Très mauvais film...mm pour les enfants

09/09/2014 10:48 par tellurikwaves

*

*

Wasting Time

Author: villard from United States
30 March 2002
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is just the latest in a string of terribly disappointing Hollywood remakes that fall flat on their face despite extravagant special effects.

What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination. Why so totally rewrite such a wonderful sci-fi classic? Are today's movie audiences too hip for the H.G. Wells writing largely as is? The 1960 George Pal version told a much more endearing story, even with clunky low-budget effects, beach-party looking Eloi, and Morlocks that looked like Smurfs on steroids.

The 2002 version must have H.G Wells turning in his grave:

1. The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi cliché. This totally distracts from the love affair with Mara (what happened to Weena?!) that made the 1960 version so endearing. This sets an unfortunate and distractive tone early on that makes the whole movie dour. If Guy Pearce's character was so brilliant either he or his buddy Einstein would have realized the time paradox dilemma – not have it dawn on him 800,000 yrs in the future – from a Morlock no less, Doh!! What's wrong with time-traveling just for fun & adventure & curiosity -- as embodied in the 1960 version?

2. Only if you saw the first movie would you realize at all what Pearce was doing with the time machine when you first see it. The George Pal film carefully explains the whole weird idea of 'travel' though a 4th dimension.

3. The director goes out of his way to make Pearce's character look geeky, a worn out old stereotype of scientists. In the 1960 version Rod Taylor was a little nerdy too (at least around Weena) but managed to be swashbuckling, playful and charming.

4. Among the key themes of the 60's version -- abandoned in the remake -- is the idea that endless war leads to the bifurcation of humanity. Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy. For over 4 billion years the Moon has suffered vastly more powerful asteroid impacts, which would make any nuclear device look like a firecracker. Yes, science fiction needs artistic license, but this is just plain dumb and meaningless.

5. Destroying the time machine is stupid too. Apparently our time traveler invented the neutron bomb to power this thing. Blowing up the machine to kill Morlocks is sort of a cop-out 'machina ex machina' Disappointingly, Pearce never comes back to the 1800s to tell his tale to his incredulous friends, a key part of the Wells story with the irony that in a week the time travels goes into the far future and back.

6. Having Morlocks running around in the daytime totally ruins H.G. Wells' wonderfully spooky, ghoulish portrayal of them as shadowy creatures of the night. A true cinematic opportunity lost. Also, Wells depicted the Eloi as frail and childlike. These guys in the movie looked like they could take on Morlocks, if they weren't such big baby wusses.

7. The one smart Morlock – kind of a bleached-out Star Wars Evil Emperor -- had potential, but is so lame and aloof he tells Pearce to take his machine and go home ?! Boy, what a dramatic high point! In the book the Morlocks steal the machine because they are so fascinated by it, and fight to keep it.

8. The goof ball hologram at the N.Y. Public Library is too much. It makes light of the idea of human cannibalism. the 1960 version simply had the "talking rings" that delivered a chillingly somber eulogy for humankind. Derailed evolution is serious stuff.

Its sad the wonderful effects in this movie can never make up for a weary contrived clunker of a script. Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.

89 out of 172 people found the following review useful:

Simon Wells Spits on his Grandpa's Grave

Author: Sten from Takoma Park, MD
29 July 2003

H.G. Wells is spinning. No doubt about it.

Really, this would have been a decent sci-fi/adventure movie, if it hadn't been based on a classic novel and directed by the author's grandson. I kept hearing about how this would be the definitive version of the novel. What resulted was a pathetic and simpleminded bastardization.

The novel is a great sci-fi story but what a lot of people miss when they read it (probably because they read it when they're very young) is that it's overflowing with social commentary. The Eloi and Morlocks are a satire of the class distinctions of Victorian England, and the overall message of the film is that EVERYTHING DECAYS AND DEGENERATES, a satiric jab at Victorian complacency and their belief that their civilization would last forever. There's no love story, no romance with a beautiful Eloi woman....in the novel, the Eloi are 3-foot-tall childlike beings with a mental capacity not far above that of an animal. The Time Traveler does befriend an Eloi woman but it's clear he thinks of her more like a pet, and anyway she's killed before the novel ends.

This movie first tries to give us a totally stupid backstory as to "why he wants to travel through time." The treacly romance and the Lessons He Must Learn are enough to make film fans vomit.

The journey into the future is punctuated by a future disaster. OK, not bad, but it would have had more punch if we had been allowed to see that mankind just generally degenerates, as in the book. More a reflection of the times, I guess, as the George Pal version had a nuclear war take place.

The general story? Ugh. A total misrepresentation of the novel. The Eloi are too competent and warlike. The Morlocks are too intelligent. The UberMorlock is an embarrassment, and there's no setup. He just shows up in time to be killed. Yawn.

Samantha Mumba does OK. Guy Pearce is one of my favorites but he often seems confused and in pain. (Reportedly he broke a rib while filming this.) He also looks unhealthy and overly thin, as if he had been ill for a long time before making this.

A sad, sorry film version of one of the world's classics. H. G. Wells deserves better....MUCH better.
 

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

H. G. Wails

Author: Andrew Jerome from Australia
5 May 2011

You have to stop and wonder how a film that was made 42 years before this one, based on the same book and with less dazzling special effects can be better than this one! The secrets of time travel will have been discovered, indulged in and rejected as boring before I see this spectacular disappointment and colossal waste of...time again. It's a listless, plodding, mumble of a film that gets so bogged down in special effects that it never comes close to capturing the adventurous spirit of the classic H.G. Wells story. The good news is that this journey might span 800,000 years, but it will only suck 90 minutes out of your life.

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

homogenized nonsense

Author: cinedream from Los Angeles, Atlanta
29 March 2002

After reading the novel which is about a one hour read, watching this film became a sad disappointing experience. Just as he did in prince of Egypt simon wells somehow managed to direct a script that took away all the drama and mystery out of its source material and turned it into this homogenized nonsense. Now I'm a sucker for cheese and camp but this movie made absolutely no sense. There was no joy in any of the performances or any humor. There were no thrills and that silly bookend with addy's character of filby throwing his hat in the air was the last hackwriting straw. I felt very violated when this movie was over and I still refuse to believe it was only 90 minutes it went on forever. I wondered how the studio and director could have OK'd such a lousy script but then my friend pitched the movie to me exactly as It was and I said wow that sounds great but what happened to the movie.

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

H.G. Wells must be turning in his grave

Author: rustik2 from United States
7 April 2008

If you have read the book, this movie is true to just about .. 0 aspects of the book. The only similarities between this movie and the book are that the future humanoids are called Eloi and Morloks, and there is a time machine. That's where it ends.

If you are watching this movie hoping for a faithful representation of the book on the big screen you will definitely be disappointed. I have not seen the 1960s version, but I have no doubt that it could not possibly be worse than this piece of garbage.

**May Contain Spoilers after this**

It is easier to count the number of things that it has in common with the book than the number of discrepancies. Here are some things that I was completely ticked off about:

1) The whole love-affair, driving him to go back into the past - It never happened.

2) He never went to the mid 2000's in the book. That was just made-up for the movie.

3) The Eloi can speak English. (WTF??) 4) The Eloi live on these odd structures that jut from the sides of cliffs overlooking a river. The book described them as living in marble palaces, in a lush, green, lightly hilly area.

5) There is no Sphinx-like structure.

6) There is no green palace. Instead, he re-discovers the museum he saw in the mid-2000s, and all of the electronics are miraculously still working fine after 800,000 some-odd years.

7) Instead of coming to his own conclusions about the societal structure of the future-world, the computer guy from the museum simply explains it all.

8) There is no Weena.

9) The Eloi and the Morloks are dark-skinned, not pale-skinned like they are in the book.

10) The time traveller's impression of the Eloi as being fairly stupid is never evident. They are in fact portrayed as just a tribal people.

The list goes on. There are only a couple of things that actually come close to representing the true story as laid down by H.G. Wells.

If you have read the book, I strongly urge you not to watch this garbage. And if you have not read the book, and you have seen or will soon see this movie, please - read the book. If H.G. Wells were alive today, he would never have let this absolute piece of garbage be published.

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Somebody call an EDITOR!!! Interminable.

Author: Oak Owl from San Francisco Bay Area
28 November 2005

It's a Time Machine all right. It runs in "real time" for 96 minutes but it felt like 96 years. The first 20 minutes were utterly superfluous. Massive amounts of "dead" time throughout. What happened? When will something happen? Who cares? Apparently the film was made on a tight budget, I note for your edification the following: The Morlochs: nothing like saving a little money by reusing the sets and costumes from Lord of the Rings part I, hey? The "scary dude" in charge of controlling the Morlochs... The scariest thing these guys could think of was somebody wearing one of Gene Simmons: (of the band Kiss) old costumes??? Little-known fact: freaks of the future have perfectly manicured nails.

Save your money, save your time. Pass on this one.

21 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

Go read the book people! It's good for your brain.

Author: kate-brender from United States
29 March 2008

Worst. Movie. Ever. I can't believe they had to hire Jeremy Irons to give this piece of crap some credibility - and still failed. Did they think that if they stuck to the plot of the book that their target audience wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own? (probably). "Hey, let's make lots of things explode and give Mina big boobs, and have her speak in an adorably fake broken English. That'll make the morons watch." "But sir, that's not how the book went at all, I think we're mot being faithful to Mr. Wells' message." "F*ck it, we're going to the box office here, never mind some dead author's ideas on human nature. Also, let's add in Orlando Jones with some classic 'Black attitude' as a supporting character, and never mind the interesting conclusion to the book - Guy Pierce has to get some p*ssy at the end."

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

What an awful adaptation of a great classic

Author: TheKrimsonKing from United States
28 June 2008

This movie is a disgrace. How can you take one of the greatest science fiction stories of all time and turn it into some kind of half-assed love story. The entire beginning of the movie was not in the H.G. Wells story and didn't need to be. Also the Eloi were done completely wrong. They did build houses or form any kind of real society. They didn't care about each other at all. That was an important part of the story. The way they had formed a world that was without hardship or complex emotions. They were barely even aware of the Morlocks. I don't know why this movie was made the way it was but some stories should be told as they are or left alone.

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Time Wasted

Author: John Frame (johnvframe@yahoo.com) from Brisbane, Australia
26 March 2002

Quite simply a very poor effort compared to the original (with the superior lead performance by fellow Australian Rod Taylor and tastefully kitsch effects).

Guy Pearce is really annoying as a slack-jawed ninny for the first part of the film. But this must have been just what the director wanted - or it would never have made the final cut.

The story line is tragically laughable - a significant part of our preview audience even laughed out loud as a woman was run down by a runaway carriage. I had to agree with them.

Jeremy Irons will be haunted to his grave for accepting his role and most of the audience will be haunted by the thought of the million and one other things they could have been doing with this part of their lives.

The only consolation is that it's comparatively short.

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Don't waste your Money!

Author: Greg from Hartford, CT
22 March 2002

Ok, Basically, this movie was a grave disappointment. The movie lacked any concept of plot or moral. We went in, and simply waited for it to end... there was nothing gained by seeing it. It had a good premise, and a phenomenal budget to spend on special effects, but the movie overall was completely lacking substance. Despite some entertaining action sequences, and of course, the big Hollywood effects, there was nothing keeping me in the story. As shown in the trailer, there is nothing to inspire you to see what happens. It could have been more emotional and it could have been more consistent. The movie is an abomination of the original text, and an overall waste of time.

Glauque,déprimant,...inutile !

09/09/2014 05:59 par tellurikwaves

Titre "français" (sic) DARKWORLD

*

Self indulgent arty rubbish

Author: dan-is-grate from United Kingdom
13 May 2009
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So the British public pays their money with the billions-to-one-chance of winning the National Lottery, and with shavings of that money, certain projects are funded. This film-students' masturbatory aid is one of them.

I really hope none of my entries to the lottery were used and were either won by a convicted rapist or used to build an opera house for millionaires to drink champagne in, because frankly, this film is and represents everything I hate about "modern" cinema.

Character-wise, we have a faux-suicidal "artist" who is merely a spoilt rich Londoner with mummy and daddy issues who rebels by playing "pill race" (taking an overdose then phoning an ambulance to see which one wins) on camera. As she consistently survives this, she submits the tapes as coursework at university.

Next, we have an unbearably wet, lovesick male lead who constantly whines about some girl who left him. Were he to display a little more indignation and admirable qualities we might have the slightest sympathy.

Then, we have the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder soldier character who provides the only watchable screen-time as his Rorschach rip-off in the "parallel universe" Meanwhile City. The opening 5-10 minutes are entirely in Meanwhile City which means they are the only watchable minutes before the (SPOILER ALERT) "it's all in his head" plot starts to become apparent.

In "Fight Club" it wasn't original. It just about worked because it was so tongue in cheek, but by "The Machinist", it is such a rubbish twist.

Honestly, what is it about British cinema? Why can we turn out nothing but arty rubbish, Pride and Prejudice clones or kitchen sink council estate films?

Those in film colleges and universities will have infinite fun picking its semiotics and themes apart and scoffing at poor people for not knowing what mise-en-scene means, but personally, I'd avoid this one.

I'm just glad my ticket was free, but if my lottery money was used to fund the film, I am genuinely sorry for being a part of bringing this abhorrent film into the world.

7 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

My eyes still hurt

Author: personal2004 from United Kingdom
24 April 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have been reading IMDb's comments for years now. Oddly enough I usually don't agree with most bad comments on a movie. We deal with one of the rare exceptions here. This movie, along with whomever believes that incoherent, uninteresting stories about deranged, suicidal and utterly boring individuals, is good...should be committed immediately. I mean come on, how dumb do the film-makers believe the audience is?! When the movie began I was actually excited (the views of Meanwhile City are just perfect), but after 20 minutes (yes I lasted that long) I wanted to stuff my eyes with popcorn and stab myself with a cola bottle.

The story telling was...bleh (no other word came in mind). The actual content was, utter rubbish to say the least. The ending...I mean who the hell would believe those people met there on purpose? I swear, if I was able I would have shot them all myself.

Save your time, your braincells and your dignity and avoid this at all costs.

7 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Simply... This is just... Awful.

Author: midnyghtravyn
13 September 2009

This is probably one of the worst films I've ever seen. It offers no surprises to the viewer and by the end of it it left me wondering why I'd bothered watching it throughout. But I must admit that I was hoping, at some level, that it would be better. The characters are bleak and poorly played and I was left with an uneasy feeling of wishing them dead for the better part of the movie. Ryan Phillippe is the only actor in this movie that tried to make an effort. Even poor Bernad Hill, who proved himself as a worthy Theoden in LotR, showed little promise of a great actor in this half baked weirdness pie. And Eva Green played her usual harrowed eyed, junkie looking self in this film as she does in everything else. But apart from the script, the casting, the acting and the poor directing, the thing that really REALLY lets this film down is the substandard cgi. Finally, I will say that I admire the vision, and I can sense what director/writer Gerald McMorrow was aiming for, but he couldn't quite reach the finish line. I can't honestly recommend this movie to anyone.

0 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Dark, depressing, rubbish!!

Author: haddesah from South Africa
21 May 2012

Dark, depressing, boring, psychological CR_P!! Goths and weirdo's will love it! Cannot believe the British spent money on this drivel!! Got half way thru and turned it OFF!! I would rather watch paint dry! Its absolute nonsense and makes no sense whatsoever! I nearly wanted to take a razor and slice my own wrists.... for goodness sake it seems like a whole bunch of people were on Valium and Prozac when they came up with this...put your money into making something interesting, as I know the Brits can, but many times they are producing some incredible dark and depressing and vulgar rubbish!! And I'm not wasting my time on any more on a review for it.... its a complete flop!!

30 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

Oh dear god.......

Author: species from United Kingdom
27 February 2009

This is one of those movies that Film Students will love, spending hours trying to decode the "hidden complexities of the story", in order to reveal the "true message of the director" (it's an attempt to make themselves feel superior to non-film students); well let me save normal people the trouble.. and use the quote "sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar" - or to put it another way "it is was it is". There's a fine line between creativity and rubbish, and this in my view is sadly the latter. Imagine you've got a faulty TV & it keeps switching every 30 seconds between Buffy and Casualty, and you get some idea of what you are in for. To be fair though, if the directors aim was to make the audience feel the same kind of despair and loss of will to live that the protagonist suffered from, then he certainly scored on this point. I certainly don't think I was the only person who tried to revert in to some kind of fantasy world, in order to try and escape from the present. There were yawns and giggles rippling through the cinema during the movie - not a good sign, and a guy walked past and said to me; "what the hell was that all about" - so no, it's not just my view I'm expressing here. It's actually left me wondering if the lottery film board paid for two different movies - neither of which they could afford to finish, so meshed the two together to make a whole one.

If you're looking for something creative and interesting, go see "push", or better yet, go rent V for Vendetta.

Just an additional note to the person who said "grow up" - YOU grow up and realise that not everyone in the world will like the same movies you do, and they have the same right to express their option as you do!!

16 out of 64 people found the following review useful:

Worst film I've seen since EDEN LAKE.

Author: joannaplestor from United Kingdom
4 March 2009

Saw this today and thought it was sophomoric, pretentious, incoherent, drivel. It is incredibly predictable and then the way the characters supposedly link together is a complete lie. There is NO connection! How did this get £6 million? It is baffling when the dialogue is unintentionally amusing, everything Ryan Phillipe says in his deep Clint Eastwood voice sounds like the man from the film trailer voice-overs. Some of the things he says are priceless. People at the screening I saw were laughing every time he opened his mouth. His mask looks like a pair of old Y fronts with you know what smeared on them. And that in a nutshell is my review! Oh and there is also an actually very disturbing, irresponsible subplot about suicide as art which is in very poor taste. Avoid!

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Franklyn falls short, not very clever, very misleading.

Author: patwgiles from United States
30 March 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Billed as having a story from parallel worlds that collide. Not so, the utterly fantastic (and I believe should have been a film on it's own) world of Meanwhile City resides solely in the heavily delusional mind of the "central" character. The characters Milo and Emilia have almost no bearing on the films core story, they only become relevant near the end when they become "innocent bystanders" in the single-sided pseudo-conflict between the characters David and his father Peter.

I believe that if Franklyn had been a story of two parallel worlds that crossed paths, and not simply a real world and a delusional world, then it could have been a truly great film.

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

A movie with a grand finale...

Author: trans_mauro from Brazil
6 July 2009

that fizzles like wet firework!

Oh boy! Franklyn is boring, beyond boring. As many other reviewers have already written, the film tells the of apparently unconnected four persons living in London, three in the present and one in the future.

In the film we learn at, a snail's pace, the story of these characters, which are totally and completely uninteresting. But, out of curiosity, I decided to watch (or should I say endure) the film until its anticlimactic end to learn how and why the lives of these four poor souls are connected. And it was a bust!

It is interesting what people consider art these days. As long as something is tortuous, tedious and unimaginative it is considered a masterpiece! Franklyn is another big waste of time. Next time I will go out and watch grass grow for two hours. It is more fun and rewarding.

9 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

worst movie I've seen this year

Author: mindrip from Romania
23 April 2009

It is not what you'd think it is if you see the trailer.

I am the kind of guy that enjoys both action and smart movies, even if they're not combined at all. I can also appreciate a good story, even if it's badly acted or with poor special effects.

In this movie the acting is great and the picture quality is awesome, but as a movie... an epic fail.

By the half of the movie, about 15% of the people in the theater left and at that point I realized I was still waiting for it to "begin".

To make the long story short, the movie is terrible, unoriginal and extremely boring.

Don't waste your money and time on this.

57 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

Nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is

Author: Neil Welch from United Kingdom
24 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's not fair to criticise just for the sake of it, but it's not possible to state my criticisms without spoilering the movie big-time. So if you don't want to read spoilers, stop here.

We have four seemingly unconnected story threads. One concerns a man called Preest (Ryan Phillippe) wearing a full-face hood in a dystopic alternative reality place called Meanwhile City, where he expects to carry out an assassination. The second concerns Esser (Bernard Hill), travelling from Cambridge to London in search of his son. The third concerns Emilia (Eva Green), carrying out suicide attempts as a kind of performance art project. The fourth involves Milo (Sam Riley), moping around with all sorts of personal problems following his wedding not taking place. These threads limp slowly onwards with nothing much happening until the two-thirds mark at which point we finally begin to find stuff out (spoilers start here). We discover that Preest is actually Esser's son, that he is a mentally disturbed serviceman who has escaped from a mental hospital, killing someone as he did so, and that Meanwhile City is nothing but a highly detailed delusion. And we discover that Milo has had an imaginary friend Sally since childhood who helps him through bad times: played by Eva Green in a bad red wig, she has now put in a reappearance. Things come to a conclusion when Preest invades Emilia's flat in order to carry out the assassination of his father (who is someone else in Preest's fantasy) in the restaurant across the road. Preest shoots and wounds Milo (who has accepted that fantasy Sally doesn't really exist) and blows himself up in Emilia's flat. Emilia (who, of course, looks like Sally, what with Eva Green playing both of them) and Milo, both wounded (both physically and psychologically, see, I got that) stumble into each other's arms, the end.

I have no problem with movies which present narratives in fantasy and real worlds, where the former can be explained by reference to the latter (Wizard of Oz, A Matter of Life and Death etc.). Neither do I have a problem with stories where seemingly disconnected threads twine together by the conclusion - after all, if you track back any incident in real life to origin points in the lives of participants, then take those as individual starting points, you will end up with something which looks like coincidence.

My problems came from something rather more fundamental. Number one, the four stories simply weren't very good. For much of the film I found myself thinking "When these threads finally make contact with each other, the payoff had better be spectacular if it's going to justify sitting through this tedium." Well, the payoff was distressingly inadequate.

Number two, while I don't have any problem with coincidence per se, I do like my coincidences to be credible. The denouement here required three certifiable nutjobs (schizo soldier, suicidal art student, full-on imaginary befriender) to wind up in the same place at the same time for no reason other than coincidence. Pull the other one, do.

Number three, you could have removed Milo's thread completely and it would have had no effect on the rest of the movie. That shows how completely inconsequential it was in terms of narrative importance.

Heaven knows I'm not a very demanding film-goer - I'm easily pleased, and have thoroughly enjoyed movies which have come in for some heavy duty criticism. But I do like to be entertained and I don't like being bored. This film bored me and failed to entertain me and left me feeling distinctly unsatisfied. I got the impression that the film thought it was a great deal cleverer than I thought it was. I encourage potential viewers to read Will Wright's criticisms - a well-reasoned critique from someone who knows what he's talking about.

Bernard Hill was excellent: his character was boring. Eva Green was excellent: her character Emilia wasn't boring (Sally was, though). She was sexy and deeply worrying - she can be very scary. She was much more scary than Ryan Phillippe who left no impression on me at all. Neither did Sam Riley.

Oh, and who or what is Franklyn? I know Bernard Hill queried seeing the name on some document or other (with no explanation or clarification), but did I miss it being mentioned elsewhere?

Glauque

09/09/2014 05:43 par tellurikwaves

This has to be a joke....(a 5 user resume)

Author: TzoTang from England
5 July 2007
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Unbelievable what I read about this movie! I don't have one single positive comment to make about it since during the entire movie I only contemplated whether to leave or see it through hoping to see it turn for the better and at least get my money's worth.

What a bore. What a lack of suspense. What an inane script. What a poor plot, it leads nowhere. The story totally fails to unravel, it is poorly acted, especially by Clair Hope Ashity who puts in an abysmal amateur performance and Julianne Moore who is just an add on to attract some viewers but more than clearly fails to impress during her way too brief appearance. The Human Project is mentioned continuously during the movie and comes up as a boat named Tomorrow? Please! Give us a break!

You would think that somewhere in the process of writing, directing, and producing this unmitigated disaster of a film, someone would have paused and said "eh...guys....what 'TF' are we doing here exactly?". The characters have absolutely zero depth, the setting is more artificial than a Borg cube, and the storyline....well, I'm still trying to figure out what the storyline WAS, exactly.

Things not explained in this movie include: the title, The Human Project, the infertility, the reason for the treatment of the immigrants, what happened to the rest of the world, why Julianne Moore is offed by the Fishes, what the Fishes actually DO to help immigrants (other than kill every native they encounter???), how the Fishes believe that having the baby will save THEM (not just provide hope for humanity), why the army wouldn't immediately take the mother and child into custody rather than letting them stroll through a gun battle, why they wouldn't have gone worldwide public with the news of a pregnancy or birth to begin with, given the celebrity of the youngest person on earth, and I could go on and on and on. If this is the thought-provoking side of this film everyone is talking about then I think I just wet my pants. That's not thought provoking, it's…plain stupidity?

And the lack of logic in the movie is just stupendous.Starting with their "silent" escape from the farm, when they were opening and closing car doors and trunks with enormous noise 5 meters from their captors. And ending with the unreasonably hopeful mood of the terrible 'ending', despite the absolute uselessness of having one accidental baby for the restoration of the world. Sweet lord, some of you reviewers are seriously disparate for a hopeful state of mind, aren't you.

This is the third movie I recently saw based on high ratings and claims of superb acting, story, directing and cinematography and have been utterly disappointed with. We all know that there will be film companies out there writing their own rave reviews, but I'm beginning to question if there are not now rave review factories fixing the movie ratings on IMDb. Just as is done with internet search engines. I simply don't believe that a movie can get such great reviews and then turn out to be so blatantly poor.

228 out of 408 people found the following review useful:

Derisory story poorly executed, pretentious rubbish.

Author: Gorgon Zola from Belgium
7 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A good day to all.

Children of Men was not a good movie and although the subject matter logically has a mass appeal which has probably lead to the incredible high rating, I'd really wish people would quit voting purely on the entertainment aspect. Needless to say, a movie should score highly on a variety of aspects if it is to be anywhere near the level of a true top-250 film.

I really enjoyed e.g. Spielberg's War of the worlds, again because of the subject matter. But that is not to say that that is a great movie either. Great it truly is not, even though Spielberg did a much better job directing it and the cinematography and the acting can't even be compared to that of Children of Men.

Children of Men has an absurd premise. In stead of depicting a world where human fertility has dropped significantly resulting in chaos, we are to swallow that 'over night' women stopped giving birth period (did the aliens from Worlds finally get it right this time?) and that the only country which can deal with this is Great Britain partially due to the introduction of a nazi-like regime. Why the rest of the world failed to do so is never explained just like everything else which is thought up as the storyline progressed.

The story which is served is equally as absurd as the premise. In a nutshell we are to believe that the birth of a single baby doesn't sound the dawn of a new age but in stead will lead to scientists implementing what 'naturally' happened to this horribly acted Kee on a global scale? This to further the idea that despite the self-destructive nature of humans we are still in control of our fate? Or the proof of the existence of God since it wouldn't be possible for ordinary people to stroll through a warzone with a freshly born child being shot at with endless rounds of amo and survive? Again, this is not explained in the movie, narratives were absent much like any memorable acting, the cameo of Caine aside.

The baby being born into the childless world has no real enemies, only the opposite. Yet it is being hauled through a warzone on a tip by a stoned and aging hippie whose purpose in life is to have his fart-finger pulled, in order to reach a certain group of people who's intentions remain completely vague throughout the entire film? Sigh, how utterly stupid. In 2027 there are only two boats left? One in a warzone and one owned by the 'Human project'? Sounds more like a video game to me, hardly like the story of top-rated movie.

No plot development, no character depth, serious low-budget-feel cinematography and a script without any poignancy. Nothing in this movie that would make it worthy of its high ranking. Totally out of place action-shooter war-scenes and the cheap Hollywood appeal on the senses which initially seemed to be left out, magically appears (alongside the terrorist cell) during the urban shoot-out and henceforth during the so called ending of this movie. The boat being called 'The Tomorrow' came straight out of the Shallowwood textbook and made me bite my teeth till they finally broke off one by one.

The poorly developed chase story which CoM basically is, is just too one-dimensional and frankly just straight out flimsy and it got boring fast. And it is so filled with implausibilities that even the greatest mathematicians of our present world will not be able to count them all.

This movie could have been much much more if its back-story had been fleshed out to some degree and its storyline aspiring to be more than just covering a bunch of people constantly traveling from one dreary set to the next. Preferably with one or two strong and discerning messages (and not a score of them which are never explored and certainly had nothing to do with the actual storyline, making it the pretentious twaddle it truly became) and performed by actors worthy of playing next to Caine.

An unarguably over-hyped piece of pretentious rubbish. Simply a vehicle for art-director Lubezki to play around with his camera and editing-room and for Cuaron to bludgeon the audience with disjointed references to contemporary issues with no tale to tell. A typical product of the headline-society we've become with on par appreciation.

154 out of 265 people found the following review useful:

Waiting for a story which is just not there

Author: Vozzywuzzy from Earth
27 June 2007

Watching Children of Men was a really odd experience. Expecting at least something above average, all I got was something almost amateuristic.

I don't know, but I like my movies with something of a story or plot to it. Especially when a premise as in Children of Men provides an abundance of opportunity to do just that. What they did with it, came off slightly B-movie-ish and so did much of the cinematography with that nauseating homevideo-style cameramatics and bits of the acting as well. Why this movie is adored by so many people I cannot begin to fathom. Was the polling rigged in some way?

The movie is basically a chase-flick in which a woman and her baby are escorted to a safe-haven while everyone helping her get offed during the travel. The whole premise of a barren world was completely wasted when the movie sloppily turns into this chase-vehicle, leaving its original dystopian backstory being merely an afterthought. The way they tried to pull it back in during the chase-sequences (e.g. the abandoned classroom scene) was clumsily forced, as were all the 'references' to: the immigration issue, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, The Bush Empire and what have you more. If you have something to say about these issues then say it, a movie is a great format for that. But surely they deserve much more than just a lazy nod in their general direction in some underdeveloped chase-movie.

What I truly don't understand is why they didn't make the characters more likable. After all, we as onlookers are following their plight and should be concerned with it. When I watched this movie I had no sympathy or empathy for any of the characters or their predicament. This simply because they were either not very well portrayed (The sketchy part of Jullianne Moore), unlikable (Theo, Kee, the 'Fish') or Simpsons-like cartoon-figures (Sid, Jasper, that gypsy woman).

I am a sucker for chase movies and that was the only reason I sat through the entirety of this mess. But even the chase plot didn't work for me at all. So many improbabilities* in the shovel-fed storyline and the pacing was just so off, rendering it ultra boring. A patronizing script making sure that every imbecile and his five brain cells got what was going on and the jarring soundtrack suitably missed the mark completely while multi-featuring the worst Stones-cover to date. Which was rather annoying.

*I mean if Tom Hanks can build a raft from FedEx wrapping paper, I'm sure they could have built something seaworthy from the abundant piles of trash scattered throughout the sets.. did they really have to go to that refugee camp being exposed to all that violence with a baby? I thought they were trying to save it, not getting it killed...

A complete mishap as far as I'm concerned with a most embarrassing 'ending' when almost out of nothing "Children of men" is blazon upon the screen in bold print. My oh my...

Acting: 5 Story: 2 Cinematography:3 Script: 2 Soundtrack: 2

74 out of 111 people found the following review useful:

Stop the madness..

Author: hermoinois from Springfield, Earth
17 January 2008

It is hard to believe that the movie we saw tonight is the same as the one praised here on this website. Where is the intrigue? Where is the view of a world that is tormented with the knowledge of being barren? Where are the deep insights into a 'very possible future'? All I saw was a simple chase movie that was obviously done differently compared to what we are usually dished by the likes of Hollywood but also one that not for second convinced me. Worse yet, I can't remember the last time I saw a movie this fake and contrived.

Apart from the fact that no reasonable explanation is given for the whole ordeal of getting the child through the violence to a ghostlike organization other than that it provided some sort of subterfuge for shooting the battle-scenes, no credible reasons are ever given for Anything that happened on the screen. The same goes for the motivations of most of the characters in the movie.

Sure, most mainstream productions hit us over the head with exposition making such productions not very challenging to watch, but to simply reverse it and unaffectedly explain nothing is just the opposite side of the coin and equally insipid even if it was shot from a first person perspective. The fact that the audience has to dig with shovels to find a plausible story somewhere is what makes this a masterpiece? By God, I think not.

I think I speak for the four of us who saw this movie tonight that we were all totally underwhelmed considering the acclaim and current ranking of Children of Men. The acting felt labored, especially by Caine whom we adore, the script embarrassingly poor in places, nothing really profound or philosophical to sink your teeth in and the ending, if one could call it that, was unimaginative and completely devoid of any intelligence to it. But frankly, so was the whole movie, so ten stars for coherence.

We remain dumbfounded considering the praise of this clearly overbudgeted but all the same cheap effort and feel totally hoodwinked by the glorifying reviews.

Ann, Kate, Deirdre and Cathy

94 out of 153 people found the following review useful:

Betrayal of Men

Author: evycomelately from Grenoble, Australia
4 January 2008

This film seems to have received incredible high praise and is currently listed in the Top250 of this website. I hate to fly in the face of such adoration, but this film left me completely indifferent and rather irritated if not highly annoyed. Sure, there are a few nice setpieces, but it's all set against a hack-handed background rendering them only a mild distraction from the otherwise continuous amazement at the film's triteness and mindboggling illogical plotpoints. The film is poorly structured and almost entirely if not completely un-engaging with the most lame and sappy ending I have ever seen to a film.

This film is supposed to be full of big ideas on Britain's dystopian future and the reactions of the public to an infertility plagued society. Angry youth throwing rocks at trains, the rails to Auschwitz have been reopened and are deporting the fugees (not the band) back to where they came from (hell) and even the spectrum of light is somehow compromised*. With this kind of background, you'd expect the movie to actually focus on any of it, something which this movie is acclaimed for. But apart from the main characters being in a bad mood for 90 brief minutes, there is surprisingly little this movie reflects on. The exposition on these theme's was simply replaced by endless shots of people being deported Nazi-style, the English countryside and mind-numbing dialog that was doing little else than driving the weary plot onward. The whole infertility and the world-gone-to-hell themes could just as well have been left out entirely and it wouldn't have made any difference to the actual storyline of two people on the run.

*Truly Amazing that someone would spent enormous amounts of money on expensive filming equipment only to make the actual picture look like it was shot by my Uncle Fred (who has Parkinson's) who just got his Handicam yesterday for Christmas and is still working his way through the manual which is written in Chinese and which apparently only describes how to deprive the picture of colour.

In Children of men subtlety was not allowed. Everything is as bad as bad comes and even good is apparently bad. The sets look over the top sleazy, our main characters are anything but likable, a pasture of grazing cows has been replaced by a smouldering pile of meat and bones, the rebels simply kill their leader over a dispute or kill policemen when they turn up at the wrong place at the wrong time. The overemphasized way of portraying such a dull and drab doomsday landscape as was done in Children of Men, surely would bother anyone who is not into cartoonistic film-making but in stead likes some subtlety on any subject matter if indeed this is presented in a serious movie. Maybe I misunderstood, but I believed that's what this movie was.

Meanwhile in the film, the script is pretty awful. Caine certainly tries his utmost with it, but his lines are one-note and much too viewer-informative only to result in a feeling of 'we get it already, move on please..". Owen is his usual wooden self and thus type-casted perfectly in the role of Theo Faron, a morose lower government official who couldn't give a fart about anything. Although I really liked his performance, his character is screenplayed terribly and I couldn't give an equal fart about his fate in the movie. Next up a utterly forgettable cameo by Julianne Moore, some B-actors to play the bad guys lead by Chiwetel Ejiofor who since his performance in Serenity for me lost all credibility as an actor. And newcomer Claire Hope Ashity as the Black Virgin Mary who does little more than swear a lot, which by modern standards, is apparently good enough for a 'solid performance' in the books of the critics. Frankly, her performance wouldn't even cut it on Eastenders.

The story in Children of Men is practically non-existent and covered not much more than an action packed chase from the old peril to the land of deliverance. But this was done on purpose to not loose focus on the sublime messages it miserably failed to communicate because they forgot to include them. As a result many of the scenes drag relentlessly while jarring opera music and a hate-crime of a muzak cover-version of 'Ruby Tuesday' plundered that what was left of the viewer's will to live. Indeed, it's really all that bleak and pointless. But intentionally so! The end result of all this is an aesthetic crime against the art-loving moviegoer or the one with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.

The end result is also one that is critically acclaimed by nothing less than the entire society of professional movie critics minus one or two who probably didn't receive the letter which stated they would get a nice percentage of the movie's revenues when their review would be kind. Seriously, you'd think all these glowing reviews and those on this website, were written by people who had somehow managed to miss the entirety of Western cinema.

The gourmet-fare that is Children of men is actually a night out at the McDonald's of film-making where the second bite of your food is already spoiling the experience of the first. Let us all gather in prayer and hope that there won't be a sequel. Unless the sequel was already made when they created 'Shoot Em Up'. Another highly creative movie in which mr. Owen is once again protecting a baby that people are trying to kill.

Evy

102 out of 170 people found the following review useful:

Just ranks with any shooter action game

Author: Slim Jack Rabbit from Planet KzOrp
10 January 2007

How utterly bizarre to see a movie like this getting so much credits. I tried to understand it from the reviewers point of view here on this site and found nothing comprehensible.

Realistic plot. Where? If it's likely that women will stop giving birth all of a sudden, then we can toss aside everything we know about biological science. 'The convincing future world' which results from the premise as being a totally chaotic world, almost reads as wishful thinking on the part of the reviewer. 18 years go by with no women getting pregnant and without any known cause, one suddenly gets pregnant? And this obvious fluke is supposed to be interesting enough to carry a whole movie and provide a feeling of hope in such a desperate world? And besides, surely any type of future world with this kind of scenario going on, has got some more interesting to tell than what is shown in this movie. And surely Great Britain wouldn't be the only country to be able to sustain that premise. Rubbish, fairytalestuff, unmitigated Hollywood bull-crap.

Excellent acting. Where? Owen certainly didn't impress, hes just doing his zombie-thing once again. The support cast and especially Ashity (Kee) made me laugh and being annoyed at the same time throughout the entire film. This movie certainly did not impress acting-wise, surely for everyone to see. Caine's cameo was the odd one out and made me feel like watching a completely different movie every time he's making an appearance.

Good story/complex story. Excuse me? It's just a plodding chase-story with zero depth, nothing realistic and about as complex as the basis of your average video game. One doesn't bring a child to a war-zone just because some drugged out old fart suggests that, especially when it's presumably the only one alive in the world. What made the story 'complex' was that nothing was explained about any of it (writers cramp?). Yet, this is considered one of the film's best traits!

Great cinematography. The natural look of the film, the documentary style if u will, was ultimately not what made the feel of this movie a positive or convincing one. It made me feel distracted from the events that were displayed and made me be aware of camera's and actors. They should have used that in portions of the film, but not in the whole of it. All the chase sequences seemed overpractised and what was up with the 'run after the car and get smashed by the door'-gimmick?

Comment on the world we live in today. Well, this movie didn't point out anything that can't be seen in any Newsprogram or documentary on the subject. Most of the theme's we saw, like the Islam-protest, seemed hopelessly and needlessly dragged in.

Dramatic ending. Yeah sure, if you consider vapid and cliché open endings which didn't give the film some sort of closure it desperately needed a dramatic ending, then by all means people...

The movie seems to want us to see a possible world future, and that's all fine. But why would I want to look at that grim and dismal future for two hours following a story-line with absolutely zero plot, no humor, no sfx, no build up of tension nor a decent soundtrack.

3/10

73 out of 118 people found the following review useful:

Total Confusion

Author: ReadyToLeaveEarthNow from Netherlands
6 December 2007

I'm confused. Very much so even...

I just saw Children of Men. A movie which currently holds a stunning nr 147# position on IMDb and is critically acclaimed. A movie with also little to no plot (and what it had was dumbfoundingly illogical and übersimplistic), wasted performances by otherwise fine to even great actors and a political or social slant so inane, so completely sophomoric that it's hard to believe this movie was made as a serious attempt at social commentary. Alas, the extra's on the DVD leave no room for ambiguity. No spoof here, this was meant to be serious...

So we have one fertile/pregnant woman amidst 3 billion who are not. We have an organisation presented to us in a lame stork-joke, which ocupies itself with getting the human race fertile again. That is, if this organisation even exists. They set out to find a raft to paddle to that phantom organisation which is said to bob somewhere around the coast of England. Why they chose to not just buy a raft but get one in one of the most violent parts of the country where bullets fly freely, tanks shoot at anything that moves and walking cameramen are trying to set records for the longest single-take ever made, all this with presumably the only infant alive in the world, is never even remotely tried to be explained.

I really don't mind that pompous, vacuous films are being made under the pretext of being subtle, deep and insightful. What gets a rise out of me is that people can't see a really terribly made movie for what it is, but in stead sing praise, forgive the exuberant defects they are willing to admit this movie has and vote it a ten anyway, without breaking a sweat. Like the headline-reading buffoons or game-console addicts they are.

Shame, especially to the professional moviecritics who along their careers surely must have seen movies like The Usual Suspects for plot and suspense, Full Metal Jacket for steadycam cinematography, It happened One Night for social commentary and God knows how many other quality films that have been produced over the years.

No, these movies were in fact never made. Apparently the line was drawn at October 2006, conveniently forgetting that a particular scene should display some profundity if you accompany it by long and abstruse orchestral manouvres. Forgetting that movies used to have some form of plot other than something any writer for Sesame Street could come up with using nothing but a broken pen and a paper napkin. And Forgetting that overexposing, completely plotdriven and patronizing scripts don't usually help the actors to do their jobs convincingly nor challenge a moviegoer in any way.

But..you've already seen this caper.

115 out of 203 people found the following review useful:

Garbage of men....

Author: CineCritic2517 from The Netherlands
5 January 2007

The world's gone mad in this film, the real world's gone mad upon reviewing this movie as well.

The directing is mostly a horrorshow partially due to the total lack of any dimension in the 'story'-line. The camera-work was totally uninspired, done in a hand-held docu-style which hasn't worked since...well that doesn't work period. And the performance of Caine aside, the average beer-commercial makes for a better acting experience. Miss Moore's on-screen time almost made the Guiness Book of Records and Clive Owen mostly looked like he needed a holiday and needed it badly.

People write in their reviews about a highly believable setting of a future world. Believable? 'Just like that' mankind can't bare children anymore without any explanation to why this is? How utterly cheap and annoying. Oh well, how could anyone possibly try and explain such a laughable premise anyway. It is just Mad Max all over again.

Just a meager, flimsy chase-story which makes '16 blocks' look like a Spielberg production. A story without beginning nor end (it really has no ending, what was that?!) in which absolutely nothing is ever explained. An aggravating execution of a laughably unrealistic plot with only unlikable characters you couldn't care less about and who are never truly depicted. Dragged-on scenes stretching what should have been a two second shot of Owen putting on some slippers to a grand 30 seconds ("...And the winner Is:..Clive Owen! in Children of Men, the slipperscene!).

A dismal, plodding movie with no discernible message since its plot is so ridiculous it even makes an invasion of Earth by the inhabitants of Planet KzOrp seem less banal. And with the most impressive amount of plot holes, this movie is Flabbergastingly still rated one of the top films of 2006 > Mankind isn't suffering from fertility problems, it is suffering from bandwagon-syndrome.

What a gyp....

Like someone said: "How many more turkeys like this are going to slip through the net before people choose to ignore film reviews and stop going to the cinema?"

1/10

60 out of 97 people found the following review useful:

A poor man's dystopia action/thriller

Author: cloakthedagger from Finland
14 December 2007

It's 2027 in Children of Men. Through advertisements, commercials and newscaster innuendo we learn that civilization has broken down on a global level. Only England somehow manages to 'battle on' and is suffering from large streams of illegal immigrants because of this. They the government, deal with it harshly; killing or deporting them as soon as they are rounded up and put in cages. We also learn that the entire world has become infertile; no children have been born in eighteen years. No one seems to know why and the hinted causality of growing pollution, global warming, and food manipulation as a reason for the infertility makes little to no sense.

It is here where the logic in the film is starting to buckle, which is shortly after the opening credits. For the human race to fully stop being fertile all of a sudden, something more catastrophic and acute is needed. Also it would not explain why animals would be able to procreate amidst this eco disaster or why the term 'cloning' somehow seems to have vaporised from the dictionary. Obviously the existence of something acute did not fit writer/director Cuaron's agenda because it would ultimately lose the film's connection with the present world. Of course, if Cuaron had stayed true to the book, the problem would not have been so obvious. Too bad he (admittedly) never even read it.

All this hardly matters because Children of Men comes off the shelf of the so-called thought-provoking movies. Which in this case means that its OK to INvoke some thought, but surely not to get too carried away with it. Judging by the way the script is handled, presenting the scarce plotpoints through ham-fisted explanatory dialog, I don't think this movie was meant to be thought provoking at all. At best it's a silly reminder of things we learn in school at age 10 and up or see in the news every time we turn the telly on.

The film itself plays out like a big formulaic chase in which our protagonists, mainly Theo (Clive Owen) and a black pregnant woman, 'mysteriously' named Kee (Claire Hope Ashity), are chased down by a terrorist group named The Fishes who want the soon to be born child for themselves in order to…cuddle it? Their motivations remain a complete mystery. The quest leads Kee and Theo through England's countryside, which is kind of a plod, also for the viewer. Fortunately we can listen to a jarring and bloated soundtrack that accompanies the bleak and unappealing shaky visuals the viewer is presented. The plot of the movie seems to revolve around getting Kee and her later to be born baby to another group called the Human Project that is not sure to even exist. But if they do exist, we can be sure that the human race, thanks to one little squealing baby human, will be saved….or something.

Children of Men is a clumsy experiment gone terribly wrong. Director Alfonso Cuaron is know to despise too much exposition in films and if he is referring to the 'Hollywood way' of telling stories, I would somewhat agree with him. But Cuaron fails to properly compensate for the lack of exposition in the way the story is unfolding and scenes are constructed. He compensates by making the dialog throughout the entire movie so unnaturally explanatory that it is far too obvious that he is just informing the viewer. Being taken by the hand through every reason and meaning of the plotpoints like a little kid is pretty infuriating. And this doesn't just hamper the acting by otherwise capable actors, it also ruins any character development in the movie which in turn is not compensated for. Furthermore the movie is pompous and monotonous with its one-sided political overtone. It is all the same evasive when it comes to answering, or even questioning the issues it nonetheless throws up. The symbolism and churlish nods to contemporary issues is far too conspicuous and highly annoying as such (The one captured immigrant they allow to be heared, speaks German!, yeah, let's deport a former Nazi...seriously people, who writes this stuff?) And the logic of the plot that a single baby/person will be able to save the world in a movie that is supposed to have a serious message, is, to put it kindly, ludicrous, puerile and as original as a beer commercial.

Although there is some fancy camera-work and editing in especially the last segment of the movie (a Kubrick homage?), I would not go as far as recommending this movie for just that bit alone as others have suggested. I think it is tragic that the talents of an artdirector like Lubezki were wasted on a bleak, rather predictable and messy film with zero likable characters, a questionable script and a too obvious political viewpoint which is shoved up the arse of the viewer over and over again. The film leaves out so much backstory and tries to compensate for this with so many minuscule silly details that even a second or third watch will not help to really put all the pieces together because too many important and interesting ones were simply left in the box.

Although the attempt is somewhat admirable and despite the absurd high rating, not recommended at all.

3/10

88 out of 154 people found the following review useful:

Supremely awful!

Author: mtwashingtonpa from United States
16 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is my first review on IMDb and I came here specifically because this movie has been so highly rated here. Sorry to all who have rated this movie above 5 stars, but have you ever seen The Godfather? If you gave Children of Men 8 or 9 stars, what do you give to the really great movies?

Things not explained in this movie include: the title, The Human Project, the infertility, the reason for the treatment of the immigrants, what happened to the rest of the world, why Julianne Moore is offed by the Fishes, what the Fishes actually DO to help immigrants (other than kill every native they encounter???), how the Fishes believe that having the baby will save THEM (not just provide hope for humanity), why the army wouldn't immediately take the mother and child into custody rather than letting them stroll through a gun battle, why they wouldn't have gone worldwide public with the news of a pregnancy or birth to begin with given the celebrity of the last youngest person on earth, and I could go on. Michael Caine is a complete sidebar with no real purpose to the story line with holes that you can already drive a tractor trailer through.

Things explained in this movie: One fertile woman (and presumably, at least one fertile man) left on earth.

I want my two hours and my $8.50 back.

pas juste mauvais...nuisible

09/09/2014 05:18 par tellurikwaves

Dirty Harry

Author: kenjha
26 December 2012
 

After his best friend is killed by hoodlums, an elderly man goes vigilante. The vigilante film has ranged from the awful "Death Wish" (1974) to the fine "Gran Torino" (2008). This entry may be the low point of the sub-genre. Nothing works here. The opening credits have ridiculously tiny print. The opening scenes feature nauseating camera work (this is the director's first feature). The villains are one-dimensional caricatures. The situations are clichés. The narrative has no flow, as it gets bogged down in police politics. Caine's character is flat. Even a good actress like Mortimer is wasted in an anemic role. It's dreary and depressing.

17 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

The Epitome of everything foul in mass cinema

Author: Richard von Lust from Germany
16 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Harry Brown is a weak, utterly formulaic and propagandist piece of cinematic ordure. Let me explain. There are only four remotely positive characters in the whole film. 1. An old man who means good but nonetheless brandishes a bayonet to protect himself. 2. A weak and rather stupid male police inspector whose only positive claim is that he tries to defend the female hero but dies in the process. 3. Michael Caine of course who fights for good but naturally kills everything around him and 4 (the real hero and only really positive character) a female police woman who knows all, sees all, feels all and ultimately saves society.

All the other characters are male (besides a few female extras like rape victims)and all these males are either stupid, insane, violent or just plain evil. All the gang members are shown to be psychopaths, thereby showing absolutely no understanding of modern culture whatsoever. Most of them are white, thereby showing no understanding crime statistics. All of them are male, thereby showing no comprehension of the rise of females in gangs. And none of them have any criticism of each other, thereby showing no connection with real gang culture.

Drug takers are shown as total crack maniacs who give total strangers a tour of their weed factory and their snuff movie studio before shooting up with heroin and selling them guns and ammo whilst off their heads. Of course the purchaser just blows them away. Utter tosh.

The police are shown to be all weak and stupid - excepting the female inspector of course. They face a riot without tear gas and simply run away when a few stones are thrown. Again utter rubbish.

And the basic moral message of the film is that revenge is cool. It is that sick. This film doesn't reflect modern social ills but rather it actually encourages them. Micheal Cain has no problem in shooting kids without any attempt to arrest them or use non lethal force. He makes himself judge, jury and executioner - exactly as bad as the film tries to show the gang members as being. In one particularly sickening scene he forces a young whimpering lad whose only crime was to witness a killing and lead the boy to his death as a human shield against the other boys. And we are meant to applaud this?

Harry Brown is genderist, fascist, classist and racist filth. Do not soil your mind by even watching it.

9 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Harry Brown is politics. It's not Michael Caine playing Dirty Harry.

Author: Michael Thompson from United Kingdom
11 March 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, now to get to the nuts and bolts of Harry Brown.

Michael Caine was interviewed around the time of this films release, and in this interview he talked about the very real issue of thousands of young people being thrown on the political scrap heap by the politicians, and that his film, Harry Brown is about these type of youngsters.

What annoys me about Michael Cain, is that he is a known Thatcher supporter, and it was Thatcher in the 80's who got rid of our manufacturing bases, who destroyed our infrastructure, who got rid of our council houses, who took hope away from millions by removing their jobs, making millions of adult men and woman unemployed, and on life long benefits for millions.

Michael Cain is on record as saying that he grew up on the type of kitchen sink estates he plays Harry Brown in, but when Maurice Micklewhite ( Michael Caine's real name ), was a young boy, Thatcher was not in power.

This film should not be about pensioner Harry Brown going on a rampage among young thugs, to find out and gain revenge on who murdered his friend.

The real issue in this film is an indictment of 18 years of right wing Tory rule under Thatcher and Major, and a further 13 years under Blair and Brown who did nothing to reverse the national decline they inherited in 1997, a country in tatters, and youngsters with no hope.

Im not stereotyping all youngsters as thugs. I am saying that the thugs stereotyped in Harry Brown, including Michael Cain's interview comments, are a replica of a lost generation in survival mode, due to breakdowns in family life.

Michael Cain's political interview comments have brought forth this review of Harry Brown.

I believe it is a shame that this film revolved around Harry Brown's revenge, and the violence which came forth was typical and predictable.

Michael Cain could have made a film with a political edge, to make us think, but he didn't, like the politician's, Michael Cain chose the easy way out. Violence in a modern Britain.

18 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

I see all these positive reviews out of the UK and think

Author: Simon Bocanegra from Norman, Oklahoma
31 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

well, Michael Caine doesn't make bad movies, does he? *Answer below.

Granted, the notion of a vigilante pensioner is already a stretch, but Clint Eastwood pulled it off to perfection. They're about the same age, Eastwood and Caine, aren't they? But Eastwood's war was Korea in the 50's and Caine's was supposed to be Northern Ireland in the 70's. Okay, whatever.

Then I read "Oscar for Michael Caine" and "everything Gran Torino was supposed to be" and wonder, because frankly Gran Torino hit the note that this sack of garbage totally misses.

There is no plot, no plot development, no character development....well, the Gollumesque dealer is a pretty spooky advertisement against that sort of lifestyle.

It's basically a mindless rehash of vigilante movies of the past few decades, except it's maybe supposed to appeal to retired folks and those getting on in years. Which, I suppose, there's quite an audience to tap there.

So, really, I've got to wonder what is bothering all these UK viewers that they think this is gold. No, I don't want to wonder because I've already wasted an hour and a half of my time watching it and that was too much. I'd like to know Sir Michael's opinion of the film, if he thinks it adds to the celluloid canon in any way....

*Yes, Michael Caine made a bad movie here.

13 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Boring; laughably bad

Author: vsdobbs from Canada
2 May 2010

I cannot believe the positive reviews this film has gotten. The film is literally Rambo (ex marine messed with by everyone he comes into contact with) crossed with Death Wish. However, the bad guys are so comically over the top the film is laughable. You will not see a more unbelievably ridiculous crew of baddies in another film. It's like the campy bad guys from Robocop except they're not played campy--they're played for real. Absolutely hilarious!

The score is overwrought and ridiculously out of place; the script is boring and predictable; the characters are about half-a-dimension each, and going nowhere fast; the police are unbelievably ineffective.

Truly, this is one of the films most devoid of, well, anything, that I've seen in years. It won't scare you, it won't thrill you, it won't entertain you--all it will do is cause you to shake your head in bafflement that it managed to get made.

Anyone who thinks this movie is a masterpiece on any level whatsoever is deluded. Oscar nominations? The mind, it boggles at the thought.

28 out of 93 people found the following review useful:

A couple of hours you'll never get back

Author: Robert Saxon from London England
8 November 2009

On hearing of a British movie starring Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer, it's probably natural for avid film fans to skip to the cinema in the hope of finding the kind of gem that Venus turned out to be a few years ago. A tiny movie of unqualified class that would, for a modest budget, entertain its audience with a good story well told, turn the heads of the cinematic world, earn praise for cast and crew, and possibly major awards nods for those involved. Though it's fair to say that Caine delivers a solid performance as the titular lead in Harry Brown, to suggest that the film itself was anything but poor would be a massive inaccuracy.

There is no doubt that many comparisons will be drawn with tales that have trodden the well worn path this film follows, from the belligerent Death Wish to stylish Gran Torino. However, this is not Harry Brown's greatest flaw. That is an honour reserved for the American cop-movie-cliché ridden script directed with the kind of two dimensional, unimaginative heavy handedness one would expect from first year film students. Or Guy Ritchie. It is paint by numbers film making, delivered by people who have failed completely to do their homework or think beyond anything they have seen on and absorbed from the small screen. Since most of that is clearly from across The Pond we are fitted with this strange hybrid coat that never sits comfortably on British shoulders.

Caine does his considerable best with what he has to work with, and at times shows a deeper understanding of his character than the script deserves. As such he is a gemstone set in lead. Emily Mortimer is baffling as Inspector Frampton. One cannot help but wonder how such a simpering and weak woman - intelligent though she may be - rose to be a police officer of senior rank when she has such an utter lack of backbone. She is no Jane Tennyson, and is surrounded by a police force portrayed as being utterly devoid of saving graces, lacking respect, understanding or intelligence by a writer and a director who have no knowledge or comprehension of police training, procedure, methodology or character.

Everything about this film - with the exception of Caine - is poor. It is a shallow pool filled with stale regurgitate, utterly pointless and thoroughly distasteful, that serves no purpose whatsoever. It lacks the power of Sweeney, the intelligence of Cracker, the depth of Prime Suspect, and with the exception of Michael Caine's character study of the protagonist, is drivel of the worst order, aping films of much greater stature that come from a culture similar but alien to our own and whose overriding characteristics will never apply to Britain or its people. Poorly observed, badly written, sloppily directed and served on a bed of hyperbole, this in microcosm is why British Cinema is in such a parlous state. It fails to convince on every level, and a strong performance by Caine is betrayed by too many weaknesses that no actor, however brilliant, could possibly overcome.

The only wonder of Harry Brown is that enough people in various funding bodies were persuaded to release the significant funds required to make it.

It is said that Caine hopes for an Oscar for this film. It wouldn't be unfair to suggest that his disappointment is likely to be as great as that of his audience.

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

it's something brown, all right...

Author: Martin Teller from Portland OR
12 January 2012

It's possible that Michael Caine has been forever ruined for me by THE TRIP. I can't watch him without thinking of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon dueling with their Caine impressions. It doesn't matter, though, because Caine or not (and his performance here is nothing special in the slightest), this is a spectacularly awful movie. It demonizes its villains to the extreme (they GROW MARIJUANA AND TAPE THEMSELVES HAVING SEX!!!) in order to justify its ultra-conservative fear-mongering endorsement of vigilante violence. Loaded with terrible clichés, absurd characterizations, predictable plot developments, and some incredibly shoddy policework. But of course the government is inept at everything, and that's why we need to take up arms and waste all those filthy chavs ourselves, am I right? And speaking of police, Emily Mortimer is rather blubbery and humorless for a homicide detective. Maybe I'm reading too much David Simon lately, but if you're offended by a would-be witticism as innocuous as "death-o-gram," you're in the wrong line of work. An utter waste of time.

11 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Angry Old Man: The Movie

Author: TheMarwood from United States
23 March 2010

Oh dear. Where to begin with this one. This kind of film is my favorite kind of bad film. It's competently made, has nice cinematography and the actors are talented -- but the screenplay is lurid rubbish -- and everyone took it seriously. There are so many unintentionally hilarious scenes, I feel a new cult classic is born. How about the scene where Michael Caine's old friend almost gets asphyxiated from poo in a flaming paper bag and starts screaming "bastards!" into the night sky -- while tragic dramatic music is playing. But that's nothing compared to the not so subtle criminal youth. Blisters; rotten flesh; bags under their eyes that fall past their knees; weird tics that make Looney Toons characters seem tranquilized in comparison.

The half baked detective subplot is funny for all the wrong reasons too. This villainous youth gang occupies an underpass tunnel for most of the film's running time and commit heinous murders in this tunnel, yet the police can't seem to pin a murder on these junkies. Or the police won't pin a murder on these junkies. They are junkies in a tunnel, not a rich mafia crime syndicate.

For a good laugh, watch Micahel Caine fight crime. One can only hope for as many sequels as Death Wish. Personally, I think Harry Brown 5: The Face of Death, would make the world a better place.

3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Why are so many UK films this boring?

Author: photomanvince from United States
24 October 2010

This isn't an English version of Gran Torino as I had hoped it would be! It is more a lesson in how to politely take revenge.

Michael Caine is too good an actor to have taken this role. It simply proved to me that the English can make mediocre films using great actors, just as they do in the U.S.

The characters lack depth.

The movie is: Predictable, cliché and slow.

Make sure you have plenty of patience when watching this.

It also lacks believable character development.

Either don't waste your time, or wait 'till it comes out on TV.

5 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Great idea but too far-fetched

Author: DuncanOldham
30 November 2009

I was really let down by this movie.

The previews and the general idea of the movie were right up my street but it was too far-fetched for my liking.

I thought it was a great opportunity to show how bad the system is in the UK but it failed.

The 2 police officers were the strangest coppers I've ever seen. It was bizarre. I can't believe that Michael Caine put his name to this.

I also thought too much happened too quickly at the start. It seemed rush to point.

Sorry if my review is negative because I see the votes are quite high so I'm on my own with this one I think :)

Duncan Oldham

Fffff d'un ennui mortel !

09/09/2014 04:43 par tellurikwaves

Un autre film complêtement inutile...Ryan Gosling ? là ça y est j'ai ma dose...pas changé d'expression depuis les 4 derniers films que j'ai vu (DRIVE,BEYOND THE PINE,HALF NELSON...etc)

*

*

A Painful Waste Of Time

Author: sddavis63 (revsdd@gmail.com) from Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada
28 May 2011
 

Some movies are bad. You get to the end and you wonder why you bothered watching them. And then some movies are painful. "All Good Things" falls into the "painful" category. Was this a story that deserved to be told? It's based on the story of Robert Durst (whose name is changed in the movie to David Marks, played by Ryan Gosling.) The details (as far as they're known) of Durst's life are fairly well presented. The story revolves around the troubled relationship David has with his real estate mogul family, and with his deteriorating relationship with his wife Kathleen, played by Kirsten Dunst. Eventually Kathleen disappears, and to this day no one knows what happened to her.

The movie clears nothing up (which is forgivable, since it is an unsolved case.) It revolves around testimony David gave in his trial for killing someone else, which is the somewhat cliché means by which the movie unfolds. The problem with it is that it starts out uninteresting from the very beginning, becomes downright boring quite quickly, and enters the realm of the truly bizarre in the last 45 minutes or so. The story doesn't flow well, and the pieces don't seem to fit together. The story seemed to move in a sort of A to E to M to X direction, with the viewer not really being sure what the connecting points were, and in the end it left me completely unsatisfied.

To be frank, this was a waste of time. (1/10)

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Really depressive and scary movie

Author: illy_hristova from Bulgaria
1 December 2012

This is a very depressive movie that can make you feel really bad. I don't recommend this film at all. Please don't watch it. It will make you feel sad and unhappy. This movie is not for normal people who believe in "all good things". This movie is about all the bad things. This movie is repulsive. This movie can make you sick. This movie is the saddest movie I have ever watched. This movie is a metaphor for everything evil in the world. Please don't ever watch it. I need to write 3 more lines about how bad this movie is. It is not bad, it is pure evil. It can make you feel afraid for your sense of humanity. It can make you doubt that good in the world is stronger than the bad.

13 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Horrible

Author: lenny_bda from Oklahoma
16 December 2010

This movie is absolutely awful. As posted before maybe Kirsten provides some redeeming quality. Maybe. The quality of the camera footage is pretty decent. But the screenplay and editing is horrendous. Acting is poor and the story is slow to develop. The lighting is very low throughout the movie; however, this technique is ineffective as a mood setting. This should have gone directly to Lifetime Movie Network, but even their ratings would have suffered because no one outside the industry would even sit through this production. The music is another ineffective tool that could have given some life to the suspense of the movie. However the sound editor seems to have nodded off during the production process because the background music just seems to come on and off at odd times. Maybe when they when to get coffee and then started dozing off, and then had more coffee. There are "dark" areas in the movie that just suddenly change to lighter moments, no transitions between. They probably cut this into a decent thirty minute documentary. Its like the editor was tasked to make this into a feature length movie and doesn't have enough content. This makes for prolonged periods of nothing but scenery or traffic scrolling across the screen. The pans over to the beautiful dog at least provides a few limited moments of watchable screens. Also, the dog does not appear to age throughout the movie. We do get the narrator to let us know that time has elapsed, but there is not build up or followup to what was missed during the missing years. I don't understand the use of the lead male character constantly wearing the same sweater. Understandably, the budget for the movie was probably nonexistent, but surely the actor could have tapped into his personal wardrobe. Stay away from this one. The wife will forgive you once she goes and walks out after thirty minutes of languishing through this true display of awkwardness.

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Like Watching Paint Dry

Author: cracker from NYC
30 April 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"When will this turkey be over?"

Every once in awhile you will see a movie that is full to the brim with acting talent that can do nothing collectively to save the awful script and direction. This is that movie.

This is neither a psychological thriller nor does it have any suspenseful elements at all. The story would make a very mildly interesting ten-page article in an unsolved crime magazine, but should never have been made the focus of an entire movie. One is left to wonder how movies like this get funded and made, and the only plausible explanation is someone with deep pockets had animus against the Marks family.

Don't be fooled by the cast. Avoid.

10 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Put me to sleep and I'm sorry i got it on demand!

Author: valid908 from California
24 January 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't get all the rave reviews because although the cast is top notch and the acting is decent the storyline to me was extremely confusing and boring!!! i didn't understand why the main male character was always so upset about his mother's death and how it tied into the plot. Kirsten Dunst is usually one of my favorite actors but for this movie, i just found her kind of dull as well. I got that the father wanted him to join into the family biz and that he wasn't too supportive of their marriage because he felt that his wife was "beneath him" and not high class enough or from the right family but so what?!?! i haven't finished watching the entire movie yet and i may not. i hate not finishing a movie i paid 5 bucks online to see but i really really was disappointed and bored with this feature!

16 out of 51 people found the following review useful:

Extremely Cliché, poor directin and screenplay but good performances.

Author: khan2705 from Pakistan
6 December 2010

Inspired by the most notorious missing person's case in New York history, ALL GOOD THINGS is a love story and murder mystery set against the backdrop of a New York real estate dynasty in the 1980s.

well i saw this movie which is based on a true story of unsolved murder case. its a drama thriller with romance of course. i was not expecting much from this movie when i saw it receiving not so good reviews. the only reason of watching this movie was seeing these two actors, the hot and handsome Ryan Gosling and the beautiful and gorgeous Kristen Dunst after a long time. well this movie turns out to be extremely Cliché.

Its so Cliché, i mean i felt i have seen movies like it before, story was very Cliché. that thing does not effects me much for a movie because that is not the problem with me, i don't think that on certain plot if a movie is being made then there shouldn't be another one like it. i always find some difference and some new things in it and even if i mention it being Cliché, it doesn't effects the rating. but this movie was pretty average.

its all that a girl (poor one) meets a very attractive handsome rich man, falls in love then marry either way. things start to get little weird and strange day bu day, girl star finding secrets about the family, that handsome looking guy actually turns out to be a psycho man and he always loose control and beat and torture his wife, she separates, then he kills her. it was pretty much like it. but the few things that makes it somewhat different is that its based on a true story, the girl is actually missing not considered dead, which means the end. end of the movie is what makes it pretty different from other movies like it.

movies starts somewhat slow, takes sometime to develop and then everything just come rushing, everything start happening so fast which is a negative point and it seriously annoys me. towards the end it has some pretty shocking, mysterious and thrilling moments that are pretty good to watch. its actually a narrative movie, Ryan at his present old age is shown saying the story to the Court.

acting wise pretty good i will say, its the only positive point, Ryan Gosling did a fantastic job again, he is very good in his character. towards the end his strange Woman get up and that psycho killer thing was done very well by him. on the other hand Kristen Dust was awesome too. she played her character pretty good.

screenplay of this movie is very dull and much in places pretty hollow, story is not narrated in a right way. movie is very empty and lost in places. i even didn't felt much connected to the characters as well. direction is pretty weak as well. so i will say to AVOID IT.

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Awful waste of time

Author: agacyb from Israel
7 October 2011

Ryan Gosling fans be warned: He is not enough of a reason to see this movie! I have no idea why Gosling would attach himself to this abysmal project. I usually love him, but this was a very repulsive character that never seemed real to me.

Although Kirsten Dunst was mostly a pleasure to watch, the direction was so slooooowww and painful that I felt like committing murder myself by the end of the first act, trapped watching awful (mostly insane) characters making awful choices.

Following a tedious start, with the droning voice-over of a lawyer questioning the main character, the lackluster script never improved. The repetitive, melodramatic plot just kept going from bad to worse. I very much regret wasting an evening on this.

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Good work tossed away in a docudrama final act

Author: tigerfish50 from Old London, New England
21 January 2011

"All Good Things" provides a text-book example of the inherent weaknesses in drama projects based on real-life events. The first two-thirds of this film has a strong script coupled with excellent performances, direction and cinematography, all working harmoniously together to tell the story of a doomed love affair between David and Katie Marks. David is the eldest son of the patriarch of a wealthy and politically connected NY real estate family. His attractive facade conceals a fragile interior damaged through witnessing the violent suicide of his mother at a young age. He desires to live a simple life with the warmhearted, uncomplicated Katie, but his controlling father forces him to work in the part of the family business that hosts Times Square prostitution rackets. The internal and external pressures undermine David's stability, and the couple's marriage deteriorates into mutual distrust, substance abuse and physical assault - followed by Katie's suspicious disappearance.

So far so good - but the last third of the film is a mishmash of dramatized news reports and court proceedings spiced up with some dubious speculations, which leads to a hypothetical conclusion that reeks of lawyers supervising the screenplay. Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst play the two lead roles with sensitivity and skill, but their efforts can't save a film that leaves one shrugging one's shoulders at all the imagined conversations and unsubstantiated theorizing.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

All Good Things...Like this Picture Come to An End **

Author: edwagreen from United States
13 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Moody piece dealing with the disappearance of Katharine Marks, and the suspicion falling on her husband David Marx.

Frank Langella co-stars as the father of David Marx-Ryan Gosling. He is a moody man, wealthy from real estate investments who allowed his son at age 7 to witness the suicide of his wife, the boy's mother by the child witnessing the mother jump off a building.

Obviously, in adulthood, this has had a lasting impact on the young man as he quickly meets and marries Kate.

Both father and son are obviously terribly disturbed as they torment each other.

The second part of the film deals with murder and mayhem. You will be glad when the final credits roll.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Disappointed that Ryan Gosling's movies are so slow

Author: Finbar-1 from Sarnia, Ontario
12 January 2014

Let me start real quick by saying this is my first IMDb review, and that I think IMDb is one of the best web sites on the internet.

We watched "All Good Things" I think mainly because of the hype about Ryan Gosling, and while I believe he is a good actor he seems to choose parts that are so very slow that they leave the movie quite boring. In All Good Things, he plays a troubles guy who tries to change his life in order to please his father, but not to the same level of pleasure for his wife.

We are given little insight into why he is the way he is (other than his father's expectations) or why he does what he does. This leads the viewer to be as frustrated with him as his wife appears to be. The twist at the end also leaves us wondering what the heck really happened, but not in an interesting "make your own conclusions" kind of a way.

That said, if you like Mr. Gosling's acting style (and the slow style of his choice in directors) in previous movies such as "Beyond the Pines" and "Drive" (which I liked more than "Good Things"), you might like this one as well.

tellement ennuyeux...

09/09/2014 04:17 par tellurikwaves

...qu'il n'y a pas une seule critique,commentaire,avis sur ce film ultra conventionnel et vraiment inutile...Pas pu regarder en entier...lâché l'affaire au bout de 30mn...l'humour pince sans rire de Jason Bateman...terminé pour moi

Et une comédie ! une de plus...NAZE

08/09/2014 18:15 par tellurikwaves

Emily Blunt...j'aime assez...parfois...ces "5 ANS DE REFLEXION" pas pu aller au bout

*

*

Drivel

Author: Georgina Eldridge from United Kingdom
6 October 2012
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I switched this film off after thirty minutes, because in all that time I did not laugh or even smile and had started to feel a bit ill at the dangerously pathetic attempts at humour.

I like Jason Segel but Emily Blunt does nothing for me - she is just quite dull and irritating. However, even Jason Segel could not save this embarrassing train-wreck of a film.

Just don't bother. If you do you will very quickly regret it when you see an engagement party with some sad powerpoint presentation of Segel's exes, with an accompanying song. Yes, because that is both believable AND hilarious!I was on an eight-hour flight and I preferred to switch this off and stare out of the window. That should tell you everything.

20 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely Terrible!

Author: krsgallant from Los Angeles
13 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is one of the all time worst films I have ever seen. I am surprised that theater goers aren't demanding their money back (it really was that bad). Shame on you Nicholas Stoller for your lack of direction -- the film was all over the place. I am amazed that Judd Apatow did not take his name of this one -- it's a real stinker! Great cast, beautiful locations -- no excuse. With all of the great scripts that can't get funding, what genius gave this poor attempt at comedy the green light??!!! No wonder the theater was empty! In addition to the bad directing, editing and writing, the film was almost two and a half hours! It was painful to sit through.

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

just horrible.

Author: steven acker from United States
7 May 2012

first review, and usually don't offer up my opinion like this, but this movie was a combination of lame screen-writing, a boring story, and constant bashing of my hometown.

the movie's length was interminable, but not as bad as the single woman sitting in 2 rows in front of me, incessantly laughing by herself at every non-funny joke.

the ending was cute, but by 2 hours i was hoping the romance would end poorly.

I'm looking forward to my next review of a movie i actually....enjoyed.

if anyone was interested in moving to Ann arbor, seeing this movie would ablate any consideration. please...this movie misrepresents everything about the city...couldn't find a better place to settle, raise a family and live in a vibrant urban area than Ann arbor..

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Seriously, don't bother.

Author: Catherz_siobhan-419-124390
10 July 2012

I only went to see this film because it was on at a convenient time, but boy do I wish I never bothered. It was...dreadful. It calls itself a comedy? In a reasonable sized screening I didn't hear one person actually laugh, the odd titter - that was it. What resounded was the awkwardness everyone felt watching this 'comedy' just fail in every way. We were all sat there in horror as joke after joke fell flat on its face. Mind you, so unbelievably bad as it was, it was spell-binding in its awkwardness. I think Emily Blunt generally is a great actress, but she does not have comic timing. You'd think Jason Segel couldn't go wrong, but even he couldn't pull off the "jokes" that this film was rammed with. I would literally rather pull my own fingernails off than have to watch this painfully misguided comedy again. Who on earth wrote that script? Give it up before you butcher any more actors' reputations.

14 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Not really a comedy

Author: rogerdob from United States
9 May 2012

This picture is being sold as a comedy...however it is more like a drama with some comedic elements...and those few comedic moments aren't really that funny. The movie examines with a cynical eye a relationship that the director wants to present as a real loving one. However, anyone in the audience can see that this relationship has problems. The female lead is an annoying selfish character while the male character is wimpy and feels sorry for himself.

The movie is extremely self indulgent...it was written by the director and by the star. I don't think they wanted to leave any scenes out. The movie meanders for over two hours. It could have easily been a 90 minute film.

16 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

A waste of time and money

Author: jrrdube from Canada
6 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is strickly a 'by the numbers' date movie, the only problem is a lack of comedy. Considering the cast, it should have had some moments, but the lack of any real funny gags, or joke is surprising. The only thing I can think of is they cut out a lot to avoid a NC-17 rating, so it might be interesting to eventually see an unrated version, but I doubt the result would change things that much. I would consider this movie more of a drama than a comedy, because it deals with the reality of moving from one city to another, and the fact that you may think you have a career, it all really depends on the time and place. If they marketed the movie as a drama, I would have not expected to be amused, but the whole campaign is centred around the laughs surrounding an engagement, but there is nothing funny about frostbite, and amputation of body parts. It is starting to look like Jason Segal isn't as funny as everyone thought, and as he gets older, he will be less and less funny, who really wants to watch someone in their 40s act like a teenager, because he is funny now, sometimes, doing that kind of comedy, but this movie demonstrates that is the only comedy he is successful at. The supporting cast was the only interesting part of the plot, and where the movie worked, and the only reason this movie gets a very generous one star out of ten.

If you have $20 you want to waste, find a casino, or some scratch and win tickets, you WILL have a better time with either one, as opposed to this flop.

42 out of 81 people found the following review useful:

Horrible in every way

Author: felliott-133-6341 from Australia
15 May 2012

The first minutes of this movie seemed promising, but it quickly sank into a horrible, slow paced film where nothing seemed important. The length of this movie is just silly, I love slow movies and sat through this movie longer than I would have anyway because I liked that it was a different pacing than most Hollywood flicks. But by half way through I realised that this pacing does not work for this film, because there is not enough happening to keep us interested through the slow points. The characters are not highly complex, the drama isn't compelling, and neither is their relationship or any of the relationships around them.

I feel as though half of this film should have been left on the cutting room floor, a very poor job in editing as well as script editing. This seems to me as a first draft. I loved forgetting Sarah Marshall, and feel as though the producers probably rushed the script of 'The Five Year Engagement' into production before it was developed. So what we are left with is a very slow, very boring, and sometimes plain laughable movie.

I never walk out on movies, and I walked out on this one because I felt the horror couldn't go on any longer - and surely it would come to an end soon, only to realise there was another hour to go. A really poor movie.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Bar Far The Worst Movie of 2012

Author: foodfrenzy
26 January 2013

I am always leery of actors who want to take more control of their careers by either writing, directing or producing movies. It is painfully obvious Jason Segel is more suited to be given lines and directed than to try to write his own scripts. This fell into the same category as American Pie and had the same mean spiritedness as The Breakup." It was just a train wreck from jump street.

What I also found offensive was the buffoonery of the supporting cast. He is supposed to be some up and coming chef working in a high end restaurant in San Francisco where is co-worker, mind you simulates masturbation with a carrot replete with a facial money shot in an exhibition kitchen. How do you spell FAIL? His chef is depicted as some crazy lesbian who is nothing but unhinged and the whole thing was frustrating to watch since I've been in the industry for over 25 years.

They depict these two as great communicators deeply in love but for the life of them cannot work out their futures together and as stereotypes in Hollywood go, Segel then proceeds to fall completely apart now becoming a rabid hunter coupled with really bad ironic facial hair. We almost turned this horrid thing off it weren't for the voyeur in us try to see the movie could get any worse. It did. The two scenes Segel actually uses the knife is to basically butcher the living hell out of onions. Ugh.

Laughs were to a minimum and crass and unrealistic gags were never ending. I didn't buy the genuine connection between the two that the writers were trying to create and frankly,I want my $5.99 back from Comcast. What a complete waste of money.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Asian stereotypes galore

Author: (drdurden70) from United States
2 February 2013

These are just in the first 30 minutes of this piece of crap.

1. There's the "this Korean, that Korean" in buddy's engagement party song 2. What's with the inexplicably mute father's Asian girlfriend? 3. Why does the Asian guy at Michigan have the phoniest accent? 4. There's the Indian guy at restaurant he's applying for, from 40 year old Virgin, who I guess is funny, because he says "fuck" with a Jamaican accent.

Stopped watching this crap after 30 minutes. This is why Hollywood sucks. There are too many white, Jewish guys who have their yarmulkes so far up their privileged Lilly asses, they don't know what the world is really like.

12 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

First time I walked out of a movie in 20 years!

Author: Drewboy-2
28 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If I could rate this a zero, I would. Meanwhile I'll say this: if you are a young parent with kids who can't get a sitter, don't even THINK of bringing young children into this film! This is considered a romantic COMEDY? Ridiculous! It's a raunchy comedy, but any respect for the sanctity of marriage is completely thrown by the wayside here. Scenes showing male depression, a professor hitting on a student, people of Asian descent (as well as elderly parents) using the "f" word on each other, black racial stereotypes, the state of Michigan portrayed the worst it's ever been, frostbite injury seen as humorous (it is not), someone getting shot with an arrow, children watching their mother and aunt cursing right in front of them while imitating childhood TV characters, a woman demeaning a man's sexuality, all of this is just totally unfunny. I'm only 52 but as I watched this I felt very sad that the audience in my theater just laughed at every dysfunctional, pathetic joke. Is this what the idea of marriage has fallen to amongst people in their 20s and 30s? I also found myself wondering how long it would be until this excuse for a movie ended, finally walking out - couldn't take any more. Has our society fallen this far? I thank God that I am naive to this kind of trash! I will never watch another movie starring Jason Segal, and that includes "How I Met Your Mother" as well.

Un film américain bien crétin

08/09/2014 18:05 par tellurikwaves

*

*

Uncomfortable to watch, Ridiculous and WEIRD!!!!

Author: Paul Anthony from United Kingdom
2 July 2012
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Usually love comedies and don't mind some bad language etc but way too much crude language, nudity and crap jokes. Thought it looked OK at the very start but never got going at all. Not keen on Paul Rudd at the best of times but bad acting from him, Jennifer Aniston was not as good as usual.

Delt really uncomfortable to watch with my wife and made us cringe with bad plots and attempts at being funny! I just wanted to switch it off after 20 minutes but gave it the benefit of the doubt,It got worse as it went on Im afraid.

Overacting to the Max and just very crass.

Weirdest movie I've seen in sometime. not sure what they were thinking!

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Stay away, Jennifer Aniston is kissing goodbye her career...

Author: cablooie from United Kingdom
18 May 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I mean, 90% of the time you will think "did they really think this stuff can be funny? Or even interesting? Is it really possible to get THIS low?". Folks, if the story sucks, how can the movie be good? This dough is the ultimate cloned-stereotype festival. Not funny at all, incredibly boring when not disturbing here and there. In spite of her age, looks like Jennifer Aniston would do anything to get undressed. After all she didn't spend all that money on cosmetic surgery to keep the silicone into her shirt, so any script requiring her to drop her clothes is a yes, regardless how crappy it is. OK, she has never been as gorgeous as Angelina Jolie, but she used to be somewhat averagely pretty. Now her face is made of rubber making her look like Gary Busey, yet another Hollywood transvestite, hurray...

As about the movie, it's cheesier than cheddar. It seems the ideas for funny gags and interesting story simple didn't come out, so they just tried to clone Borat hardly being nearly as funny, when not spreading wrong, twisted values: life sucks unless it's hi voltage, people who don't like reality shows and fast foods all are brainless weirdos talking to trees, you have to stay with your wife regardless whom she sleeps with. If you can't make em laugh at least strike em hard. Undelivered, too boring to strike anybody. And no, all wrong. Life is good in big cities as well provided you aren't an imbecile, I detest crappy TV shows and junk food and I am not a weirdo, if anybody's wife sleeps with another man they are going to kick her out goodbye. Empty story without any sense, dull characters and not a single laugh. I ended up hoping some random lunatic would come up and kill everybody, just to have some actual facts I could mention in this review, but it simply didn't happen. Nothing interesting happens in this bad clone of the lowest spoof flicks with unfunny comedians.

I noticed some reviewers gave this a 10. Either part of the crew or complete morons. If you give this crap a 10/10, how much do you assign to a real comedy, say "A Fish Called Wanda" ? 650/10 ?

Stay away, nothing can be this terrible on TV anyway. If it really sucks, it's the same stuff.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not worth it, only 2 mins of comedy

Author: latinohabanero from London
7 January 2014

I though the film was a bit cheese, I didn't buy it and it annoyed me quite a bit - the nudity was quite bad, the plot quite weak and honestly I would literally kill myself if I had to pay to watch this.

What's the point of making a romantic comedy if all it has is nudity (in which nobody has the right figure for the screen) and I know we mostly judge by shape and looks these days but it was all Eeeeeeewwwwww!

I originally though it was worth the watch since it got quite a lot of bad reviews and a few good ones but the ones that liked it were annoyed at those who didn't so I had to see what the fuss was all about and damn, it had bad reviews for a reason, if you want to get bored and waste your time then be my guest but you've been warned fellas.

12 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Stupidest movie I watched in the last decade!

Author: Samer b
30 March 2012

Basically, if you fancy stupidity and disgusting comedy then this might be something you like. it's the stupidest most worthless movie I've seen in a decade.

I wanted to leave 20 minutes in but I had to stay because it was a birthday present.

The stupidity, disgusting images and regret for the 2 hours waste of my life haunted me for days.

Intelligent and creative humor is absent except for a 1 minute scene in the whole movie.

Not worth it.

13 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Horrid!

Author: jhartman1-2 from United States
3 September 2012

This film was painful to watch!

Even the adorable Jennifer Aniston could not make this movie watchable.

There was nothing but a couple giggles due to a crazy scene or word but it was torture!

Other than the multiple shots of penises and floppy breasts by unknown actors and actresses there was nothing of note.

Boring from start to finish, the film just kept dragging and dragging on.

I expected something of worth but never got it. The few outtakes at the end of the film were the only thing worth watching so don't forget to watch those.

47 out of 94 people found the following review useful:

Dreadful,...

Author: Saad Khan from Pakistan
11 June 2012

Wanderlust – TRASH IT (D) It won't be wrong to say that Wanderlust is Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd's worst movie till date. There is no story and even they don't utilize the R-Rating in their best benefits. For Jennifer, if she is not comfortable with the R-rated scenes she should not have done this movie. I think they did cut the Justin Theroux and Jennifer Aniston sex scene since they've started dating in real life. Anyways it wouldn't have made any difference but still at least it would have made sense to the story. Paul Rudd, Jennifer Aniston, Justin Thereoux, Malin Akerman all are victim of bad script and screenplay. There is nothing funny about cult or nudists as such. Simply trash this garbage. No wonder its one of the biggest duds of 2012.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Offensive to brain owners

Author: Massimiliano Masetti from Prato, Italy
31 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A real mess, stupid and boring. I cannot believe the talented Aniston and the very good Rudd accepted this role. This is a lousy movie, pointless, offensive to brain owners! Dialogues are creepy surreal, people shown are a bunch of fools and not a laugh is produced. The peak of gross is the birth of a kid on the porch I cannot believe I wasted my time on this crap!

Final scene is predictable an hour before it happens, and final fight between main characters is so nonsense and followed by excuses so fast that you cannot believe how lame that is! Aniston reaches her lowest point, She can only rise from this! And Rudd, with his monologue on approaching a whore going on for ten minutes of not at all funny crap has seriously jeopardized his career

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

No One Would Lust Over This

Author: thesar-2 from United States
3 March 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is what I thought: I really like Paul Rudd, I'm finally accepting Jennifer "Forever Rachel" Aniston is in two-thirds of every year's comedies and the trailer of Wanderlust looked like a funny and original film.

This is what I got: a migraine of mass destruction, a horribly put-together mess of absent laughs and long list of cameos that have to be ashamed to have had said yes in the first place.

Wanderlust is an abomination of wasted space and talent. I hated every minute of this movie and kept waiting for it to redeem itself. Instead, I witnessed Paul Rudd unconvincingly channeling Jim Carrey later in the picture and in front of a mirror talking about his little Rudd below. I think Mr. Carrey should sue for defamation of character.

After getting an apartment the size of the west wing of Karen Walker's closet, the zero-chemistry couple, George (Rudd) and Linda (Aniston) are jobless and homeless (overnight, no less.) Giving up within seconds of losing his job and solving their problem, they venture onto George's even less funny and dick of a brother, but along the route south, they happen along a hippie commune.

This happens to brighten up their last night before they reach George's sad brother and his wacked wife's house. When living with family goes south, they head back to fake "become one with nature" home. From there, they plan on a two-week trial to see if they like living with a wheelchair-bound Hawkeye Pierce and a butt-naked wine-maker. While you'll know exactly where each scene is headed, you'll expect laughs along the way but only to be disappointed with each missed opportunity. I mean, Paul's a funny guy…until now.

Maybe it's not his fault. Actually, I don't blame him for the aimless direction, poor editing, script problems and list of uninterested actors. It's supposed to make you feel good about life and nature, but I'd just as well take advice from Eric Cartman on going green than what they're trying to teach me.

Avoid this mess at all costs. Even if I was a vegan, I would rather sprint over to McDonald's for a Big Mac in protest…even though, I doubt that's real meat – but it's the effort that counts.

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

What a piece of garbage

Author: Fearinahandfullofdust from United States
23 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I literally sat through the entire movie and didn't laugh once. Could we stop with the Forgetting Sarah Marshall clichés, like the man forced to watch the woman participate in rituals that are sexual in nature? It wasn't funny then, and it isn't funny now. What a horribly written waste of time. How many times exactly do Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston plan on playing the same characters? I cannot accurately put into words how disappointed I am that I was talked into enduring this movie. Please save yourselves the misery of watching the careers of the cast slowly drown before your very eyes. Somehow its a stand-alone movie with all the quality of a straight-to-DVD sequel, and it left me full of remorse for the hour and a half I lost.

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Waste of Time

Author: Ace Rawrman from United States
7 August 2012

I like to compare it to "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" plot line trying to be "Dinner for Schmucks" with forced humor that wasn't really funny. I thought the other two were watchable at some degree, but this movie was just a waste of time. There was no character development, no character attachment, just a story line I can tell you in under 5 minutes and you'd be thankful that I saved you an hour and a half of your life. This might work a TV series, but for an hour and half it went no where. Might be even worth watch the other two movies back to back then watch this one. I don't know what else to say other then this movie was a waste of time and you should not even attempt to watch it unless you are a huge fan of one of the actors.

Mièvre et sans intéret

08/09/2014 17:54 par tellurikwaves

Séduit par le nom du réalisateur et par le casting...g zappé au bout de 40mn

*

*

Unfathomably awful

Author: thoward1223 from Virginia, USA
2 April 2006
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just horrifying. I like Cameron Crowe, I sat through Vanilla Sky (although mostly just for the soundtrack), and I think Orlando Bloom is likable enough. But I wanted this movie to end more than any movie I've seen in years. It just seemed like one big contrived emotional breakdown in search of a catharsis that never arrives.

Here's the thing. The last section of the movie -- in which Orlando Bloom's character follows the map laid out by Kirsten Dunst's creepy stalker-ish character to finally open up and find himself and blah blah blah -- was also awful, and staggeringly dumb. BUT -- that could have been the basis for a real movie. Not the map part, just the wandering around and finding himself part. Maybe not an original movie, but a real one. Instead it was just one more disconnected sequence tacked onto a whole slew of them, and it made me angry that the movie was made in the first place.

Hated it.

72 out of 128 people found the following review useful:

A study in the overuse of cloying, trite plot devices

Author: yegdad from Edmonton, Canada
8 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Every time I thought this movie couldn't get worse, it did.

For this reason alone, I kept watching: morbid fascination.

It was a slow-motion traffic accident.

Stereotyping small town locals as one-dimensional hicks is such a lame and tiresome plot device. NOT stereotyping would have made things interesting. (For example, the movie "Junebug" shows how apparently simple town folk can have depth.) There must have been some temporal anomalies from Star Trek afoot in Elizabethtown -- how else can you explain:

- how Claire Colburn (Kirsten Dunst) was able assemble a scrapbook/map and accompanying 42-hour CD music mix (complete with her perky voice-over!) while also spending all her time seducing Drew Baylor (Orlando Bloom), chatting him up over the phone, and saving guests from a burning hotel?

- how Hollie Baylor (Susan Sarandon) was able to take stand-up comic classes, tap dancing lessons, learn organic cooking techniques and auto-repair, and travel from Oregon to Kentucky all in the time between hearing of the death of her husband and burying him? (Her scene on stage was the most painful part of this "traffic accident". I just couldn't take my eyes away!)

- how a running shoe product launch could possibly cost a billion dollars and why 28-year old is given a billion dollars to play with in the first place?

Finally, the road trip is the final offender.

Because the movie couldn't dredge up any of its own meaningful iconic symbolism, it tries to cheat by force-feeding movie-goers with motherhood Americana. The movie takes us to the Lorraine Motel balcony where Martin Luther King was assassinated -- presumably, the audience would be loath to criticize a motherhood icon such as Marting Luther King and -- the producers hope -- would be loath to criticize the movie.

They're wrong -- we can tell the difference.

(Notice that Tom Cruise is one of the producers so, on several levels, we shouldn't be so surprised by this.)

20 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Dull as a cloudy day at the beach !!

Author: statajack from United Kingdom
15 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

With OB playing the lead role, I was hoping to get a glimpse of his acting prowess in a film that doesn't involve swords, arrows, ugly creatures and fast action camera-work. The first ten minutes started quite well, with possible undertones of some ironic black humour coming up. He gets fired for losing his employer the best part of USD 1 billion. Fair do's ! Then he's on a jumbo jet heading for Kentucky, the only passenger, and the stewardess (KD) tells him with a straight face that he saved all their jobs for being on that flight. Oh Oh ! The alarm bells start ringing. Was that supposed to be serious, or an attempt at humour !! The film then switches to Elizabethtown, and dies completely........

The relationship development between OB and KD is completely nauseating, and so endlessly boring with clichéd dialogue. It goes on and on and on, with no meaningful or interesting word from either of them. I pity both these actors for having to spout the most monotonous and diabolical script I have heard in years.

After an hour and a quarter, I couldn't stand anymore, and switched it off.

A few nights later I returned to the rest of the 2-hour film hoping that it would get going. It just got worse. Susan Sarandon at a sickly American-style funeral party doing a daft little jig on stage, and finally OB's road trip which made me want to tear out teeth.

The bit that bugged me the most, we never find out how OB lost his employer a large wad of cash !! If anybody wants a free DVD, you can have my copy with pleasure, otherwise it's going for a flying lesson out the window !

26 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Just terrible!!!

Author: jyoti-gori from United States
10 April 2006

This movie was just awful. I had such high hopes for Orli, but man, he's like the vacusuck of personality--he pulls personality out of other people! So, they paired him with an overly gregarious KD in an attempt to level out to semi-normal people but to a very ill effect. She was annoying, he was boring, the family was farcical, the setting was a shallow stereotype of mid-America, and the attempt to evoke an emotional tie with the main character by having his father die was absurdly misplaced since the character himself obviously didn't seem to care a whole heck of a lot.

I hate not finishing movies, stories, what have you. But this, I could not bear to sit through. After cleaning half my house in sheer boredom during the first half, I finally turned it off to find something better to do, like counting the dog hairs on the back of my couch ...

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

it amazes me that there is a market for this

Author: robotgrass from Canada
25 June 2007

Just a horrible attempt at a feel good movie which losses it luster after the first 12 minutes. The most annoying unresolved issues that were simply not addressed included:

1. What went so terribly wrong with the design of a single shoe that could possibly cost a company one billion dollars? A mystery...!

2. Why was the father who passed away such a revered individual? Why did a whole town to come to a halt, pay tribute, and mourn?? Come on Mr / Ms. Scriptwriter; give us something here...was he a war hero? Did he foil a bank robbery?

3. How is it possible that the main character was the only one on a 747 ? Has anyone out there ever been the only one on a major airliner going to where ever?

These points are not details, they are gnawing issues which demand answers.

Someone out there wasted two hours of my life, and I am not happy.

30 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Get out of Elizabethtown...

Author: Oliver-50 from United States
4 February 2006

Watching 'Elizabethtown' is in many ways like watching a young strange child approach you in the supermarket and start yapping your ear off. Sure it's kind of cute, but you just wish it would shut up and leave you alone.

Orlando Bloom plays Drew who after being responsible for the loss of nearly a billion dollars at a his company, decides he wants to kill himself. Just as he is about to commit the act he learns of his fathers death and has to go to Kentucky to arrange the burial plans. As luck would have it he meets a plucky young flight attendent and during an all night phone conversation they fall head over heels in love. Isn't that nice.

It's hard to attack a film whose intentions are so good-natured and sweet - but boy, do I need to. It's very hard to appreciate the happy moments in a film when even the scenes where people are hurting reek of tacky sentiment. As example - when Bloom decides to strap a knife to his stationary bike and kill himself; Bloom has this smirky pretty-boy daftness as if winking at the audience saying "I'm not really going to die, don't worry" and it kills a scene that with a stronger actor could have worked.

Throughout the entire film Bloom lovingly sulks and cheerily grins at every turn. He is a weak actor who can't even come close to the heart of a character. He can pull off action fare like Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean - mostly because there are stronger actors to assist, and it's physical work - but he is the whole show here and it's a performance to scoff at, not laugh with.

On to Kirsten Dunst; a much more credible actor that Bloom who as well manages to fall flat on her face. Perhaps it's the southern accent that fades in and out with every passing scene. Or maybe it's the way she plays ditzy one moment and then switches to deep-thinker the next. Whatever the case it's a performance that is cheerily annoyingly off balance. It makes one wonder what the wonderful Amy Adams (Junebug) could have done with this role. Dunst can usually find sympathy in overbearing characters (Crazy/Beautiful, Virgin Suicides, Spiderman) but just like Bloom, all she has to do is look pretty and smile for the camera.

As for Cameron Crowe who's hollow screenplay is so cheerily in your face happy - it becomes devoid of any credible sentiment. This, much like the slightly better but still awful Singles - is just another excuse for Crowe to make a great mix tape. The music is terrific, but we're not paying to listen to a great soundtrack, we're paying to watch a movie. And this movie is so excruciatingly awful that's it's a waste of some fine music.

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

One of the Worst Movies of my Long Lifetime

Author: ld8t from United States
7 August 2007

Hell, I'm even FROM Elizabethtown (Kentucky), where most of this dog takes place, and even that fact couldn't keep me awake. Doggedly slow pace, mind-numblingly boring characters (especially the flight attendant played by the leading lady), hideous writing, no conflict, no nothing. Just two hours of dumb. My wife and I (she has also spent some time in Elizabethtown, or "E-Town" as it's known in Kentucky) can't understand how such an execrable movie got some good reviews and some good WOM. The positive comments on this site mystify us further. I don't think further words are necessary, but the IMDb just bounced my review for not being long enough -- minimum of eight lines, it said. I can't even imagine any way "Elizabethtown" could merit eight lines of criticism, but here are some tries. Thumbs down! Blech! Sheesh! Enough?

28 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

Worst movie of the year!

Author: Samantha Clemans from United States
11 February 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just watched Elizabethtown last night, and all day today I have been thinking of all the reasons why this movie was the worst movie I have seen all year.

*First of all, the creators of this film were totally trying to rip off the movie Garden State, and they did a horrible job at it! the whole fact that Drew's dad died and he went back to a small town to visit family and to "try and find himself" is totally ridiculous and almost an exact replica of Garden State.

*Second, the acting was LAME!!! Orlando Bloom should stick to Pirates of the Caribbean or Lord of the Rings, he definitely does not do well in phony love stories. Kirsten Dunst was totally annoying, the whole camera picture thing she did, was stupid, and it makes me hate her as an actress....ughhh.

*Third, Alec Baldwin was in it! how low can you go??!! *fourth, I just didn't believe that there are characters like these in real life. the way the actors talk with each other was simply just phony and not genuine.

*Fifth and for all, the plot was ridden with holes. Conversations characters had were unrealistic and unimportant. I feel like Cameron Crowe just watched Garden State and decided like he could steal the ideas from the movie and make a ton of money off of it So if you want to see a really lame, boring, horribly acted movie, watch this one, otherwise read a book or watch a truly good movie. Don't waste your time!!!!

45 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

Waste of time

Author: Pamsterdam from Netherlands
6 December 2005

I didn't even have high expectations of this movie. I just wanted to sit back and enjoy a typical boy-meets-girl boy-likes-girl boy-gets-girl movie. How hard can it be to make another romcom? Well, very, apparently. For starters, it is extremely slow-paced. It just doesn't set off, drags on forever and simply won't end. Every time the romance kicks in, the story switches to another family-related and totally non-interesting subject. The scene of Mitch Baylor's memorial service was the absolute limit. I can just see my mother give away a show of stand-up comedy and tap-dancing on stage in front of a bunch of family members she hasn't spoken to in 17 years, when her beloved husband has just died. Yeah right. Why on earth did Susan Sarandon sign up for this?? She looked great, but shouldn't have lowered herself to this level. As for our golden couple, Kirsten and Orlando, I didn't buy it. When she was standing behind the mike, yelling "I like you!", it just didn't arrive. And her constantly making these imaginary photographs was the most annoying thing ever!! Sorry to say, but she's just not hot enough for Orlando. Which brings me to the one thing worth looking at in this movie: Orlando Bloom. And that's just for his looks, not his acting. Steer clear of this movie!

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

There's something worse than a failure and a fiasco. It is called "Elizabethtown"

Author: Galina from Virginia, USA
22 October 2007

I've seen four movies directed Cameron Crowe and I like three of them very much, "Jerry Maguire", "Almost Famous" (which is one of the best films of last years), and "Vanilla Sky" which was a successful remake and very interesting mysterious movie. Crowe's latest, Elizabethtown (2005), though, was one of the most horrifying and embarrassing watching experiences I've ever had and I've seen thousands of movies. I always try to (and usually able to) find some redeeming values even in the movies that I strongly dislike but I found nothing to like, to be involved with, to identify with in "Elizabethtown". In the opening scene, Phil DeVoss, (Alec Baldwin), the owner of the multi-billion shoe company and Drew Baylor's (Orlando Bloom) boss predicted that "sh*t will hit the fence". He was right in his prediction. I think Baldwin was the luckiest actor because that opening scene was his only scene and he did not have to participate in the "embarassmenttown". I can see that Cameron Crowe wanted to make a film that celebrates life, with the main character sorting out his priorities, realizing what is really important in life and meeting his true love. Perhaps... but I believe that Crowe has failed miserably, at least for me. More than anything I wanted this movie to end. Everything and everyone seemed un-natural and false, the dialogs, the ridiculous un-involving situations, the unfunny and tasteless jokes, the complete lack of chemistry between two romantic leads. Orlando Bloom was quite tolerable but Kirsten Dunst's character Claire simply scared and annoyed me; she was sooo good and sweet, and kind, and supportive that it made me cringe every time she was on the screen. The road trip across America that Drew took in the last 30 minutes of the film in search of himself or whatever, has offered few interesting historical places but they would be better presented on the Travel channel. The most memorable (but for the wrong reasons) single moment in the movie belongs to Susan Sarandon as Hollie Baylor. Sarandon is a wonderful actress and a beautiful woman. Time has no power over her. She is the closest to screen Goddess we have and she had a 10 minutes monologue at her husband's funeral which is easily the most ridiculous and stupidest scene I've seen (and heard) in the movies in the long time. Perhaps, there was a good movie, funny and moving, subtle and sweet hiding inside the monster called "Elizabethtown" but hard as I tried I could not find it.

les inutiles

08/09/2014 17:39 par tellurikwaves

*

*

Wasted 2 hours of my life

Author: Thatoneguyimet from United States
23 January 2013
 

Great actors, horrible movie. The story was rambling, confused, and seemed to be dark just to be dark.

The narration was horrible; Macy Gray is incoherent throughout. I'm sure there was a reason to have a narrator, but the fact that she was completely unable to be understood kind of eliminates the benefit.

Characters were poorly developed and there was never any build up to explain their behavior.

The director seemed to be searching for ways to degrade every character over and over and over. This movie was disturbing without any redeeming quality at all.

Don't waste your time or your money.

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Worthless smelly garbage

Author: thunderhead from United States
13 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Despite strong performances from some of the actors(Cusack was pretty creepy), none of the characters in this film vaguely resembles any person who has actually lived on this planet. There are only one-dimensional stereotypes and excuses to insert "shocking twists" into a rather unimportant and undeveloped "story".

You have a reporter(?) out to expose the truth about a wrongful conviction. A woman obsessed with a imprisoned killer who says it's because he is innocent, but really she just doesn't think she deserves any better. A housekeeper who is narrating the story(who is difficult to understand) for some unknown person for some unknown purpose. A kid who sits around and feels jealous of everyone else's relationships and pines for the previously mentioned prison groupie, because, well as is the norm in this film who knows(or cares for that matter).But it is insinuated because she reminds him of his mommy. And she is of course unrealistically hot for a prison groupie. These characters are not explained or developed in any meaningful way aside from the fact that the boy has mommy abandonment issues, the reporter is ashamed by his homosexual desire for black men and, oh white people were really racist back in the day. And swamp people walk around naked with dead alligators hanging everywhere. And eat ice cream out of pots. And I guess they had not yet invented air-conditioning or indoor plumbing whenever this film was supposed to take place. Because most of the characters are covered in dirt and sweat throughout.

These characters serve only as a prop, as does the story and film itself for the writer/director's desire to "shock" the audience and show how brave they are for using the "n-word" and showing taboo things like masturbation, rape, gay bondage rape and alligator guts. Oh and don't forget pointless urination and the constant reminder that the world is and has always been a terrible place and any attempts to do the right thing will be met with disappointment and murder.

They do not develop any tension in the so-called story relating to the completely inconsequential investigation and consistently have every major plot development off screen. Focusing mostly on the fantasies (twisted and otherwise) of I presume the writer. A complete waste of time and film. All concerned should be ashamed to be associated with this cinematic cum stain.

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

One of the 2 WORST Movies I've ever seen!

Author: hugh-584-419666 from United States
17 January 2013

Pointless - deliberately shocking and senseless. The vulgarity was inane. Whoever wrote this is in a very dark place. Careers can be made by one great role (Pacino as Michael Corleone). Careers have been ruined in the same manner. Kidman, McConaughey, and Cusack have deteriorated to porn star level. We watched the movie because of past film performances of these actors. They are now on our DO NOT WATCH list. We could never watch another film of theirs and not think of this disgrace. No doubt this film was made for its shock and sex value. Artistically it equals the efforts of junior high school. If it was supposed to be an attack on Southerns, it missed its mark. "The Help" accurately portrayed the Southern temperature - not this tripe. Hollywood has sunk to a "disturbing place".

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Pointless

Author: memyselfblogger from South Africa
7 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

While the acting is pretty good and the film explores some very interesting ideas, it sadly has no point whatsoever. The storyline severely lacks any kind of line and leaves you feeling like you've wasted your time. Weird flashback techniques occasionally overly subtle script make it difficult to understand or enjoy. I found the scenes where Hillary and Charlotte engage exceptionally disturbing and unnecessary. Issues with love, self-acceptance and racism are well dealt with and carried by outstanding acting, however the movie falls apart because the nonsensical storyline doesn't pull anything together and fails miserably to garner any understanding or interest. Very disappointed.

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

This may be the worst movie I've ever watched.

Author: imartz123 from california
14 July 2013

Albeit the concept of the movie was compelling, and certainly the star quality is impressive, the story is simply over the top of AWFUL! It confuses the audience with too many unnecessary and disturbing graphic images. It did what every movie maker wants by permeating my thoughts but in a nightmarish way. The story simply didn't need to be told. It seemed the director only made it for its shock value. The movie was so horribly graphic I needed to fast forward though parts of the violence hoping some purpose or substance to the story would reveal itself afterward. Usually it did not. I would be curious to discuss it with the actors. I can't imagine any of them having any pride of ownership after this movie.

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Self Indulgence at its finest....

Author: Niko Miller from United States
25 January 2013

What a self-indulgent piece of crap....3 actors exploring the darker sides of themselves? How the f#ck did they get a routinely great actor like John Cusack to sign up for this.....

And Nicole Kidman (a fantastically beautiful woman)....did she undergo drastic botox treatments for the part?

Every single cliché pulled out of a Harry Crews novel about swamps, Florida and the people who live there is contained in this movie. Did this director have one original idea?

This movie wasn't even good enough at being bad to make me watch and see how much worse it could get.

Really, really, really BAD.

14 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Paperboy

Author: Cheryl6750 from United States
27 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Most disturbing movie I have ever seen. How in the world did Lee Daniels put his name on this movie. And how did he get this kind of talent to do this movie. ALL time worse movie. I was hopeful when I saw who was starring in this movie. I am puzzled as to why someone would write a book of this nature and further puzzled that a movie was made with this theme. I can honestly say I couldn't believe what I was watching but I stuck it out until the end. Wish I had stopped half way through the movie because it only got worse. I have never given this kind of critique to a movie. I usually think enjoyment of a movie is a personal experience. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this movie.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Painful

Author: John E Chandler from Rome, NY
6 March 2013

I really wanted to finish the movie, but it was so uninteresting and silly that I didn't care how it ended and spent the last half hour I missed of it doing something constructive like returning this movie to the video store and paying the late fee. The person I was watching this with was thankful to me for speaking up and not torturing them any further. I expected something from this movie. Not something more, just something at all. Imagine the Lincoln Lawyer meets Boogie Nights meets Deliverance and somehow make a movie combining all the elements; but somehow do it with actors that are making the movie to get a paycheck and an editor that has a billion projects going at once.

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

VERY disturbing

Author: bianca_man from Ohio, USA
22 March 2013

WARNING! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! The movie was very obscene and disturbing. It was all just rape, murder, and racism. It is pretty rare for such great actors to play in such a bad movie, but this was definitely one of those cases. I don't recommend watching it; you'll just lose 2 hours of your life. I don't usually regret anything, but I do regret watching this movie. I'm writing this review to warn you before you watch it. I know I wish somebody warned me before.. But everybody to his taste; some of you might consider this interesting, some of you might like violent movies-for whatever reason-but there really are LOTS of disturbing scene, most of the movie is, really. At the end of the movie, my first thought was " I REALLY hate that movie.", followed by " This movie makes me lose faith in humanity.." and "My stomach is kinda upset now". The trailer of the movie was OK-that's how I got to watch it in the first place-but now that I take a second look and read the comments too, I realize that I could have done a little research before that and spared myself some time.

A disgusting film in every respect

Author: robert-temple-1 from United Kingdom
4 August 2014

There are not enough unfavourable adjectives to describe this disgusting, revolting, offensive, and deeply sick film. Presumably people are watching it because Nicole Kidman is in it. But she has really demeaned herself by having anything to do with this project. She plays a 'wild Southern girl' who laughs with a crazy look in her eye, but all her performance amounts to is simply a good Juliette Lewis impersonation. OK, so Kidman has proved that despite being an Australian, she can imitate an American Southern accent of a 'poor white trash' girl passably well. Isn't she clever? So versatile! But everything about the film, and that certainly includes the psychologically deranged character she plays, is so utterly disgusting that Kidman might as well make a new career for herself in hard core porn films, if that is the kind of admiration she is seeking. So low does she sink, that at one point we actually see a closeup of urine pouring out of her backside. Well that is good for the perverts who get excited by urinating women. Well done, Kidman, that's a great step forward in your career. The director, co-producer and co-writer of this horrible film is called Lee Daniels. I would not want to be his psychiatrist. And I hope I never meet him, as I would feel required to disinfect myself all over. John Cusack has also demeaned himself by playing a psychopathic killer so intensely that the lust to kill slops all over the screen like treacle. David Oyelowo is meant to be playing a good guy, but his acting style is so irritating, artificial and over-mannered that he should give up film acting if he cannot do better than that. Scott Glenn is his usual sturdy self, with not much of a part, however. Zac Efron does a good job as a decent young man who becomes obsessed by the decadent and insane Kidman character. Matthew McConaughey also does well in an over-the-top role as Efron's brother. The best, and only sympathetic, performance is the film is by Macy Gray, a very sensitive black actress. She could do with a bit of speech therapy because it is not always possible to hear her words distinctly, and I am not referring to the heavy accent required for her character but to her apparent inability to enunciate so that an audience can make out everything she is saying. Otherwise, she glows like a pearl in this dung heap of a film.