Même Woody Allen ?...Not possibeul ! eh si

05/09/2014 18:20 par tellurikwaves

*

*

Possibly the WORST movie ever made

Author: arouet from Los Angeles
21 May 2002
 

How can I say that? Surely, there are other movies that more suit the title? Well, NO. Most bad movies are bad because there are so many people in the control of the production. No matter what you think, the Director is usually powerless if executives want to add or rearrange movies the way they seem fit. It's these EXECUTIVE types who normally ruin the movies you think are so bad. But WOODY ALLEN has COMPLETE artistic freedom to whatever he wants. He is one of the ONLY directors in the US who have this power. And that's what makes this movie so HORRIBLE. This is a making movies-by-habit and it is a total slap in the face to anyone who buys a movie ticket. Woody Allen, who so often has demeaned other directors and writers for making movies that seem unworthy of the medium has just made a movie for no other reason than he was given the money to do it. I cannot believe Woody Allen put this thing together and thought it was good. He couldn't. IT'S AWFUL. It's UNWATCHABLE.

It's thrown together like three eggs about to be scrambled. I don't want to harp on age differences, but when Woody comes in to meet his girlfriend Debra Messing, she couldn't even pass for his DAUGHTER! She looks like his GRANDDAUGHTER. But that disturbing casting does not ruin the movie. It's the WRITING. Woody Allen is making comedies when he is no longer funny. And he throws lines out there just to see if they stick to the wall. These are non-stick walls, folks. I'll give you an example. In one scene, someone mentions he should buy a mercedes and he says, "I can't be driving around in a 29 Mercedes, people will mistake me for Himmler." Now, that is about the STUPIDEST thing I ever heard. HIMMLER? Just because it's slightly obscure, Woody thinks it will cause a laugh. No, Goering is too well-known, he goes for Himmler. And it's a TERRIBLE decision. He also has many jokes later in the movie about a guy whose act is biting the head off of rats, and then we get several rathead-biting comments in the film. It's a TERRIBLE MISCALCULATION. The FIRST rat-joke wasn't funny, it was STUPID. None of these jokes have any wit.

Two times in the movie, Woody tries to evoke his past genius. One is a cocktail scene early on when some literary names are banted about, and some sex jokes with it, ala Manhattan. Also, there is a scene where Lea Teoni and Treat Williams talk for an extended time the camera stays still while they go in and out of the room talking. It's very "Hannah-Crimes-Husband" and it would have worked, but the dialogue is so bad, you don't even care.

A worst movie ever would be one in which someone takes TERRIBLE advantage of you as a fan and a movie-goer, and then insults you in the process. A movie that wants you to walk out of it in the first ten minutes and lose your money. This is the one. I think every year, I am going to just send Woody my seven bucks and save myself the torture.

3 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Snore

Author: cwdfwtx
4 May 2002

Another Woody Allen snorefest. We keep expecting Woody to make a better movie.But I think its time for Woody to hang it up. This movie is very boring and once again proves that Woody Allen is a has been in my eyes. This is the last time i will waste good money hoping to see a good Woody Allen flick,

1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Woody Sleepwalks

Author: Richard from Madison, WI
5 May 2002

This is what you would imagine a movie would be like if you asked a bunch of amateurs to write a Woody Allen flick ( a la the "It Was A Dark and Stormy Night" series of books). This movie plays more like an overlong SNL spoof on Allen films than the genius we've come to expect. Not only would I say save your money and DO NOT see this at a theatre...don't even bother renting it. It's BAD!!! That said...why aren't Tea Leoni and Marion Seldes in more films??? They were the only remotely bright spots here. Too bad, but I guess such prolific filmmakers are allowed a few dogs...better luck next time Woody!

2 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

I guess you have to be a Woody Allen fan...

Author: hok_herman from Meerlo, Holland
10 March 2004

This has to be one of the worst movies ever. You probably have to be a Woody fan to at least like this one.

I went to a Sneak-preview with a few friends and we were this close to walking out of there. But I wanted to see if the end of the movie made up for the rest. It didn't.

I only laughed once, when Woody fell down a few meters. The rest of the movie is extremely boring and extremely not funny.

Woody Allen is a not funny dirty old man. It looks to me he needs to make crappy movies like this just to get his hands/eyes on some pretty half naked women.

3 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

The end of Woody's career? We're soon there, I fear....

Author: Jexxon from Norberg, Sweden
5 January 2005

Hollywood Ending is really, really not very good, a few more films like this and Woody is done in Hollywood.

Basically, he plays himself, directing a new flick, nothing new you say - but wait, here's the trick:

Poor Woody is so nervous that he goes blind, a more hysterical twist must be hard to find.

He stumbles around, stuttering like an old fool, yet young women just look at him and drool.

Surely that couldn't happen in real life? But remember - his daughter is now his wife...

The movie is of the one-joke kind to be sure, which sadly makes it excruciating to endure.

Woody has lost his special film making touch. Goodbye, farewell, thank you very much.

Gone is all the intelligence and wit, and we're left with a steaming pile of...

It is slow and boring, not the least bit fun, out of ten I can just give it a one.

2 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Most boring movie ever.

Author: hok_herman from Meerlo, Holland
3 November 2002

I've seen a lot of movies.

And this one I saw in a sneak preview.

I can't believe people can enjoy garbage like this.

Maybe it's because Americans have a different sense of humour, but I don't know anyone who actually enjoyed watching this failure in my neighbourhood.

Woody Allen is nothing else than a dirty old man, without humour!

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Now, Woody, About that Ending... (2/10)

Author: jhclues from Salem, Oregon
3 October 2002

Real Woody Allen fans will rejoice with this film; at least they better, because nobody else will. Decidedly, this one is for dyed-in-the-wool Woody fans only, and it goes far in demonstrating that even an inspired concept or idea does not necessarily a good movie make. And whether you look at it entirely objectively or from a subjective viewpoint, `Hollywood Ending,' written, directed by and starring Woody Allen, is a clinker. It's an interesting notion that came to fruition as a one-note, one-joke film that, ironically, is as bad as the film made within the film. Maybe even worse. On the positive side of the coin, the best thing that can be said about it is that it's not quite as dismal as the Woodman's misfire, `Celebrity,' inasmuch as no one here attempts a grating Woody Allen impersonation a la Kenneth Branagh, which was THE most unnerving aspect of THAT whole debacle.

The story is fairly straightforward and simple: Legendary director Val Waxman (Allen) has fallen on hard times, mainly due to his own obstinate attitude, and he's been reduced to directing a television commercial on location in Canada. He finds a champion, however, in his ex-wife, Ellie (Tea Leoni), now engaged to Galaxie Studios boss, Hal (Treat Williams), to whom she pitches Val as the perfect director for their latest project. After much to-do and some initial skepticism (based on his history with Val), Hal gives in and gives the green light to hire Val.

When Val gets the news he is by turns surprised and elated; so much so, that just as they are starting production on the picture, Val is struck with psychosomatic blindness, which could possibly (?) impede his ability to direct a motion picture. But this is the chance for a comeback that Val has been waiting for, so he dares not reveal his problem, especially to Hal. And so, after necessarily confiding his dilemma to a carefully selected couple of people, Val goes on with a little help from his friends. Now, if he can only keep Hal away from the dailies, he has a chance to finish the film; the film he was `destined' to make.

Without question, this film definitely has it's moments, and some of them are actually hilarious; but it's simply not enough to sustain interest or make this one memorable in any way. As previously stated, the concept is good; one may even say inspired. But the execution goes devastatingly awry. The dialogue is well written (which combined with the right visuals inspires the laughs), but the story is filled with Hollywood `in' jokes, most of which will mean little, if anything to an unsuspecting audience. And in most cases, even if you do `get' it, it's just not that funny. Add to that the fact that this is arguably the `shallowest' film Allen has ever made, and you begin to realize why this one just doesn't resonate. The intelligence, depth and insights that define most of Allen's films are inexplicably absent here, and the impact on the final product is quite noticeable. And it just goes to show that even a filmmaker like Woody Allen, who is often brilliant and sometimes genius, can occasionally miss the mark. And, as is the case here, miss it altogether.

As an actor, Woody Allen has created some characters who are likable to a degree, but never endearing; he can be interesting, but his natural lack of charisma renders him less than riveting; he can even be sympathetic, but it's rare. As Val, he is none of the above, which is one of the inherent problems with this movie. Val is a guy you are hard put to tolerate, let alone like, and as such you just won't care much one way or another if he succeeds or not. Most likely, you'll be hoping he winds back up in Canada, freezing along with his insecurities and incorrigible attitude. Perhaps the time has come for Allen to rethink the role he should play in his own films. In `Bullets Over Broadway,' he successfully opted to cast John Cusack in the `Woody' part, and it seemed that he had turned some kind of artistic corner with regards to his own ego; but playing Val himself is a big case of backsliding. Even Paul Newman realizes he isn't `Hud' anymore; it's time Woody realized that he isn't...well...whatever he was at one time.

The beautiful and talented Tea Leoni gives a worthy performance as Ellie-- in fact, one could say her participation is the highlight of the film. It's tough to buy Leoni and Allen as a couple, though; It's just hard to accept that Val and Ellie were ever married. She seems much more suited to a David Duchovny type. For all her efforts, even suspending disbelief doesn't make the relationship seem viable, which, of course, has an impact on the film's credibility.

Still, it's even harder to believe Debra Messing as Lori, Val's `current' girlfriend. Her performance is convincing, but the relationship is just too questionable. And this isn't judging a book by it's cover; looks aside, with what we know about Val, you have to wonder what could possibly attract Lori to him. The angle that as an aspiring actor she's using him to get her foot in the door doesn't hold water, inasmuch as he's on the way down and there is a plethora of others in positions of power who would be ready and able to add the willing Lori to their personal cast of characters. It simply doesn't jibe with the reality of the situation.

The supporting cast includes Bob Dorian (Galaxie Exec.), Mark Rydell (Al), Yu Lu (Cameraman), Barney Cheng (Translator), Isaac Mizrahi (Elio), Marian Seldes (Alexandra) and George Hamilton (Ed). To those who subjectively translate anything Woody Allen does to perfection, `Hollywood Ending' will be a satisfying experience. Those who fall outside of that parameter, however, will be disappointed. Either way, it's the magic of the movies. 2/10.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Woody's longest film to date & I couldn't watch the whole thing.

Author: binaryg from United States
4 May 2002

In Hollywood Ending a promising premise became increasingly tedious until I just couldn't care. Not since 1987-1989 has Woody Allen put together a string of three duds. Those films (September, Another Woman, New York Stories) were his final attempts at" no laugh, serious" films and a segment of a film wherein Coppola and Scorsese also came out none too well either. But he followed those three films up with up with Crimes and Misdemeanors, one of his truly great films. So perhaps there is hope. But that hope, for me, is fading. His last three films, Small Time Crooks, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and now this, Hollywood Ending, aren't experiments or near-misses. Given the talent involved in this trio, these are failures on a colossal scale.

Woody, George Hamilton, Tea Leoni, Mark Rydell, Treat Williams make up the kind of a cast that in Crimes and Misdemeanors or Deconstructing Harry (to name just two) made cinematic magic. But here they work to no effect. Or worse, they work to an irritating effect. Leoni's yammering put me in mind of Diane Keaton's character in Manhattan Murder Mystery. It is just irritating. Hamilton is amusing but what does his character represent? He's wasted. Treat Williams is the best thing in this film, but we're supposed to (I think) see him as a bad guy.

This is Mr. Allen's longest film to date and it all seemed to go on interminably. I finally got up and left. I don't leave too many films. I've never left a Woody Allen film. He was my cinematic hero. But I left Hollywood Ending because it had become tedious, it wasn't funny, it was overly long, and just for the principle of the thing. I can only hope Woody finds his way again.

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Rather dull

Author: Lora Traykova from Sofia, Bulgaria
31 July 2003

I expect an intelligent and funny film whenever I choose something directed by Woody Allen, but this time I was unpleasantly surprised. The film lacks the originality of most of his previous scripts and I was hardly ever amused by the dialogue (My favorite lines being, "I quit." "Why?" "I was fired!"). The acting was o.k. but Mr. Allen's habit of surrounding himself with women so younger to him this time looked rather distasteful than anything else. The film would have been great if it was much shorter than hour and a half.

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

I walked out...it was that bad

Author: Josh (joshualieder@earthlink.net)
10 May 2002

Woody Allen films are usually a treat. This one I watched in a darkened theater all by myself and I walked out. It was just not funny, not entertaining and a total waste of film. I kept wondering if those gathered to star in this boring movie hoped they might win an oscar or something. Woody is blind in the story at one point and I have read read reviews where they make light of this. Woody, retire gracefully now. You just dont make good movies anymore. I don't think you "see" this and you have tripped up horribly here. I honestly cant say one good thing about this film except that it was brightly lit, more so than any of your other films, most of which I've loved.

Bide total !

05/09/2014 13:55 par tellurikwaves

*

*

Avoid at all cost.....

Author: headly66 from New Jersey
27 December 2009
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I knew I was in for a treat when I got at least 2 pee and 5 ball sack jokes in the first ten minutes of this trite excursion into dullsville. Everyone here plays exactly what you would expect of them, basically themselves in real life. This must have taken very little time to make and seems to just be a paycheck for the actors. The plot is ridiculously contrived, a couple is having troubles so to reassess their lives they want to go to a beautiful retreat but can't afford it even though they seem rich so they force their friends to go also on a weeks notice. The club is said to be so hard to get into but for some reason they offer half price for 4 couples, which makes a lot of sense. Their only black friend who seems completely out of place here (and not because he's black) has no money but who is buying a motorcycle somehow, can also go with his 20 year old love tart whom everyone has no problem with joining them even though she obviously only cares that he buys her things but agrees to go through couples counseling even though they just met.

Once on the island they are now informed they have to do what the retreat has planed for them and are again told there is a very long waiting list, but they again got a 1/2 price deal just for being them.

The next painful hour is spent creating one ridiculous scenario after another like when they all have to undress and all the other men are allowed to keep their underwear on except the guy with pants has to go naked in front of his friends wives.

This is one of the silliest pieces of junk to come along in a while.

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Painfully inadequate

Author: phd_travel from United States
31 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Vince Vaughan and Jon Favreau are not good enough to write a full length movie comedy. There just aren't enough jokes or a decent enough story to carry this movie. Most of the jokes fall flat. Not even worth a chuckle. Didn't anyone read the script first? The lewd jokes are just lewd not funny.

The cast just seems bewildered. Kristen Davis and Kristen Bell are totally wasted. The part with Carlos Ponce is pathetic.

Don't bother watching this at all - there are no redeeming features. Not even a pretty set can help. In this day and age it is amazing they can produce such low mentality stuff for audiences.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Awful

Author: stevenrcoon from United States
1 March 2010

This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. If I had been watching it by myself I would have stopped watching at some point during the 2 miserable hours. There was virtually no humor, no wit and no genuine sensibility, nothing. The 5-minute long Guitar Hero scene was one of the dumbest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. The movie portrayed all the worst stereotypes, such as fat ugly men with hot wives, a trash-talking and racist Black woman - she referred to restaurant workers as "mescans", and even a idiotic Fabeo character with some kind of foreign accent. Don't waste your time on this one, no matter how desperate. A 5.5 is a gift.

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Bollywood Style !

Author: drklabs from Greece
5 February 2010

This movie for sure will fill Hollywoods pockets with money , why? , because average people likes to see places on the movies that will never see in reality afar from that this movie has nothing more to gives you but only to take from your pockets and from your soul.I bet that commercial video tapes advertising luxury hotels can give you more interesting things than this film.In my opinion this is a bad commercial hotel advertisement.Don't laugh please its like the video tapes that hotels gives you for free at the reception.Bad script bad acting NOT FUNNY AT ALL !!! , you must be sure that all the actors were invited in a spa place for vacations for free and instead of paying for their vacations they shoot-ed this movie in advance for the free spa resort.The thing goes like this ah! they called us to blah blah blah resort hotel why should we pay them ? we ll shoot a film in 5 days of our vacations and all its for free and also we fill Hollywood's bosses pockets with money everybody will be happy , both actors Hollywood boss and hotels five stars boss and even the crowd. Why loosing time at vacations and not starting get money from our vacations marketing director said Lol.Also i m referring to people said that this movie makes you forget your troubles NO! This movie brings your problems and stick them in your face if you really want to forget your problems don't watch this movie.In every second trying to make you realize that your life is crap while being married then in the end it tells you "so what?" live your crappy life and be happy its enough with your shrink's time nothing is gonna change so accept it get your wife's back and stop dreaming a better life f**k you this is your life period..and if this was the target of this film "yes my life sucks" the target was pointed correctly.

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Hey, It's Vince Vaughn starring as his only character...Vince Vaughn

Author: dsfresh from United States
6 May 2010

I must start my review by stating I did not finish this movie, nor did I even think to bother with the "alternate ending"; although I wish there was an "alternate movie".

I won't describe the plot for obvious spoiler purposes, but I will describe one aspect of this movie that really upset me. After 30 minutes of viewing, I noticed that the black actors in this movie were being duped. Well, maybe they were duping other black people for taking the gig.

Faizon's character was a black man who was broke, had a thing for young women, and always borrows money from Vince Vaughn. Kali's character was a woman with multiple boyfriends, money hungry, and couldn't speak proper English. Every stereotype was fulfilled with these two characters. They both had little lines in the script, and absolutely no banter with the other white actors. Matter of fact, every time they spoke, no one would respond; there would be blank stares. Of course they gave Faizon a typical catch-phrase; bang-bang. How original.

Anyways, I'm white and I can see the racism bleeding through the screen as it is so obvious. That's why this movie grabbed about 50 minutes of my time. Hopefully people will just leave this one alone.

Not to mention, the script is soulless. That's why I am so heartless.

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Failed attempt at mediocrity

Author: jsorenson777 from Japan
1 May 2010

An idiotic script interpreted by illiterates.

Makes Adam Sandler look like the genius he thinks he is.

Couple's Retreat was bad in so many ways. The characters were not likable and they had no depth. The relationships were undeveloped and thus unbelievable. We were just supposed to accept them. The story was inane. The acting was unprofessional, but that may well have been because of horrid direction.

This thing fails miserably as a comedy, except for the few dramatic attempts, which were funny.

Might have been a good excuse for a bunch of people to go off to a tropical island and pretend to do work. Too bad they had audiences come out to look at the finished product, which should have never been finished, or started

13 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Forget it!

Author: ltsc3105 from United States
1 November 2009

After paying to see this turkey, it became obvious why Vince Vaughn is both the writer and producer - he couldn't find anyone willing to invest his/her money. As for being the writer, most 6th graders could have done as well. I thought perhaps that Jason Bateman could rescue the film, as he has been in some good movies recently, but he proved to be the most unlikeable obnoxious character I have seen in months. My wife and I go to the movies about 3-4 times a month, so I guess it was time for a loser to appear.

The only characters with any redeeming value were the women, with the exception of the 20-year old ditz with a voice like Woody Woodpecker. She was at this retreat with a guy twice her age so he must have been wealthy or had some unseen attribute.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Awful and big disappointment

Author: Andreas D from Croatia
5 April 2010

This movie attracted me because of its nice trailer but in cinema I was disappointed . This is the worst movie which I paid for watching . There are so many amateur scenes and movie is looking frivolous .There are so boring dialogues and there are many silly scenes . This movie is looking like the worst romance comedy . Even Up in the Air is better and more intelligent . You can see so bad sense for humor . Vince Vaughn in every comedy is looking very confused . There are so annoying parts and movie is reminding on some jet-set meeting of futile actors . This is some kind of lullaby because you can fall asleep . I didn't do it because there is so loud in cinema . Is there anything funny ? Maybe children but it isn't enough to rise up my rating . I definitely don't recommending this movie because you won't like it . Maybe you'll fall asleep .

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

horrifyingly bad film one of worst ever made

Author: hangallpoliticans from United Kingdom
5 February 2010

Hollywood should be ashamed this film got made..i thought they employed readers to sift through all the scripts they get sent and pick only the best... anyway i only slightly laughed 3 times in this 1hour 50 minutes of shite. I will never ever allow my self to sit through a film this bad again..next time im hitting the stop button as soon as i know the films crap...for this film simply don't even rent or buy it its terrible. Its so boring you may want to commit suicide its that bad..how its classified as a comedy is beyond me. Naked gun is a comedy , couples retreat is a big steaming pile of poo, its just so stupid it may only appeal to people with Iq's less than 45 and that means retards

update im sorry i lied i sat through knight and day without walking out of the cinema thats another pile of poo !

70 out of 140 people found the following review useful:

The Cast, Crew and Producers should be ashamed.

Author: (duxdudex-556-905327) from United States
15 October 2009

If your idea of Comedy consist of juvenile dirty jokes that center around masturbating and sticking your private parts into other peoples faces, then this is your kind of movie. If your idea of Entertainment is watching four narcissistic, sexually depraved adults trying to cope with married life, then this is your kind of movie. The photography and location are fantastic. Casting did a great job in booking the talent. Peter did a good job on the set. The plot could work with better writers. The story was weak and fragmented. I would recommend this movie only if you have absolutely nothing else to do on a cold rainy day and you're craving Popcorn. My rating is F+ for great scenery. The Cast, Crew and Producers should be ashamed.

Me suis VRAIMENT emmerdé

05/09/2014 13:40 par tellurikwaves

Séduit par le casting (Anthony Hopkins,Rachel Weisz,Jude Law) Pas pu aller au bout

*

*

How could Hopkins, Law, Weisz do this??!

Author: michal_ordogh from Slovakia
23 July 2012
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You fall under impression that you are watching 2 movies cut into one of terribly uneven quality.I can not express how shocked I was, hearing Slovak (not Slovakian-as you hear in the movie) language. Two Slovak girls,with NO ACTING skill, one of which used to host a TOP10 on national TV is now showing her breasts and works to empower a myth that all Central European girls are whores.The sidekick girl,her "mission" in the movie remains a mystery. ONE BIG BIG FAILURE: you can predict everything in this movie. A cured rapist will not have sex, 'cos he is cured, a Slovak whore will try to rob,a going-to-be-unfaithful husband will change his mind, a Muslim in love with his Russian assistant fires her to resolve his personal issue. Conclusion: bad image of my country supported, two movies cut into one, all PREDICTABLE. Avoid this movie!!!

13 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Blah Movie has some good performances--but absolutely nothing to tie any of them together

Author: Matthew Stechel (mateob25@aol.com) from United States
23 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Interconnected story lines of various people's lives criss-crossing across the globe film in the vein of Babel--doesn't have much to either recommend or even keep you watching once you're a good half hour or so in it. I kind of liked Anthony Hopkins' performance and i kind of thought Ben Foster's storyline was interesting--at least at first since it doesn't really go anywhere after the big reveal of his character---i kind of liked the ending with the big hearted Russian guy and the younger sister of the exploited call girl coming together with their story lines (does that count as a spoiler? i'm honestly not sure because i'm not sure anything that happens in this movie could be called a spoiler since a spoiler would imply that something happens towards the end of the movie that affects the outcome of the story---and that's really not the case with anything that happens in this movie) I wanted to like Jude Law--indeed i thought the first scene with him was setting up a potentially interesting storyline but then he all but disappears throughout the majority of the film only coming back at the tail end to give the illusion of coming full circle. This film doesn't seem to have much of a point unless you count the very vague notion that we're all people living on this planet and we're all worthy of happiness even if we're not entirely sure that we are worthy of it---i suppose that could work as a synopsis for a film but its about as vague as anything else that i managed to take away in the two hours of watching this movie unravel. It is i will admit well shot--and rather pretty to look at for the most part---a lot of the tracking shots are well done and the score is pretty good. I just wish there had been something or some point that could've tied this entire thing into a whole--it was really just an accumulation of scenes that don't quite build on top of each other the way i imagine the writer and director thought they would. In short its kind of a blah movie--and very much a rather large disappointment from the director of City of God, The Constant Gardner, and Blindness.

3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

so what else is new?

Author: Solange Barakat from Crete- Greece
3 November 2012

I love social movies, but unfortunately this one was Boring, slow and without any exciting twists in the story. Antony Hopkins' monologue at the AA meeting is the best part of the movie as far as I'm concerned , because you know he will never disappoint you, but other than that ,it really isn't a movie that will enrich you in some way, it is a waste of time really.I also disliked the music, it was poorly chosen and made the movie look even worse. All that made me skip quickly to the end because I wanted to stop watching it, that's how boring it was. I was disappointed because I thought that actors such as Jude Law and Hopkins would eventually offer some excitement in the movie,but mainly, it tells common stories of our daily lives, so..what else is new?

7 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Forgettable

Author: Rubens Junior from Brazil
1 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

360 is a movie about a huge international cast (and wasted as well) playing characters that are connected by a fact in common: the difficulties to decide which may be the right decision to take.

I guess that this is the worst movie by Fernando Meirelles and also the worst one to use this kind of 'hyperlinked' narrative. It is exactly as the title says, a turn for nothing. The movie ends the way it starts, and this is not even a spoiler because you will guess it in the very first minute, the same way that you will find out the premise of entire movie when is said that if you find a bifurcation in life, you do get it, but you will have to find out the right direction to take. But the movie doesn't use this idea so well and instead of being a very reliable and confident point of view about life and decisions, it's just another movie most about love and betrayal and some times (a very few times) about other difficulties.

It's not a thriller as it may seems, it's just a drama and a tedious one for sure. The acting is fine, the edition is quite good, and Meirelles's direction is effective, but ordinary. The best thing about Meirelles is the way he uses the camera angles to pick up right moments and that is always a great thing to observe, but the movie lacks of depth and soul. One thing that is very interesting is the fact that seems that all characters are faded and used to their conditions in a ordinary simple and miserable life, but you never get close enough to any of them because every story is told like a chronicle and not as relevant example. Everything is superficial and the movie never involves and brings you into it. Maybe that was the intention, but that distance doesn't work here.

It follows and uses the same characteristics of movies like Magnolia (1999), Crash (2004) and Heights (2005), just some examples as the list of Short Cuts-alike is huge and a now a sad cliché.

Maybe the main problem of entire movie is its huge number of characters and their bad developed stories which makes you never get an entire one or a whole idea.

A forgettable one.

16 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

The Movie Does Live Up to its Name; 360

Author: samlapidus from Toronto
12 September 2011

I saw this movie at is premier gala event at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). The movie has good character development but the downside is that the beginning of the film is slow due to the nature that the characters are built. This is a movie about connections between people. As further connections are presented to the viewer the movie moves along at a faster pace. The cast most certainly brings strength to the film as does the locations in which filming took place. Unfortunately this is one of those pieces that you know worked best on paper. If you are a fan of the cast or the type of development that occurred in the movie Crash, you will like this work. The movie does live up to its name; 360.

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Great and amazing cast. Slow moving and kinda boring movie. Good writing and acting but movie isn't all that good. I say C+

Author: Tony Heck (cosmo_tiger@hotmail.com) from United States
24 September 2012

"A wise man once said if there's a fork in the road take it." This is a movie that deals with many different characters from different parts of the world from different social classes and how they deal with day to day problems from doing anything to earn money to getting stranded while traveling. The cast in this, which includes: Rachel Weisz, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins and Ben Foster is great and honestly the cast is the best part of the movie. I used to think that a great cast automatically means that it will be a great movie, but after the last 4 or 5 movies I have seen based off the cast I am beginning to rethink my opinion. The acting is great in this and the story lines basically end up being tied together I guess but the movie is just so slow moving that it makes it really hard to stay interested in. The movie is pretty OK but for me this is another example of a great cast in a sub-par movie. Overall, very slow moving drama that is really only worth seeing because of the cast. I give it a C+.

The many good elements don't combine to make a good movie

Author: highwaytourist from United States
21 June 2014

When one sees all the talent that came together, you'd expect a really good movie. There is a premise with much promise, which was written by acclaimed British screenwriter Peter Morgan, directed by respected director Fernando Meirelles, and features some top acting talent from around the world, notably Anthony Hopkins. It's beautifully photographed in various parts of the world. So why didn't it work? Mainly because no one was given anything interesting to say or do. It's one of those connections movies with an ensemble cast, which had been done so effectively in movies like "Short Cuts" and "Magnolia", and it's hard to say how disappointing this film was. It wasn't a terrible movie, but it's so shallow, uneventful, and mediocre that I spent some two hours just waiting for something interesting to be said. I could have spent two hours at the airport observing various people and come up with something more interesting. As one critic put it, "It's a dull world after all."

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

La Ronde, not by Arthur Schnitzler...

Author: jotix100 from New York
19 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is easy to see the appeal of a classic work, like "La Ronde" by Arthur Schnitzler, to be the basis of a film project. The fact that we, as humans, are more interconnected than we realize, is a theme that appeals to filmmakers all over the world. Unfortunately, this film was done better before by Max Ophuls in France.

This new retelling of the play was the work of the ambitious team of Fernando Mirelles, its director, and Peter Morgan, the screenwriter. For lack of imagination, the production goes all over the world in order to make its point. The action takes the viewer from Vienna, to Paris, to London, to Denver, and Phoenix, and back again. The film kept reminding this viewer of Robert Altman, a genius, in comparison, who could combine a lot of styles and situations into an end that, at least, made sense and was more palatable to audiences.

That is the basic problem with "360". Most of the stories do not connect, or get resolution, in most cases. There is a lot of talent in the film, poorly depicted on the screen. Take the cases of Jude Law's businessman prevented from having sex with an aspiring prostitute, or the grieving Anthony Hopkins coming to identify the body of who can be his runaway daughter.

The large cast is easy on the eyes, but in the final analysis, there is no substance to most of the vignettes. One can only recommend a viewing of the Max Ophuls' masterpiece "La Ronde".

23 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

the worst hyperlink movie ever!!

Author: Binoy Santhakumar (bonzybino) from India
21 July 2012

Let me not get this wrong but there's no hyperlink movie - movies with inter related characters and plots - which bored me till date, until watching 360. And have seen quite a lot of them to benchmark the genre, or the least to enjoy them. 360 falls flat with a lame storyline though it assembles some of the finest actors - needless to say all of them wasted - and for a thread about human connections and relations, it leaves a lot to be desired in the end.

The making style, the narration and the editing were good, but the screenplay had nothing new to offer, seen all of them and many of these characters and plots else where - Magnolia, crash, 96 minutes, traffic, Nine lives to name a few. I mean where's the novelty in showing interlocking stories of characters in pursuit of money, sex, love which have been told a million times! Thankfully we don't have an accident in the plot, easily the saving grace from getting all dejavu'd! To make it lamer the background scores were so erratic and ludicrous.

The movie with some names in the cast is hard to put down, how deceiving! and for a thread that was supposed to draw and evolve the complex nature of human relations sadly stoops, even before the drama gets built up to the core. A big let down.:( :(

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Personal Opinion of 360

Author: elaine-jade from United Kingdom
28 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This way it goes back and forth between countries and peoples lives does remind me of crash but it isn't as good as crash. When initially watching the beginning of the movie i thought it was another film because i didn't recognise the actors and it was in another language. It did follow up on the rule that it only takes six connections before someone else knows you. This film was very realistic and i believe the music was well chosen for each scene. This film is dreadfully slow...there isn't anything fast paced included in it. I wouldn't necessarily define it as a romance either it is quite passionless. The atmosphere is very shallow. I think the film was put together in a great way but the plot of the story wasn't as good as i was expecting. However i really wish john found his daughter at the end...he looks so alone. This should have been a television program.

Une connerie 100% U.S soi-disant drôle

05/09/2014 13:24 par tellurikwaves

Séduit par la présence de Steve Buscemi et Elisabeth Hurley...etc

*

*

What a lousy movie!

Author: oldsenior from Los Angeles, CA
7 July 2005
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The director/writer should of gotten a co-writer, because he trys to get to some-where in his film, but falls short, maybe someone elses imput would have made the difference between a lousy script and a funny movie. I've seen Leary on different talk shows and he always seems to be on the edge, ready to explode, an angry person, always having to put some one down to try to be funny and make a joke. Maybe if he smiled a bit in this movie it might have seemed like more of a comedy, (talk about a grim dude). The writing was just poor and the direction at least in the fast food place was missing something, clumsily staged. And what-about the young girl getting away with attempted murder (we're supposed to believe she's repented (she crys) and there-fore pays her dues to society). What's the title mean? What's the eyeball mean? Why is the hero? smoking dope (I guess the director does), is that cool? Hurley's secretary could have been a bit more animated, instead of being a zombie, and made a more interesting character. Dimitri the cop was a pretty sharp dresser, his clothes and Leary were by some big time designer, although you'd never know it by Leary's wardrobe. Hurley always looks great and Bucimmi's character could have been better realized, what he had was nothing. In fact the whole story could have been better realized, tighter and connected somehow. Maybe the next effort will be better and not cost me $5.00 for the DVD.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

An absolute disgrace

Author: xshitz from Majenta supersonic jet
5 February 2004

Wow, sometimes renting a film on a whim can lead to utter disaster. DOUBLE WHAMMY attempts to cover the entire emotional spectrum, and misses at every turn. Homicide is used for comic effect, homicide is used for dramatic effect; homophobia is used for comic effect. Dennis Leary is following Eddie Murphy's path of having once been a genuine talent, trapped in a career of schlock and crap. Elizabeth Hurley is Elizabeth Hurley -- she looks good, but just won't stop trying to "act."

Don't let the reasonably decent cast fool you, as it fooled me. Steve Buscemi is terrible in this, Dennis Leary and Chris Noth are awful, Elizabeth Hurley is Elizabeth Hurley, and Luis Guzmán not good. It's not their fault -- they have next to nothing to work with.

Pass this one by.

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Hard to believe...

Author: memattohyeah from San Francisco
10 June 2004

It's hard to believe that 1) this film got a release at all. It's not funny. In fact it's flat and very amateurish. 2) I can't believe that this is made by the same guy who made Living In Oblivion and The Real Blonde. Both of those films are funny and insightful.

Really great films. Double Whammy seems slapped together, full of half-baked ideas. A real let down. I had read all the bad reviews posted here but I usually like to make up my own mind about films. Especially when the filmmaker has made such great films before this one. You can believe all the bad things you hear about this one. A total waste of time!!

Not Funny

Author: SanteeFats from United States
14 November 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this movie because it was titled a comedy and Denis Leary had the lead. I really like Leary as an actor but not in all his roles and this is one of the don't likes. This film was not even close to being funny unless there was some black comedy aspect that I just missed. Leary is a detective who gets caught is a couple of bad press pieces because of a bad back. He goes to a chiropractor and gets it corrected. They end up hooking up of course. The supers daughter wants a tattoo (way under age). told no she goes to two local idiots. They misunderstand and think she wants them to off Papi. They knife him in the back. This leads to Leary finding the bad guys or they find him? Anyway Leary shoves one out a window and while fighting the other one the knife that is stuck in the ceiling falls and sticks in the bad guys back which kills him. I have a big problem with that . The knife blade is a very wide one and goes in perpendicular to the ribs. No way. The blade would have bounced off the ribs coming down like that. Oh well it fits with the rest of this not funny movie.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Why do they keep on making movies like this one?!

Author: Timo Taipale from Helsinki, Finland
21 April 2003

Double Whammy, the title already says everything that there is to this film. There is not much into this movie: poor acting combined with lousy story. Double Whammy is the second movie I have seen that stars Elisabeth Hurley and Denis Leary and although this is not as bad as the first one "Bad Boy" it still one of the most useless movies ever.

The movie provides some interesting possibilities but none of these are ever really realised. For example: the movie genre. It is not a comedy (I did only laugh once) but it is not a suspense either. The murder commited is not solved in the end and what about the charachter Jerry Cubbins (played by the great Steve Buscemi). He has problems with his sexuality and maybe they could have made some funny scenes based on that.

In the end, this is an uninteresting movie with shallow characters. Why do they keep on making these movies and why do I keep on renting them...

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Sundance letdown.

Author: SIKORSKIB
3 October 2001

Why this played Sundance I'll never know. Two-bit writing and one of the most cliche-ridden movies I've ever seen. The only cleverness in the movie is that the wannabe filmmakers are racking their brains trying to come up with bitchin' scenes and dialogue for their "big" movie. Maybe the writer was showing his own process for this movie. I want my money back.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Incredibly disappointing -- awful

Author: ken c. from Windermere, Fla.
24 May 2003

I wondered why I had never heard of this film before stumbling onto it in a video store. I mean, with Denis Leary, Elizabeth Hurley, Steve Buscemi and Luis Guzman in it, it sounded like a can't miss.

Sorry. It missed. Badly. Incredibly badly.

Not funny. Stupid plot. Horrid acting.

If not for a couple of make-out scenes between Leary and Hurley (during which she flashes a little . . . . ), this film would not even warrant the 4 that I gave it.

Boring, all-over-the-place script, poor performance from Leary

Author: Finn Renard from Spain
9 February 2014

I am a big fan of Liz Hurley and not at all a fan of D. Leary. That being said, I didn't expect much from this movie, and I didn't get much. The story is all over the place, with sub plots that has little meaning to the main plot. The lack of quality in the writing affects all the main characters, which means only Hurley, Buscemi and Luis Gúzman pass the grade.

We got drama, crime, romance, and comedy. As for the romance, Leary is far from likable, and the relationship with his chiropractor is just not romantic nor credible. Apart from the aspiring film writing neighbors played by Donald Faison and Keith Nobbs, there is nothing funny at all in this movie.

See this movie if you want to see the always beautiful Liz Hurley. Otherwise stay away. Leary should stick to stand-up, but I guess he ran out of Bill hicks routines to recycle.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

90 minutes of bad luck?

Author: Enchorde from Sweden
18 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Recap: When Ray Pluto steps into the Bun Burger he doesn't know that his bad luck has just begun. Suddenly a crazy man with a rifle crashes through the window and starts shooting people. A perfect moment for detective to step in and gain fame (and fortune?). But a bad back prevents him from raising his own gun, and he trips up, falling and dropping his gun. Instead of him a 10-year-old kid becomes the hero, and he becomes "Loser Cop". After that Ray struggles to regain his confidence and reputation, but never seems to catch a break. There is just bad luck around...

Comments: "Translated" into Bad Luck in Swedish, that title does make a little more sense than Double Whammy that I still can't really connect to the movie. However, Bad Luck seems to describe it better since I felt that I was in bad luck that it didn't end sooner.

This movie suffers badly from a weak script. Supposed to be a comic drama it is neither. There are no real fun moments, and no real suspense, no development at all to speak of. The movie consists of a string of events, which are mostly weakly connected to each other and sometimes seem to happen at random. It also contains a few rather pointless sub-plots never explored, the biggest one consists of two guys trying to write a movie (maybe experiences of the script-writer?) that is mostly there to make the end work and bring some comic twists during the movie. But unfortunately it just doesn't. The most ignored sub-plot is the prior loss of Pluto's wife and daughter which is just hinted at, and if explored could had a real impact. Now it is just lost and pointless.

So, even though the movie casts a few good actors there is not much to hope for. Denis Leary is good when he has something to work with, but that doesn't happen here. Steve Buscemi might be one of the most underrated actors out there, but sadly his character is just peripheral in this movie and he never gets the opportunity to do anything. Donald Faison has shown subsequently to be a great comic actor in Scrubs, but is able to show little here. The movie also sports known actors like Elizabeth Hurley, Chris Noth and Luiz Guzman but they seem out of luck too. Actually all characters except for Ray Pluto, like Buscemi's Jerry, is just peripheral. And it is hard to make and carry an entire movie alone. I don't blame the actors, I blame the script.

Not much to hope for really, a few bright moments, but not much more.

4/10

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Hey, it's that guy!

Author: aqua_swing from Canada
26 March 2005

Ah, Denis Leary movies. They're always up for either fun and silly (The Ref, Suicide Kings), the kind of movie to make you nauseous (Two if by sea, Operation Dumbo Drop), or completely unexpected (Final). When you mix all three of them you tend to think you're bound to get something good, but alas, you get disappointed. Here's where Double Whammy sets in. This is one of those kind of movies that has no plot and is filled with watchers saying "Hey, it's that guy!", and that's probably the most fun you get out of this one, save the occasional laugh where-be there are a bunch of things I've never seen in a movie before. But the rest of the movie was complete and utter boredom. It was like when you watch Quantum Leap and go "AUUUGH another lame part!", only this was the whole movie. Howabout I add in the fact that other than the main two characters, there was NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT! The only reason it got two stars was because the chemistry between Hurley and Leary made me feel okay.

Une autre daube...merci CANAL

05/09/2014 13:05 par tellurikwaves

Séduit par la présence de Naomie Watts j'ai perdu mon temps en regardant ce...cette

in french ça s'appelle :L' ASCENSEUR (NIVEAU 2) 

*

*

Wow... uh, where to begin...

Author: michael h from Atlanta, GA
7 July 2008
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just for kicks, let's pretend you're a disgraced military scientist. You want to create "bio-machines" that incorporate mechanical devices with human intelligence. However, your first attempts were always kind of hard to control and turned out a little, well, homicidal. So the military fired you... but of course you want to continue your research. Well why not continue your dangerous research on an elevator in a busy, New York skyscraper that's open to the public? Seems like a good plan. What could possibly go wrong?

That's the plot of this one. The elevator kills people because it is partially powered by human brain cells and is apparently evil for no good reason. Yep. Sound scary? Sound at all plausible? Didn't think so.

This might be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The shocking thing is that Naomi Watts shows up as a newspaper reporter trying to get the scoop on the "killer elevator". What on earth is a real star doing in this thing? I realize it was earlier in her career, but one would think her standards were better than this. Did she read the script before taking the job? Ron Perlman shows up as well; maybe he failed to check out the script too.

The dialogue is so bad it's hard to even laugh at it. The acting is hard to stomach. This movie just goes to show that a bad script and bad direction can make any actor look terrible. James Marshall is particularly laughable as the leading man. He looks like a high school drama student trying to remember his lines for the big play.

The premise is so strange. Of all the things to experiment on, why would the scientist choose an elevator? Do we really need a super-intelligent elevator? With such a bad premise, one can certainly imagine how the half-baked plot plays out.

It's hard to think of one good thing about this movie. It did make me laugh occasionally with its overall amateurish look and terrible dialogue. However, it's not a fun, campy B-movie. Down (aka The Shaft) is just plain boring, formulaic and doesn't make much sense.

Elevator from hell

Author: thomas stavland from Norway
3 June 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okey, where to begin... This is one of the worst films ever made.. I cant believe this movie ever got the budget it needed to get made.

Spoilers!!

It is about an elevator who kills the people who rides it. And the only way to "Kill" or destroy the elevator is to destroy its hart.. i repeat, its HART.. The story is bad, the acting is bad and the movie should be listed as a comedy because with the storyline in the movie, it is very hard to take it seriously as a horror film.

I do not recommend anybody to watch this because its awful.. Just awful..

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

It's like the Godfather if the Godfather would have stunk

Author: "Sparky" Fike (meatwadlives@hotmail.com) from Oakland, Maryland, United States
14 March 2006

"Down" is the "story" of an elevator shaft that is killing people. I watched it under the thought that it was somehow related to the movie "Shaft" with Richard Roundtree boy was I wrong.

Let me start with what this movie does right. Now that that's out of the way how this movie strayed into the land of "From Justin to Kelly"It does everything a bad Horror movie does nudity at the beginning for no reason, more cursing than a ship full of sailors, and the death scenes are lame that add nothing to the movie.

The story is like class on the "Jerry Springer Show" non-existence. At first I think the killer is Indians, Germans, or Dolphins. Yes dolphins. Flipper hates big buildings. This move tries to build suspense but try after try just left me disappointed not shocked.

The acting was the things "Razzies" are made of. During the movie I wished Sinbad would come and save the movie.

To summarize I don't know what is sadder this movie or the fact that I sat though it. If you have an hour and fifty-five minutes to kill by watching this movie please don't.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Pure stupidity

Author: rodjon from Stockholm, Sweden
8 October 2003

This has got to be the worst movie I've witnessed for years! I thought John Carpenter's "Ghosts of Mars" would hold that nomination for quite some time, but this romp makes Carpenter's movie shine. Pure waste of time. Avoid at all cost!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Did This Movie Really Get Made?

Author: Jonathan Funke from NYC
31 July 2006

So let's play Management Consultant Interview and do some quick math. Let's assume 15 million folks in the LA area, each of whom writes at least a screenplay every two years, and, what, like, another 15 mil around NYC...let's say only one in three in NY actually spends every waking moment writing screenplays, but that they're a lot more disciplined about it -- so say one per year.

So that's, like, 12.5 million screenplays PER YEAR -- and they decided to make this one? No new ideas, no script to speak of, no OLD ideas, no obedient tribute to past flicks in the genre, no budget in evidence, no clever way to say "look, ma-no budget!" -- and not even awful in that fun-to-watch way.

Check out my other reviews. I prefer to give praise where it's due. This was a straight-up waste all around.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

The elevator isn't the only thing wrong here!

Author: thewakinghour from Japan
2 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Now, a personal note, I will not write truly negative reviews, no matter how bad the film. I really am astounded at the people who take the time to write about why they think "Citizen Kane" or "Ikiru" or whatever isn't simply "over-rated" but "awful" or "stupid" enough that they have to warn other people NOT to watch them.

Actually, I don't even understand people bother to rate a movie under a "5," even if they don't write a comment.

That said, any "1" from me is meant to reflect an odd sort of applause!

This is a really, really, really bad movie. In the best sense!

The premise, of a bio-engineered elevator system designed by an obsessive ex-military weapons program mad scientist, is, well, pretty lame, however laudably weird, and the script and the acting manage to press every possible drop of the lameness by pretty much every bad-movie device possible: over-acting; poorly-conceived characters with insufficient motivation; ridiculous, yet lame, stereotyping; dull use of excessive profanity; ridiculous direction and cinematography.

In other words: you name it; it's bad.

The final perfection of the lameness here (and, no, I rarely use that particular word in general conversation) is that the monster - some sort of bio-engineered living humanoid braincell larva - is killed at what is supposed to be the climax of the film, before revealing whatever-the-hell form it was about to metamorphose into!

You don't even get to see the monster!?!?!!!

If you have time that's really in need of killing, and this happens to be on TV, watch it. At least until you find something better to do!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Waste of time and money

Author: Rena from here
6 March 2002

Bad movies either become cult movies very quickly or sink into oblivion. I hope this one will never be heard of again. I voted a clear 1 out of 10. It's so bad, it's hilarious (all for the wrong reasons of course). Oh, by the way: Mr Dick Maas, please, for the sake of all movie-loving people think about opting for a new career. Like selling cars, or refrigerators, or shoes for that matter ... Why oh why did anybody ever invest any money in your script when there are so many wonderful, brilliantly written scripts out there just waiting to be turned into films!

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Was this a comedy?

Author: miceli123 from United States
3 October 2006

I can't comprehend this movie. It was so ridiculous that I thought it might be a parody, but as time wore on, I realized that there was no sense of humor to it. There were some reasonably big names and it seemed like there was a lot of money behind it. But a horror movie based on a murdering elevator? Just don't go in there.

I also noticed that many of the performers looked downright embarrassed. There is a certain dead eyed expression an actor gets when they realize that they are involved in a real piece of garbage. Just pause this movie once or twice during a close up and you'll see exactly what I mean.

This was just painful in every respect. I can't believe that this was done by professionals. This was basically a movie written by an elevator repairman and meant for the enjoyment of other elevator repairmen. EVERYONE else should stay the hell away.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

This movie is so insipid it will blow your mind.

Author: herrtitenfisch02 from United States
6 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Holy crap! Who is in charge of green-lighting horror movies these days, a cage full of retard, blind chimps or Hollywood cheesmoes who don't care about quality as long as they make another million? I hope, for humanity's sake, that it is the former because this movie is so stupid, so retarded, so insane, that I can't imagine a room full of people saying "Yes, this movie is good. I'll will help produce it." Unless that dialog was followed by "I am also very drunk and high on crack and have only seen half this movie."

Here's the story- haunted elevator shaft and weird things happen in the elevator and around the building. What's causing it? Ancient Indian burial ground? Vengeful ghost of someone who died in the elevator and whose demise was covered up? Satanist? Aliens? Westinhaus the evil Babylonian god of elevators? Nope. It's a "high tech" new elevator maintenance system that runs off of living human tissue. For no reason. I think they may have mentioned why once or maybe twice in the movie but I was too busy laughing at the cheesiness or crying at the fact that this movie was made to pay close attention. Here come or brave heroes, the New York City elevator maintenance men. I'm not kidding. Our hero- macho- renegade- rag- tag- elevator- maintenance- man- guy investigates the spooky things that happen and finds out that the elevators were invented by some big- shot Yale/ Harvard crazy introvert who was kicked out of the ranks of military engineers because he did spooooky things with technology and living human tissue. So he made the obvious jump from military hardware to elevator technician. Oh, and he's evil. They never explain why, guy's just a bastard, I guess. And to help save the day is Naomi Watts who is apparently trying desperately to chuck all her dignity as an actress right down the toilet. She plays one of those dumb blondes with big breast that dresses like a twelve- year old slut but is also somehow a college- educated feminist with the clichéd radical 'I'm not going to take crap from my male superiors' attitude. Oh, and she has the same exact job that she had in 'The Ring' - the dashing investigative reporter. Figures, that.

Listen- I'm not going to bore on anymore details. Just know this: if your in the mood for a movie that is so incredibly badly retarded it's funny skip this movie and go rent 'Deep Blue Sea' or 'Leprechaun.' If your in the mood for a movie that is so beyond bad to the point that it hurts your head thinking how such utter crap like this ever even got written down on paper and is so stupid it's depressing, however, then this film might be up your alley but you will still hate yourself for renting it. And if you do rent it, try to get someone else to pay for it. What a piece of crap. Oh, yeah one other thing: You were probably wondering this and yes, the movie does play Aerosmith's 'Love in an elevator.' Twice. Ouch.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

What the #!***!

Author: nycrules
5 December 2005

It was actually disturbing how bad this film was. It wasn't even bad in a funny way and at times I wondered if the filmmakers intended certain scenes to be. Either way, they need professional help. I was most disturbed by the fact the beautiful and talented Ms. Watts was in this. Boy did the next object of King Kong's obsession come a long way from this pile of stool! I couldn't believe she was in this wretched mess but even in such grotesque toxic waste she shined through. I couldn't make any sense out of much of anything in this film. Another part that disturbed me was the reference to Bin Laden and the eerie 9/11-like feel during the President's speech. Was 9/11 the reason this cinematic fiasco went straight to video or was it maybe Ms. Watts' agent who made sure it was kept pretty hush hush. Of course now Ms. Watts is about to appear in King Kong, the movie pops up again on cable. This travesty deserves to get "THE SHAFT" and flushed "DOWN" the toilet!

Un film de "producteurs" p2

05/09/2014 06:44 par tellurikwaves

Good example on how to make a bad movie

Author: shortcourtking-227-550962 from United States
30 November 2011
 

This is my first review on IMDb and this movie forced me to write it. Unfortunately I had to give it at least one star, zero stars is not an option. Within the first 5 minutes my wife and I looked at each other and said when will this be over. From the get go the movie was boring,the acting poor and the editing was completely atrocious. At almost every camera angle change both inside and outside the car they were on a different road. If you happened to notice they were always driving on a on-ramp or off-ramp never on a highway. I feel bad spending $2 of my Netflix money on this thing. Enjoy, may be a cult classic in 30 years. I am shocked that Maria Bello would be in a movie like this.

14 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Lame Garbage

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
26 December 2011

The divorced Lorraine Burton (Maria Bello) is an insecure woman that raises her seven year-old son Chad (Connor Hill) alone and without money. Her ex-husband Gary (Jeff Joslin) is a former military that went in court martial and presses Lorraine to take Chad for him.

One day, Lorraine stops her car in a gas station after her therapy to buy frozen pizzas for Chad and her. When she returns, the bank robber Roy (Stephen Dorff) carjacks them and heads to Tijuana, Mexico with Lorraine and Chad. Along their journey, Lorraine tries to protect Chad from the psychopath Roy.

"Carjacket" is lame garbage, with a stupid story, awful screenplay and a collection of clichés. The plot is so ridiculous that does not worth to spend my time writing about this crap. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Sequestro Relâmpago" ("Quicknapping")

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Complete load of rubbish don't bother watching

Author: hangallpoliticans from United Kingdom
27 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

wow carjacked sucks ! rubbish script, crap story, boring story, really really boring story. Watch a good crime film like " the getaway " with Steve Mcqueen, but don't waste your time on carjacked it sucks PS ending is idiotic, the baddies run over by a car so hard he'd be dead no question...but no he gets up still able to hold a gun ! this had to be written by someone with maggots for brains and an IQ of 25.

How do film makers decide to make a film like this ? who in their right mind could have read the script and said yes thats a good story ? if you want to be entertained do not watch this awful crap.

98% of the scenes in this film are of 2 or 3 people driving in a car..we see nothing of the scenery they would travel past making this some of the worst cinematography I've ever had the misfortune of watching, i cant warn you enough to stay clear of this stinker of a movie

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Avoid like the plague

Author: xpanther2005 from Ohio, USA
6 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is one awful movie. The writing & directing should win this year's Razzie's Award. The actors can't be blamed; except for taking part in this crap. Even the set locations are bad. I mean, supposedly they're on the highway... yet it always look like they're in-town on a 25-40 MPH roads! And the ending; now that's the fart on the top of that mountain of crap.

Nothing is believable, from the elementary school bus at a truck stop at midnight(!!) to the nonchalant attitude of the victim and her son towards the carjacker to the cop who tell a kidnapped woman about the state laws regarding child custody instead of trying to help her(??)..

So be warned, your time will be wasted for nothing.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Don't waste the electricity of your DVD player to play this movie.

Author: yourboycal from Canada
3 December 2011

This is a great film for exactly what your typical air head blondes would do in such situations.

I would love to meet the director of this movie and try and understand how he would ever approve such a disaster.

This movie has many scenes that will make you go WTF? Unbelievable events , broken story .

Watched it thought hey it would be a great movie , but the events that unfold , the countless blonde moments where she had a chance to deal with the situation .

Perhaps it should be called When a blonde is car jacked. Because the level of stupidity in this movie clearly reflects that.

I would not advise anyone to waste their time on this movie. I have no clue who authorized such a disaster bs movie. Don't waste your time with this. I gave it 2-10 because it had a good theme. But failed in performance and the situations it portrayed. Unbelievable garbage .

5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Total Garbage

Author: Kevin from United States
30 December 2011

45 minutes in and the only thing picking up any speed was the car. 28dayslateranalysis.com says "One of the more exciting thrillers to come out this year!" Seriously?!? Apparently whoever they got this tag-line from doesn't get out much...AT ALL! Don't waste your time...it be will 89 minutes (if you can stomach it through) of your life you'll never get back. Wow, IMDb won't publish my review because I don't have 10 lines...really?...this movie doesn't rate more than a few lines. It will take me longer to figure out what to say about this pathetic excuse for a movie than the 45 minutes it took me to determine it wasn't worth giving it the other 44 minutes to finish watching.

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Acting and Ending Issues too much to swallow

Author: deirdre-209-643722 from United States
10 November 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Though I love her in Prime Suspect, Maria's portrayal of Lorraine was much too annoying and felt very forced and unnatural, so I never developed much sympathy for her and never really liked her. Dorf did a good job with the material he had, though. I believed his character completely. The movie keeps your interest enough to keep going to the end. Alas, the ending was bad icing finishing off a somewhat too bland cake *ugh* You feel like you are missing the real ending and they just cut right to a "twist" that the producers really felt was the highlight of the film ... but really isn't. If Lorraine had been written and developed differently, perhaps I would have felt more satisfied and enjoyed the end twist as much as the filmmakers did ;)

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Laughably contrived and rather insulting to the viewer's intelligence

Author: callanvass from victoria b.c canada
22 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As an awful as a movie can be sometime, I'd like to somewhat use this analogy. Carjacked Is seriously like a bad train-wreck, despite how progressively worse it gets throughout the duration, you can't help but finish the disaster all the way through. Carjacked is certainly never dull, but it has a plethora of problems. Right away we are entered into the heroine's life (Bello) and the sight isn't pretty. We are given snippets throughout the film of her insecurities, her faults, but it never really gives us any reason to care about her, other than she's broke and a single mother who's in tough financially with a jerk of an ex husband. As a matter of fact they try to make her come across as sympathetic, but in reality all they managed to do was make her a whiny and rather unlikable heroine who commits way too many stupid mistakes in tough scenario's, The criticism should not be directed towards Bello because she gives it her best shot, but the obstacle of working against a bad script is too much to overcome. The relationship with her son felt forced and unnatural, and in a movie that type of relationship is vital to a movie's success, and they throw in the ex husband scenario for further dramatic effect to no avail. Stephen Dorff gives a laughably over the top performance which is largely uninspired. He sits there with his jacket, smokes cigarettes, looks cool, but he comes across as annoying and rather pretentious. The movie doesn't give us near enough information on why he is the way he is, as like a lot of the character development. Connor Hill is predictably annoying and rather unlikable as the kid. I didn't care for his nonchalant attitude towards the occurring events happening in the film or his hypocritical attitude (The moment when he gives Dorff the middle finger on the bus is a perfect example of this) but my main problem with Carjacked is that it grows abundantly more idiotic as it goes along. The finale had me howling in unintentional laughter. I'm guessing they wanted the big bang for the finale, but they failed miserably with a terribly over the top and unbelievable finale.

Final Thoughts: Maria Bello is far too talented to be slumming in this type of stuff. Carjacked is far too stupid and silly for its own good. I wouldn't even recommend this to B-Movie junkies, you can do something much more worthwhile with your time, like Maria Bello can with her career.

3/10

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

"A whole other class of something else"

Author: amahlanand from Australia
9 May 2012

When thinking of an 'escape' type film, the things that would generally come to mind would be intrigue, mystery, schemes and deadlocks. It is a pity then that 'Carjacked' contains none of these. In an atmosphere and complex that fluctuates from amicable chatting to sudden gun pointing for the majority of the film, the whole production, the events and the characters seem either too far fetched or too devoid of life to be believable.

Usually an actress with personality, Maria Bello portrays an inherently imploded single mother struggling with life. Her character remained detached whilst her emotions were too difficult to read. The hijacker, who was really responsible for carrying the film, acted by Stephen Dorff, is not menacing and instead of a cunning bank robber, is presented as a simple petty thief, which does take away credibility, even if his demeanour is a dangerous cool. The dialogue between the two protagonists comes across as very unnatural, so much so that the movie may well have been better off without it.

Whilst watching, you will likely find yourself throwing your hands in the air multiple times wondering how Bello's character Lorraine could not escape rather than find yourself absorbed in the intrigue of the plot. Dorff may well have been referring to the film as well when he refers to Lorraine as 'a whole other class of something else'. Although, he forgot to add, 'in blandness'.

20 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Horrible

Author: lvslezak-211-788721 from Pittsburgh
12 November 2011

I like realistic dramas/thrillers; I like to imagine that the movies that I watch could really happen in real life. This movie was so far-fetched that I found myself yelling at the television due to the lead's stupidity. "Just call the police, lady!, Just call the damn police" Without going into detail, I got sick of the movie about 45 minutes into it... The characters were very weak, and the plot was horrible.

I could have written myself if someone had asked me...I really can't imagine why people can rate this movie higher than a two or three star...Highly NOT recommended.

Un film de "producteurs"

05/09/2014 06:38 par tellurikwaves

*

Produced by 

Music by 

Cinematography by 

Film Editing by 

Casting By 

Production Design by 

Costume Design by 

Makeup Department 

Production Management 

Second Unit Director or Assistant Director 

Art Department 

Sound Department 

Special Effects by 

Visual Effects by 

Stunts 

Camera and Electrical Department 

Casting Department 

Costume and Wardrobe Department 

Editorial Department 

Music Department 

Transportation Department 

Other crew 

Thanks 

Š-DR-LE MONTREUR DE BOXE de Dominique Ladoge (1996) fin

05/09/2014 05:53 par tellurikwaves

*

*

Fiche technique
Titre original
Le Montreur de Boxe
Réalisation: Dominique Ladoge
Scénario
Dominique Ladoge - Robin Katz
Sociétés de production Belbo Film, Studio Canal
Production: Ludi Boeken, Pascal Judelewicz,
Gene Rosow et Anne-Dominique Toussaint
Producteur exécutif: Jacques Fansten
Scénario: Robin Katz et Dominique Ladoge
Directeur de la photographie: Etienne Fauduet
Montage: Didier Ranz
Musique: Alexandre Desplat
Chef décorateur: Dominique Maleret
Durée: 1h40 (100 minutes)
Pays d’origine:France
Date de sortie : 24 juillet 1996
 

Š-DR-LE MONTREUR DE BOXE de Dominique Ladoge (1996) p2

05/09/2014 05:42 par tellurikwaves

Le film affiche une distribution internationale (Richard Bohringer pour la France, Riccardo Cucciolla pour l'Italie, Peter Mac Enery pour la Grande-Bretagne et Karl Makinen pour les États-Unis). Il est tourné entre la Bulgarie, et la France. Quatorze nationalités se sont côtoyées sur le tournage. La coordination des combats de boxe du film a été confiée à Ron Stein, entraîneur de Robert De Niro sur Raging Bull de Martin Scorsese.

“ Novélisation ” chez Calmann-Lévy sous le même titre. Auteur: Pierre Mezinski.
GRAND PRIX de l’EUROFILM FESTIVAL 1997 LUHACOVICE - SAINT ÉTIENNE – TIRANA

Un making-off du film a été réalisé par Joël Calmettes et diffusé sur Ciné-Cinéma.

Š-DR-LE MONTREUR DE BOXE de Dominique Ladoge (1996)

04/09/2014 16:26 par tellurikwaves

Le Montreur de Boxe (Lucky Punch)est un film français de Dominique Ladoge sorti en 1996.

Résumé

Au début du XIXème siècle, les règles qui régissent la boxe anglaise changent et se précisent. Peu importe à Abel Ginoux, le montreur de boxe, qui organise des combats de village en  village. Assisté du "Docteur" Zipolino,son médecin;il offre une récompense à celui qui battra ses boxeurs. Ce qui n'arrive jamais . Le hasard les mène dans une forêt des Alpes où ils rencontrent un groupe de bûcherons...L'un d'entre eux,Passe-Partout accepte de se battre contre les Anglais d'Abel.