known ahead of time that this was from a Stephen King book, I had my interest peaked when I saw the opening credits.
It did not take long however to wonder why Stephen would let something like this movie end up bearing his name in anyway. I assume the book was better because it would not have had the distraction of watching Johnny Depp. I had leaned over to my wife after the first visit of John Shooter and told her that I wouldn't be surprised if his character didn't really exist. I had kept watching, waiting for the movie to get interesting, but unfortunately they must have run out of time in the movie to squeeze any of the interesting parts in. The movie was so completely predictable and borrowed from so many other good, original movies that I left thinking the producers owed money to lots of other producers of the movies they stole from.
Now before anyone chalks up my comments to someone that just doesn't like Johnny Depp, you would not be COMPLETELY wrong, but I did not dislike Pirates and actually kind of liked him in Sleepy Hollow and did enjoy him in Astronauts Wife...the movie was just BLAH. The only redeaming quality was the shooting of the scenes where he was talking to himself, seeing how far film making has come to be able to put the same person believeably in a scene is pretty neat.
Author: Randall Phillip (monstermonkeyhead@yahoo.com) from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
6 February 2005
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Anyone who cannot not guess who the killer is in the first thirty seconds of this movie must ride the special bus. The guy is freaking talking to himself! Who else could it be? I can't believe I wasted my time on this movie. I watched thinking, "No, him being the killer is just so stupid, it can't be true. Maybe there's some clever twist." Nope. I actually laughed out loud at the idiotic "shock" ending. Johnny Depp, after talking to himself, sees his wife's car pull up. Then all of a sudden his house is magically a mess and the word "shooter" is carved into everything- oh, except for one spot where Johnny Depp is standing where it says "shoot her." Dumb, dumb, dumb. I can hardly believe such garbage got made- especially with such good actors.
I have been groaning at the easily pleased comments here in the IMDb page about what constitutes a good thriller.......please, folks, surely so many of you must have seen a good film before, because this isn't one. Is this a spoiler? is it possible to spoil this film? I know that American Psycho, Identity, Fight Club and all those psycho others are in their respective heads so I guess it's Depp's turn. I believe he wanted to buy a holiday house so the $5m or so he was paid for this bumpkin bonkers fest would do nicely.
Michael Caine seems to make bad films for the same reason....and so seemingly does Geoffrey Rush...how else can anyone rationally explain why big name actors make silly little films like this ...I am assuming they have seen a nice house somewhere and want a quick easy way to buy it without spending the savings. How silly is John Turturro in this...like some bad Bugs Bunny cartoon character. I'll put as he would say it: "Yow stowle mah money".
Avoid this film. It's a nadir for talented actors Depp, Bello, and the rest. Stephen King's thoughtful tale of pressure and madness has a downbeat but appropriate ending. The film has taken that and turned into a sadistic, unbelievable slasher-trash movie. At times the climax is so bad it delves into gory camp. It's easy to understand why this loser tanked at the box office. Also, the plot twists and turns which worked in the novella are delivered in a ham-handed manner that strains the credulity of the viewer. The only positive for this flop is John Tuturro's creepy John Shooter, but he's not in the film long enough to matter.
Ok, I need to say first of all, Johnny Depp was porteyed the role well. There wasn't any poor acting. There was however a lack of a cohearant thought followed through. Just when there was a well thought out plott starting to happen it was like the screenwriter got tired and just ended it, mid-thought. I like when movies seem to be going in one direction but then end up somewhere else. But there needs to be some flow between the two. This was not the case here. It jumped from one thing to the next and the two weren't tied together. I know how hard it is to write but I also know how easy it is to decide that I don't like how it is going so I will change it and just leave it as is without any segway. Perhaps this was a case of, "there are no poor actors, just bad material for them to work with."
Author: stephanlimanmorocco from United States
15 September 2005
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I have to give this a 1! The Director, David Koepp, is the creator of a show entitled "Hack" How apropos. Mr. Koepp, you are not smarter than the audience. We are not morons. If you are this misanthropic, please pursue something in the non-service field! The concept of the writer creating demons THAT ARE REALLY HIM is the lamest cheesiest hackneyed idea that HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH. It is not "CLEVER". It is not WOW THAT IS SO TRIPPY. It is LAME AND LAZY.
Ever hear of Fight Club? Angel Heart? Fight Club was a stupid idea also - the ending being "oh it's all one person!" but at least that had a good first half. Then to mis-direct a great actor like John Turturro into playing a Southern-accented "bad guy" oooh spooky! makes it even worse. Wait, let me guess, is he playing the "mysterious stranger". Ooh, how mysterious. How stupid do you think audiences are? Actually judging by how high this movie is rated, you may get another movie made, Mr. Koepp. Please next time, imagine someone in your audience has a brain.
This movie is slow, unrealistic and most of all BORING !!! This has to be one of the 10 WORST movies I've ever seen in my life. Johnny Depp's character is so unlikeable, that after just 30 minutes I had grown tired of it. There are no sympathetic characters in this movie. With the exception of the Sheriff, all the characters are cold, and downright nasty. In addition, I was offended by the fact that the writers of the movie went out of their way to hide the fact that part of the movie is set in what is supposed to be an area of the Bronx known as Riverdale. They would not even acknowledge that Riverdale, NY is policed by the NYPD. Instead the detective from Riverdale, identifies himself as a member of the Riverdale police department... No such thing. I guess we couldn't be allowed to think that Johnny Depp could ever live in the Bronx. And what was with his weird accent??? This movie is a must NOT see !!!
A writer/director at his worst! Good actors gone awry. Those are the real secrets of "The Secret Window" After reading the script, with its ridiculous plot turns, Johnny Depp must have decided this was the one to just mug his way through -- and he did. The excellent Charles Dutton, Tim Hutton, Len Cariou (someone find better parts for this Broadway legend) couldn't produce a beliveable character among them. I think we know who to blame.
I promise not to tell the "secret" of this movie. Oh, heck, yes I will. It's perfectly awful! IMDB tells me I have to produce ten lines of text. That's easy: "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful! "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful! "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful! "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful!
©-DR- Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 10:44 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR- Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 10:44 par tellurikwaves
Ryan Reynolds ? plus jamais
(le 5 ou 6e film que je vois avec ce très mauvais acteur)
en plus ils commencent à me courir les ricains
avec leurs "super héros" !!!
*
*
Bloody terrible !
Author: janus-20 from United Kingdom
30 June 2011
I'm of a forgiving nature, especially when it comes to sci-fi, special effects driven, blockbuster movies. I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, i even enjoyed the last Indy movie, i gave G.I Joe a decent review....G.I Joe, yeah, that G.I Joe.I cant go easy on this film, because Warner Bros deserve this, they are currently at the bottom of a deep pit when it comes to what is arguably the most popular current genre at the summer box office, super hero movies.
Marvel are wiping the floor with them, Superman had muted return, yes the Batman films are superb, yes Warners/DC turn out fantastic animated movies. But this Green Latern movie was going to show they can do more than just Batman well, it was going to be, hopefully a step towards a Justice League movie, one day, a less well known DC superhero, introduced to the non geek public, to open the floodgates to the larger DC universe than just Superman and Batman.
Well with all that riding on it, if this is the best they can do, then don't bother. This was one whopping mess of a film, Batman and Robin made more sense and yes i really have considered that statement, its nearly two weeks since i saw the movie, so this is a considered opinion, not a knee jerk one in the heat of the moment.
The characters were characterless, they were'nt funny, engaging, sympathetic, there was no emotional resonance in their situations. eg When Hal returns to Earth, after his initial visit to Oa, the scenes just drag where we are urged to feel his sense of dissonance with himself at not excepting the challenge he has been presented with.
I felt nothing, no sympathy, no empathy, nothing, it was all intercut at this stage with the origin of the Hector Hammond character. The scenes of Hal moping, are set against the scenes with us finding out that Hammond, already a creepy, sullen character before his head swells, doesn't get on with Dad, who himself is grease ball politician.
Remember Spider-Man 2 where Alfred Molina's Doc Ock had a pathos to his story which created a sense of sympathy for him and how that made for such a layered and involving villain, none of that here thank you very much.
The entire "i hate you dad" routine is old, old hat, but something fresh or dramatic could have been made of it, but instead the "i'm sensitive and dad's overbearing" tentpole is hammered into the ground, aided by awful dialogue and choppy scene structure.
The editing (amazing considering it was Stuart Baird) in these middle scenes was staccato in tone and numbing, it earned no sympathy for either character and therefore sabotaged any hope of an emotional pay off at the end of the film.
Superman's first appearance on Earth in the Donner version had you cheering, as Superman saves our feisty, likable damsel in distress Lois Lane, from a nasty helicopter crash, in front of a diverse social cross section of the good people of Metropolis.
Green Lantern's first appearance on Earth leaves you cold, as he saves an already established grease ball politician, from a nasty helicopter crash, in front of a gathering of over-achievers and posh-knobs who frankly you couldn't give a tinkers cuss about.
My abiding memory of the entire Hammond sub-plot is Peter Sarsgaard holding his head in his hands and moaning, which is ironic as i joined him in this action at numerous points.Most unforgivable of all even the action scenes were flat and lifeless and when considering what Hal's character can do with his ring, thats just not acceptable.
On the up side, Oa was very impressive, there are some good effects and Ryan Reynolds and Mark Strong do their best to carry it off, but they are let down by other badly handled elements.Mum always said: "If you've got nothing good to say, say nothing at all!", and mum's usually right, but in this case it cost me £15, so sorry Mum, i'm speaking my Brains !!
This film was terrible. I could not believe they've picked Ryan Reynolds to play Green Lantern, he belongs in rom-coms. And that is what he almost turned this into, the comedy played far too big a part in this. What little faith I had in Reynolds as playing this role was shattered very quickly, he simply is not made for serious movies. Though this film isn't exactly serious, it isn't exactly a comedy either.
Mainly though, the story line was completely flawed. The whole thing just seemed like bits of 'filler' taken from other films and clumped together. Nothing was properly explained, like, why didn't the evil guy have a body? Why was he telekinetic if he didn't have a stupid ring? Why is fear yellow? Whenever they mentioned the yellow power of fear I felt like I was watching kids play with action figures making up a stupid story off the top of their heads. And the fact that all Green Lantern needed to do was say the 'vow' then become super powerful and cunning to kill this thing? Being a superhero movie I was hoping for more Earthly heroics. It was just ridiculous.
The whole immortal thing was stupid as well. Seemed again like they just couldn't come up with an idea, so they just thought 'ah whatever, a load of unoriginal aliens sat in really high seats at the top of a really high building who have infinite knowledge but then get proved wrong. That sound okay?'. There was just not enough detail to any aspect of this film.
There was genuinely nothing I enjoyed about this film, being a teenager lets me sort of enjoy a film if there's good fighting or action in it, even if I know the film is awful. Like 300. But this, simply offered me nothing. Absolutely awful. Save your money.
This is one of the worst superhero movie I've ever seen...
I had enough of the bad-a$$ attitude of the hero, the sad love story between the hero and his lover, experiencing the awesomeness after getting the power... haven't we all seen this in Spiderman or Superman??
The villain was shown like an idiot who is defeated by our hero in what was like a 2 minute climax(when all the experienced and smart Green Lanterns of the Universe fail to) And these Green Lanterns arrive after the hero defeats the villain, just like the Police in any Hollywood movie.The Special Effects was so stupid and childish, even a 3 year old would mock this movie.
Acting wise Peter Sarsgaard was good. Blake Lively was pretty. Ryan Reynolds carried one expression on his face in the entire movie, he almost made Twilight actors look Oscar worthy. Tim Robins was wasted in the movie. The other Green Lanterns were hardly present.
If you want to save yourself from anger and frustration, then please avoid this movie. The critics were right to mock this movie..this movie maybe for hardcore comic fans.. Rest all watch Kung Fu Panda 2 or Hangover 2 again....
Ryan Reynolds as an all-American superhero could've worked if it wasn't for the terrible script and useless attempts to charm the audience with goofy humor and stereotype lines. If you're really into the comics world, you might give this movie a chance... otherwise, STAY CLEAR! It's not worth spending 150 minutes of your time on such utter crap. The acting is not the worst, but the storyline and all the cliché makes it hard to watch. You'll find yourself waiting for the end, or wanting to fall asleep. It might just make "the worst movie of the year". A total disappointment for any superhero-movie-lover, and especially for those who don't even love this genre.
This is the 4th. superhero movie this year {Green Hornet, X Men, Thor,so far-not including Captain America and the worst. Total dud misfires from the first frame. A cocky test pilot-whose father was killed in an aircraft crash somehow gets to be a guardian of the universe after a strange green light shines on him. Next thing you know, he has to defend the world from bad evildoers who are much more interesting than the title character. Ryan Reynolds is fairly likable but he seems more appropriate in a show like "Glee" rather than in the title role.
Although he tries his one dimensional character really shows no depth, even in the scenes with his lover. The CGI effects are standard issue, and you've probably seen them a million times before. The trouble with this movie is that its just sooooo ordinary. There is absolutely nothing in it to lift it above a less than mediocre level, and the story line can be somewhat hard to follow. Before my review gets pulled due to "abuse", heed my advice and avoid the multiplex showing this disaster. Yes, I know its supposed to be based on a comic book, but even comic books can sometimes show some character development, intelligence, and try to portray their stories in a more realistic and believable way.
Unfortunately, this film does not. It will just get lost in the shuffle of superhero overkill and fade from the scene after it predictably makes a fortune on its first weekend. It will be on DVD by summer's end. If you must see it, wait until then. Not worth your time or money, but don't be too surprised if the producers try to "franchise" it and milk it for all its worth. A sad fact in todays Hollywood. The fans claim that the critics killed this film , but thats only partially true. It committed suicide just being made.However, this movie could have been much, much worse-it could have had Jennifer Aniston in it.If that was the case, I would have given it a zero star rating!
this film is the most unthoughtful dreary and horrific piece of illogical nonsense, nothing makes sense , it looks like something they are trying to bribe you with .... we know its crap so we will stick lots of these special effects that look awful to win you over..... well you didn't ..it was terrible, the only people that seem to like this are comic book fans who always start with i read this comic 20 years ago - IRRELEVANCE ! just because there is a comic book about the green lantern doesn't make the film any better or save it in any way ... its a disaster zone no where near a 6 whoever gave it that are dreaming it isn't worth a single mark ! Director should be hanging himself for this film.... did the people involve actually sit in a premier and say wow yeaa that was great ! fools
OK to start with, i am a big comic fan and Ryan Reynolds is one of my all time favorite actors. So i thought i would love this film. But it sucked big time. There was so much wrong with it i just don't know where to start. The CGI in it was not very well done. The bad guys where awful. The story just dragged on. It felt like it was 4 hours long and i was even thinking of walking out. I feel done that i payed to see this. How can they make a movie this bad when X-Men First Class was well First Class. Please save your money and wait for the DVD. That way after you have watched it, you can use it as a drinks coaster.
Not hard to figure out that this movie probably took a bath at the box office. Poor story line and the expected stupidity from an "average Joe" finding out he has super powers. I know its all based off of a comic book superhero, but I found this movie to be too "cartoony". Which is very unfortunate, considering they could have really knocked it out of the park. And at the end...they left it open for a sequel with how Synestro came to be....Sorry guys, I highly doubt there will be a sequel. I seriously question whether this movie even made enough money to cover the cost of the actors in it. Clearly, anyone that watches this movie will be able to tell that the actors in it have been out of work for some time. My advice to Ryan Reynolds...if they do make a sequel...pass on the part. This part made him look like a goof!
I watched this last night on "pay per view;" or rather I should say, stopped watching this, at 30 minutes into it, actually. This is one of those films where I am in agreement with critics who trashed it. Ryan Reynolds was "acting" (and I use that term very loosely here)as if he had ingested a few Valium pills. He sleep walked through his scenes, delivering his lines as if he didn't care.
There was no sense of dramatic timing and I found Reynolds' character's transformation into the Green Lantern to be devoid of any semblance of wonder and fun. I couldn't help but compare his bland discovery of his super powers (i.e. enhanced strength and the ability to fly) with Toby McGuire's acting in Spiderman, where he discovers his super powers with a mixture of awe, joy, confusion and even awkwardness. If I am going to watch a badly made movie, at least let it be something so wretchedly bad that watching it gives me nasty, visceral pleasure in jeering at its badness; i.e. something like Battlefield Earth or Show Girls.
Green Lantern, on the other hand, is not one of those "it's so bad, it's good" in a nasty kind of way films. I can't believe this thing grossed over $200 million at the box office. It just shows the power of mass marketing, I guess, in our dumbed down, media saturated society.
this movie has to be the worst of the comic book stories presented in a movie form. Ryan Reynolds is a great actor and I am bit baffled as to why he would even consider doing a film as such, He went from acting with A -list star like Sandra Bullock to non competent actress like Blake who? lively? she was not at all lively, sorry this actress cannot act, she doesn't posses the star like quality like scarlet Johansson, Sandra bullock has, Blake lively is another reason why this movie shocked me, an actress that will beg and go out of her way to get a role that's not up to her level which eventually fail and that was the only thing she has ever convinced me thus far. Bad actress who loves all the wrong attention. the only thing good about this movie is the color green. hopefully no sequel to this movie. Terrible actress with an OK genre made the movie extremely dissatisfying...
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 10:27 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 10:27 par tellurikwaves
Titre français: Un jour peut être
Je l'ai regardé pour Abigael Breslin parceque lui...
*
*
My word this movie is bad.
Author: pipbeale from United Kingdom
26 December 2009
Oh My! this was a waste of time. Although I think the acting is fine, the direction fine etc what really is the point of this film? It is not funny, I cared for none of the characters, there is no drama and it moves so slowly.
I honestly wanted to stop the DVD but i persisted, I wish i had not.With all the flash back stuff as well and everyone looked exactly the same age, not 20 years younger! man, im going to get my mates to watch this.Definitely one of the worst films ever, maybe the worst of all time.
I thought better of Rachel Weiss as well, and although Isla Fisher is cute and I think has a nice rom-com future in front of her, i wish they had both stayed well clear of this work!
Don't waste your time seeing this movie. Its plot is far-fetched - what 10-year-old wants to know the seamy story of her father's love life as he's in the midst of divorcing her mother? Does this writer know any children? The premise is slimy.The acting is embarrassingly awful. Everyone reprises roles they've done elsewhere, except for Kevin Kline. How did he end up in this movie?And, worst of all, this movie is too long.
I noticed it was written by Albert Brooks. I have not enjoyed anything he's done since "Broadcast News" (I think that was the name -- it had an excellent Holly Hunter in it). Wait -- "Mother" also had a few good scenes.
Anyway, Albert's creative days are over. He should have been put out to pasture years ago.
...and the kid's a total caricature.
What child, watching her parents get painfully divorced, would say something like, "Daddy, I just want you to be happy" !??!?? Sure, wreck my life, scar me emotionally and mentally, ruin my faith in the future and in any kind of security. I just want you to be happy. Sacrifice my life for yours. OH WAIT. That's what PARENTS are supposed to do for their children.
Watching this guy try to live his life without any guiding principles, how repulsive. So much worse than those tragic police chases of the disoriented older and no longer safe driver who somehow took the wrong exit and is now traveling into traffic in the wrong lane of the highway. Wrecking innocent lives left and right. But don't worry about other people. Just do what feels right. Follow your heart. It doesn't matter how you screw up your own life, or anyone else's.
Right and wrong exist independently of what people think or believe. You know it in your soul the way you know red is a color, and "this many" is a number. No matter how many people you get to tell you that you're OK, you're doing the right thing, the feeling of wrongness will never, ever go away. The continual need, even demands, for affirmation and acceptance of these damaging actions and lifestyles demonstrate the truth. No words put into a child actress' mouth will make it better. It is one more lie into a never satisfied void. Only the truth will set you free.
This movie was a disgusting train wreck, a farce. Stay home with a copy of "The Death of the Grown-Up" by Diana West, and be afraid. Be very afraid.
Author: Spaceygirl (melanie.diesel@bbraun.co.za) from Johannesburg, South Africa
18 August 2008
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Awful, awful, awful!!!! NOT my choice, I have to stress. I don't DO rom-coms, and now I know why. With a thoroughly unlikeable main character and weak and clichéd female leads, "Definitely, maybe' sucks! The only high point of this turkey is Kevin Kline. I think Mr Kline thought he was in another movie altogether! He shines in all his scenes, which are few and far between. Isla Fisher and Rachel Weisz struggle vainly with their pathetic characters and bad lines but with sparse characterisation one is unable to empathise with either of them. Ryan Reynolds is incapable of putting in any kind of performance. Yes, he's pretty, but hello! He CANNOT act!!!!!!! His character is so unlikeable, I'm surprised he managed to pull ANY kind of girl, let alone the quality women who seemed to fall for him. The script is laughably predictable and Miss Breslin, though good, is also clichéd and the ending is pure shmaltz. Please Hollywood, stop insulting us with this tripe.
I was simultaneously stunned and relieved while watching this movie. While, it's an ugly reminder of America's (and in particular, New York's) decline in morality. It's an open testament and reminder to the loose morals of the modern-day Democratic Party and its most ardent followers - which is a very good and timely reminder to Americans as we're going to have to choose our next President very soon.
Much of the movie gravitates around Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and how young supporters adulated and followed him in New York that year, particularly the character played by Ryan Reynolds. What is a bit amazing is how blunt and biased this movie is in its liberal political proclivities. It's so pro-Democrat that they even had old Bill Clinton himself run by towards the end of the film. And one of the movie's 'heroines' worked for the laughably liberal 'Amnesty International'. Republicans are made to look stupid, albeit subtly.
But most importantly, especially in light of John Edwards' recent adultery scandal, this movie is an ironic reminder of how the Democrats will lead us nowhere nationally. Even the Ryan Reynolds character in this film got disillusioned by Clinton. George W. Bush is briefly lampooned at one point in this film but whatever his shortcomings, we didn't have to put up with a bunch of blatant moral failings like Clinton. If you're conservative, take note of how the liberals don't even care filling a poor little girl's head (played by Abigail Breslin) with a bunch of rubbish about messed up relationships. That struck me as bad taste.
A divorced parent's fantasy
I saw this story as some sort of divorced parent's fantasy. If you could just sit your 9 year old daughter down for a couple hours and explain how "complicated" adult life and relationships are, surely she would understand why you and mommy divorced. This includes telling your daughter about sleeping with other women, boozing, smoking, etc.
Of course, your child would suddenly understand and accept that daddy wants to put his penis in another woman other than mommy (note the first 10 minutes of the movie the little girl talks continuously about how a man "thrusts his penis into a woman's vagina", as she has just learned sex ed at school and can't stop talking about it. Funny? Not really).
Not only would your daughter understand you, but she would INSIST that you hook back up with that hottie from your younger days and drag you to her house (instead of dreaming that you get back together with mommy so your family is intact).
Yeah, right, dream on. Keep telling yourself that's what your daughter would do. And oh yeah, your little girl also won't have any problems hearing that her mom had a lesbian relationship with another one of your lays from your younger days, and slept with your roommate to boot. Naw...it's all good. She'll understand.
Seriously, pass on this one. It's also heavily pro-Democrat, as the lead character spends the 90's working for Bill Clinton. At least at the end, even this shallow, self-absorbed character is disgusted at Slick Willie's inability to tell the truth, even though his loser friends about brag about how they would vote for him again in a heatbeat.
And that's the ONLY reason I'm rating it a 2. It's the only redeeming message in this mess.
This was one of the worst movies I have seen. The beginning made me laugh a little. But after the first hour, it felt like the whole movie was repeating itself. And it was so clichéd me and my friends were yelling at the At the T.V. When I saw the commercials I thought the movie might have more of Abagail Breslin. But it showed her in 2 scenes for a total of five minutes. This movie was like the writer was writing the script, and then went in a coma and continued it with a different plot! (comedy/drama) which is boring. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. Don't waste your time with this movie, If you want to Abagail Breslin, go see Little Miss Sunshine
Let me qualify that. If you loved 27 Dresses or Dan in Real Life, you'll like this movie. It has the same contrived feel, the same "no one would ever say this stuff in real life" dialog, the same chemistry-free pairings. Within 10 minutes of watching this mess, I was bored and annoyed.
The acting was horrible--though kudos to Isla Fisher for giving it her all under the circumstances, I loved that "Marisa Tomei" kind of quality she had--but how can you really "ding" actors when the scripts they are given are so lame? Reynolds--who I suspect couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, let alone this pile of pooh--admittedly had dialog that no man should have to say. Note to writers of "romantic comedies": Men are not women. Most of them do not talk like women. We do not want to hear them talking like women. (Also, were RR's eyebrows shaped? Because that was just a bit too "metrosexual" for my taste.)
Even Abigail Breslin, the little girl, pretty much phoned it in. There was a scene where she flops onto her tummy in bed, pouting, and suddenly she kicks her feet a bit--not in a natural "I'm having a tantrum" way, but more like she was thinking, "Oh, wait, it would be a good touch if I kicked my feet here."
There is no character development in the movie. Everyone is extremely superficial, annoyingly so. Some events make no sense. (Why did Will get fired for one faux pas in an industry riddled with scandal? And just what all happened, job-wise, between "then" and "now"?)Timing is deliberately kept fuzzy. It's hard to tell how much time has passed. (For example, Will looks about the same to me at the start of Clinton's campaign as he does at the end of the film.)
If you can find a scintilla of originality in this movie, let me know.For example, we get the usual "I want to see your face first thing when I wake up in the morning and last thing at night" spiel at one point.Then we get the done-to-death scene where the female friend tells male protagonist (who's about to propose to another woman) to practice proposing on *her* first, and as he gets to the "I love you" part, his voice trickles off and they stare into each other's eyes for just a moment. And you just know where this is all going...
Why do I torture myself with this dreck?
I liked the lead character played nicely by Ryan Reynolds in the beginning of the film and the premise had a certain appeal. Having not seen a good romantic comedy in a long while I thought I'd give it a chance. But when April entered the scene it went straight downhill. It's really hard to root for your hero or leading man when the 'obvious' from the start winner of his love and affection is a cold, nasty, self consumed and snide, neo-conservative witch. Yes. April truly is a girl you can hate. As my mother use to say when I was a boy.
'Beware of women with thin lips.' If only she had lost some of that snide, quick to judge attitude by the end of the picture. If only April changed in some endearing way, maybe showed some inkling of compassion and social responsibility by wearing an Eco shirt or something to demonstrate the expansion of her heart and mind. That would have helped. But there was no arc at all in this picture. Not even for the lead character, Will. In fact I liked him better in the beginning of the picture than I did in the end before he turned into a subservient mushball to Ms. Razor lips.
When the movie began he had passion, dreams and ideals. By the end of the story we see a lonely hearted cynical Will shaking his head with self righteous disapproval at Bill Clinton all because he doesn't stop in the middle of his run to speak to him after Will calls out, "I worked on your 92 campaign." We're suppose to assume that the president would actually jog go over and sit on a park bench to chat with Will? Invite him to lunch? Please get real. A quick wave is about all you can expect from anybody in his position, especially in the middle of a run. Check out Holiday for a good romantic comedy with characters you can actually care about.
The previews made me think this is a comedy. But I laughed a little bit, and then the laughs just quit coming has the movie went on. It's like this movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be, a comedy or a drama. And what happened to Ryan Reynolds here, He managed to save two bad movies from extermination, with his comic timing, and his playful wittiness, and the films I'm talking about are Blade:Trinity(2004), and Waiting(2005), which would not be memorable if not for him, but he just did not have it this time around, it appears for this film, he just quit trying to be impressive.
He plays Will Hayes, a thirty something political consultant, who's going through a divorce, one day decides to tell his 11 year old daughter(played with such charm by Abigail Breslin) on his life, and how he met her mother. Has it goes through the 90's. And it goes through 3 possibilities, Rachel Weisz, Elizabeth Banks, and lsla Fisher. But I grew weary has the journey went on, It really became too predicable . I left this film feeling depressed, and annoyed. Although moments between Reynolds and Breslin are sweet, and the three actress's do alright also. Other then that this has nothing else to go on.
©-DR-Films nuisibles diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 09:44 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR-Films nuisibles diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 09:44 par tellurikwaves
7,6/ 10 pour ce...cette...à tous ceux qui ont aîmé : Mépris cordial !
c'est à cause de spectateurs comme vous
que l'on continue à faire ces films
Il repasse aujourd'hui
*
*
What a waste of time
Author: steventot from Slovakia
8 June 2013
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After seeing all the good reviews on this movie I was expecting something really great. But it ended all too bad in the end. The movie is just too "stupid" . Some minor spoilers ahead , be warned! Why would ever a special commando unit go to a window when there are shots fired? Why would a specially trained commando unit go and cry on his dead friend to wake up and leave the suspect unguarded? Why would a spec ops leave his gun on the floor if he is surrounded by enemies ?
And so many other questions came to my mind during watching this. It was like every scene had something badly done. In one scene enemies open a door on one floor while the whole building is filled with wooden walls , injured spec ops screams like little kid from pain , but heck the enemy is def and cannot hear him screaming so they start to search (while being few meters from the screaming guy).Few minutes after he screams painfully again but the movie shows that the whole floor hears it.Why are there so many unbelievable stupid moments in this movie ?
I understand its an action movie , but it should have at least some real elements to be believable. To me this was like a "commando from the playground" . The plot is nonexistent and the whole movie is filled with fighting scenes so unnatural and unbelievable that I wonder what the other reviewers actually saw !? Some ppl might complain that Expendables is the same , yes in unbelievable action moments , true , but it has some kind of humor and the whole is more like a comedy .While this movies tries to be dead serious. The only thing laughable ,is the sea of cliché and silly moments. The special effects are so unreal as well. If you shoot someone in the eye with a sniper rifle , the body will fly away and decimating the head.In this movie the victim just stands still , leans forward then drops on floor like he was shot with a freaking paint-ball gun. Awful , and wish I had never seen this garbage.
I saw the ratings on IMDb for this movie which was 7.8, and I was really expecting a great movie since 7.8 is a pretty high rating. However, things turn out a little weird since the beginning of the movie. A SWAT squad just goes out for an unofficial mission to wipe out a whole building that has a reputation of being a killing floor? WTF??!? and everyone in the squad is equipped with a M16/M4 for an in-door mission? Does the director even know what SWAT stands for? The plot is so terrible that I can go watch a porn and say it had a good plot.
The action was a little entertaining at the start of the movie, but it gets boring every minute as the movie goes on. How the gangsters fight with the main character is just ridiculous. Did they all go to the same gym to learn how to fight? This is just a Ong-Bak rip off with the worst story ever.
This movie is one of those 'one-dimensional films'. Devastating plot, too much fight scenes, worst directing. I wanted to give a 0 but 1 was the lowest rating.
To begin with, I can't believe those high rating and reviews, specially that one who wrote the best action film he's ever seen (clearly he has not seen anything). This movie has a lot of problems, specially when they make a retard special force team, i get that the story was that they get wiped out, but they looked so terrible, dying in every stupid way. I have seen plenty of military tactic movies, if you think that was good, i feel sorry for you. Also about the fighting style,
I learned that was Indonesian Pencak Silat, but it was rather slow and predictable moves, nothing like old school Hong Kong martial art movies that comes with a variable of fighting style. One of the final scene when they face Mad Dog, he was UNKILLABLE, at one point I got bored and can't believe all the critical hit he took and he kept going, the fight got too long and lost its sense, it should have ended at one point when he got a tube stuck to his jugular, I mean, come on! Losing blood like that and he kept fighting like nothing?
I normally don't write a review but I had to here because I can't believe all those people with the high rating.. I watched all the old school martial art movies, specially 70,80,90's Hong Kong Kung fu movies and all the other military tactical films, this one just gave me a face-palm.
OVERrated in all aspects... If you are looking for INDONESIAN VIOLATED ACTION or COMPUTER GAMEISH MOVIES, then this is your flick. The rest of this production is below every level, story is really the poorest ever, and all the performances are below any level. It's a shame that so many people rated this movie far beyond reasonable figures. The script is so thin and predictable. No other actor with Hollywood fame could have bring this production to a higher level. I love you all no matter you all gonna hate me because of my review. Another proof that ratings are very personally and sometimes dubious. But real movie fans are gonna watch all they meet on their path of moving images and are reading all reviews, starting with the lowest rated comments...
As I only suffered through the first 45 minutes of this film, it's not really fair for me to write a review. But I just wanted to warn others out there who may be like me - people who have a medium tolerance for violence - that this is one of the most horrifically violent movies I've ever seen the first 45 minutes of. I have walked out of 3 movies in my life. This is the 3rd.
If you love non-stop action, little dialog and a plot that does not really matter, this movie is for you. If you need a plot to justify the violence, this is NOT a movie for you.
I heard from my friends who stuck it out that I missed 2 pretty awesome martial arts sequences, and I was disappointed about that. But the constant (and I do mean constant - balls to the wall- one killing spree to the next with virtually no interlude) explicit and no holds barred violence was too much for this viewer.
Please don't rent this movie.
Save yourself a BIG disappointment.
I rented this movie because it has so many high ratings.
I don't know why everyone else rates this so high.
The first part of the movie is very good and interesting, but that is just the first 15/20 minutes.
The rest of the movie is just a very BAD joke. Exaggerated and with bad actors.
It's the same old bad movie, where the "bad guy" just won't die!
Please rent any other movie, besides this bad comedy.
Save yourself a BIG disappointment.
I rented this movie because it has so many high ratings.
I don't know why everyone else rates this so high.
The first part of the movie is very good and interesting, but that is just the first 15/20 minutes.
The rest of the movie is just a very BAD joke. Exaggerated and with bad actors.
It's the same old bad movie, where the "bad guy" just won't die!
Please rent any other movie, besides this bad comedy.
Leon, Golden eye, Matrix, Kill Bill..those was great action movies. This one is a real waste of time. No plot. No dialogs. Only unrealistic - power rangers stile - karate scenes. **No real spoilers there since there is no plot but just to be sure..** A SWAT team (which is totally unprofessional ,feels nothing about tactics, have no radio communication, NO equipment (flash grenades ,night vision,shields etc) but they seem every last one of them is karate specialist and can handle pretty well an axe and a sword) enters a building (unknown reason) which is full of thugs (about 200 people , every one of them it seems to be a karate specialist or something and every one is more than happy to kill himshelf attacking a swat team with a knife or a sword ) and then a masicure comes. 30 minutes of gunfight (every thug in the building has his own assault rifle ) and for the next one hour no one seems to has firepower (not even the police) and uses his fighting skills and axes and knifes and swords to fight. That's all. Nothing more in this move.
From the outset, characters talk in their local tongue, followed by English subtitles at the bottom of the screen. these disappear so fast that I struggled to keep up with conversations at some points.Admittedly there was around 15 minutes of total speech, but the conversations were so boring that you got tired of it after a few seconds!The fighting skills were superb admittedly, however there is such a thing as too much of a good thing! At one stage you see 2 main characters fighting mad dog. At a rough guess they should've broken his legs, arms and several other limbs around 20 times... each! But he kept getting back up. This was a little too much for me.
I couldn't help but think they put a plot in after finding a lot of martial artists wanting to make a movie about beating each other several shades of blue.Overall very disappointed, don't waste your money unless you like movies such as the house of flying daggers. See Battleship instead, better action and a better plot!
One of the worst movie I have ever seen. Please don't rely on IMDb rating for this movie.I guess the makers of this movie has spent huge money on making false positive review to increase the rating.Wasted 2 hours in my life.Story line is pathetic. The wrong people shooting police in the public and still no one questions them, Isn't this impractical. This movie is thus another kids play, but the makers call it "Best Action movie" , What a good joke. This movie is another junk in the name of action movie.My personal advice is not to waste your time, Instead watching this movie you can jut relax back at home.Don't get cheated by looking at the IMDb's high rating for this movie.
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 09:22 par tellurikwaves
-
©-DR-Films craignos diffusés sur cANAL
07/11/2014 09:22 par tellurikwaves
7.1 / 10 pour cette daube !!!?...ça repasse aujourd'hui
*
*
over-rated piece of cheese.
Author: redsweater from Denmark
27 June 2003
lately i've seen nothing but references to The Ring everywhere i go. people talk about it when they speak about their feelings and dreams, as if this movie were something thought-provoking and not just a crap of cheese. honestly, i've never seen something so cheesy in my life. the original wasn't the most fantastic thing in the box, but at least it wasn't too pathetic, over-acted and trying to be more high brow than the story is.
This is the only movie (other than Dreamcatcher) in which I wished all of the bad stuff that was happening to the characters was happening to me instead. It is amazing how poorly this movie is executed. It's rare that a movie can make Air Bud and Baby Geniuses seem like Oscars material, but The Ring does the job.
It has to be understood as an offense to any savvy viewer who caught the Japanese version of the movie, 'Ringu'.
I am aware of the fact that US crowds do not go for movies that do not cast large-breasted blonde psychotic women, but this is a little far-fetched for this story. The movie is meant to be solely based on psychology thrills and brain scare. The American version of the movie does not help in this at all, as all goes into the image and the special effects. Event he plot has to be altered and worsened: the little boy becomes a depressed child with a 6th sense who calls his mom by her first name.
Anyhow, you may go for the American remake if you are the kind to be scared by movies with subtitles. However, if you were delivered with a brain and some artistic sense, you'll go for 'Ringu'.
Ok, this movie is like too bad to even rate. Father of the adopted girl was reading his lines as he gave his big speach, YOU CAN even see his eyes darting back and forth over the cue cards instead of looking at the other person.
The clips seemed to be outtakes or sophmoric effort of film school 15 min shorts. We had the blood / drain scene, the pulling of a finger nail from a well, the lit tree on a hil and water pooling on the floor.
Needless to say the parts they stole from other movies says it all. BAD BAD BAD
wasnt even scary and typical ending. Just a sad movie over all and I wasted 4 bucks. Where is my RMA on this tripe
Absolutely unbelievable more and nothing really creepy about it at all just a bunch of psychobabble about some those running around terrorizing found it more of a sleeper film than anything horror involved. Its almost like the writers were stretching for a plot and couldn't quite grasp how to draw the viewer into it including me. After about 30 min of this film I really found the only horrific part about it was it wasn't over yet. Even the draw up to find out the reasoning for the terror occurring was more of a huge disappointment a complete waste of time. This film was more of a one time watch and never again I have better things to do then waste my time with garbage like this again.
I had such high expectations for this movie. I guess the moviemakers did not share my expectations. Don't get me wrong, the music, photography, directing and some of the acting (the heroine's) are good. I just don't get why they didn't do more with the story. Now of course it is a remake, but the original must have been better than this! Let me be more to the point. The story is absolutely awful. It makes you think that all these clues are going to add up to something. It could have been really clever.
But about 15 minutes into the movie the clues have become so absurd that there is no chance for the villain to be anything else than a ghost. How original. Now here's the really dissatisfying part. All those clues you were paying close attention to? They don't mean diddly squat! They really don't lead to anything. You could have taken all the clues, changed them completely into some other clues, tacked on the ending, and it would have been just as good a fit. The simple truth is that it's just some mean monster terrorizing and killing people. And all those clues that could have at least revealed a tragic motivation for this disgruntled ghost's vengeance end up being utterly vain: the monster is just evil.
That's all there is to it. It came up from who knows where, always has wanted to hurt people, and always will. That's why none of what I said is really a spoiler. If the clues meant something, then telling you about them would reveal the ending. But this ending might as well have been put at the beginning, because all going through the middle is just a waste of time. The movie is a scare machine. It is mechanical, cold, and shallow, filled with mere fluff. A string of one cheap thrill after another. If you like this kind of movie, it would be cheaper and just as satisfying to go have yourself electrocuted (gently, of course -- as the movie shows, you can die from electric shock).
This film is just an embarrassment.
Naomi Watts I couldn't care less about, but Brian Cox? Brian, really, WHAT were you doing in this? Were you that hard up for cash?
I need to clear up some nomenclature. The original - i.e., the real film - is NOT called 'Ringu', somebody made that up. As far as any direct translation into English goes, it is simply called 'Ring', not 'The Ring', just 'Ring'.
The original is a terrifying masterpiece.
This film is just a mess.
And then, and THEN, not content with trying to remake one film that could not possibly be remade, they tried again with DARK WATER. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? There is no way, NO WAY AT ALL, that Dark Water could ever have been remade.
And the same goes for Ring.
See the real film, the Japanese one. If you can't cope with films with subtitles, consider getting an education, or moving to a country with an actually functioning social system that will GIVE you an education.
Movie Review for The Ring By MaxD
Roger Ebert said of the movie Pearl Harbor, that is was 'a two hour movie crammed into three.' I mention that only because Gore Verbinski, director of The Ring, performs a trick of time manipulation similar in scope and power. He manages to make two hours seem like four. Essentially he has crafted a test of human mental endurance: How long can a mind be subjected to the insanely boring?
The Ring tells the tail of a cursed videotape that kills who ever watches it precisely seven days post viewing. Whoever watches the tape gets a phone call right after the tape ends. A whispery voice, says 'Seven days.' (It is interesting that every one who gets this call knows that it means they have only seven days to live. No one ever thinks to ask, 'Seven Days what? Who is this?). Our heroes are a divorced single-mother of a withdrawnchild-professional-journalist-torn between her career and motherhood-type, a withdrawn child who draws weird pictures and is mildly psychic, and the slacker-video expert ex-husband.
The journalist is put on the case by a grieving sister confused by the mysterious circumstances of her daughter's death. 'You ask questions its what you do.' Says the grieving sister to the journalist. Great. From there on we know that at the very least the journalist and the withdrawn boy-who draws eerie premonitory pictures will see the tape. That much does not shock us. What is shocking is the fact that no one takes the news, 'seven days', too hard. We might expect this from the journalist, she is used to working with deadlines, but what about the kid? Or how about the slacker ex-husband? In fact no one really gets too worked up about it at all.
The Ring begins much the same way Scream, a superior movie to be sure, did, with one minor variation. Instead of one young teenage girl alone in a big house out in the middle of nowhere, there are two. Actually there are other variations in this scene. For instance, Verbinski opted to substitute snappy dialogue with the utterly banal. He also managed to remove any tension or malice from the opening scene or any scene. We, the audience, are never scared, we are never made to jump, and we never, ever care.
What is on the cursed tape? It is supposed be like someone's nightmare. However it is full of images that are not as menacing, disturbing or scary as they could be. I will not bore you with the details I wish the film had not bored me with them. Actually I will bore you with one detail. Embedded in the images are the all clues an enterprising journalist with a mildly psychic son, and a video expert ex-husband need to unravel the motives, and origin of the malevolent force behind the tape. The son however is no help at all. While he is obviously in contact with the malevolent force, and could provide some valuable information to the other heroes, he is a cliché.
He is the disturbed boy who voices his deeper revelations through cryptic drawings. This means that to the rest of the cast he will only speak in sentence fragments, nods and grunts while trying hard to look mysterious and somewhat beyond.
The mistake Gore Verbinski makes, well the most important one anyway, was to think he had a film more important than he really did. At the heart of this film is a Friday night teen horror flick. He misses this and instead tries to make a film that is deeper, and more mysterious. He cannot do this because he is, after all, working the script he was given. The result is a ponderous film, that tries to beat into you, with clichéd shot after clichéd shot (the film uses every cinematic convention in the horror filmmaker's arsenal), that it is a film with depth and originality. On top of that he steals from truly engaging suspense/horror films: Psycho, Halloween, The Exorcist, Scream, The Sixth Sense. I am sure I am missing others, but I hope you will not fault me their omission. After all, about 20 minutes before the film was to roll the blessed credits, I had pulled out my cell phone and began playing brick attack.
I went to this film prepared to be spooked, but was very disappointed! It was campy and a cheap rip-off of all the other horror movies I've ever seen. Its weak attempt at fear falls flat. It had obviously lifted elements of The Others, The Sixth Sense, Blair Witch Project, and believe it or not The Invasion of the Body Snatchers; but still did not come anywhere near matching their expertise. This film is without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Pathetic waste of time. 2 very, very short scenes slightly disturbing, but absolutely Not Scary. A wanna-be Poltergeist, Sixth-Sense, Urban Legends, film with NO originality. High expectations Zero results!!What exactly did the damn RING have anything to do with this garbage film? I wouldnt even recommend anyone rent this crap.