|
Showing all 10 reviews...
|
|
 |
Boring. Fell asleep. Plot was slow to develop. Yuck.
3/10
7.5.2008 -
emvr68@ - age: 36-49
The ONLY reason I would consider watching a movie like this is Rachel McAdams... due to her hotness... but, then they have to creep it up by making her love interest or whatever some 50 year old man like James Bond... [what] is that?. what's with the pervo Hollywood obsession with hooking up young chicks and old dudes?!! obviously old dudes run the movie business but, c'mon... NOBODY wants to see that bullsiht... it's [...] obvious that it isn't even about the movie AT ALL it's about an old pervert manufacturing a "role" and "script" to hook up with someone too young for them.
1/10
30.4.2008 -
tyronne_bigummms@ - age: 26-35
I liked it alot. Goes to show you might not know as much about people as you think!
8/10
15.4.2008 -
getmea24@ - age: 18-25
Enjoyed the plot line, though I did hope for an alternate ending. Good decor... liked recognizing parts of Vancouver.
7/10
9.4.2008 -
axelthelegend@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
This movie wasn't bad. It had an interesting storyline, and the acting was convincing. But it could have been so much better. Is there anyone out there that can play suave better than Pierce Brosnan? I think not! And he does it again like only Pierce can. One of my biggest criticisms of this movie is that the pace was a little too slowed down. At times, it actually felt like the movie stopped, like to story no longer moved forward, but just remained in the same place. Yes, it is a drama (with very slight dark comic undertones) Yes it takes place in a not so distant past. And yes, the main attraction is seeing the wicked web that the characters weave themselves into. But the unraveling is disappointing, as is the time it takes to weave that web. Brosnan, Cooper and Clarkson deliver good performances, and Rachel McAdams is also quite effective in her role. But it could have been much much better, it could have moved a lot more, and it could have had a more satisfying denouement.
6/10
8.4.2008 -
rimbaud1972@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Nice, relaxing, love the storyline. Good acting. Worth seeing.
7/10
1.4.2008 -
catlover-@ - age: 36-49
To me it was like a stage play. I enjoyed it, but my husband thought it was boring. Not so, if you are willing to put yourself back in the late 40s, pay attention to details, decors, clothes, and remember the mentality of people, etc. Slow pace, and I enjoyed it that way because it gave me the opportunity to appreciate the performance of each actor,... after all life WAS slower in those days. Will rent the DVD.
7/10
26.3.2008 -
reneefran@ - age: 50+
I am giving this a higher rating than what most would think because the era and style of this film was captured. Chris Cooper is great! And although some may think this movie to be slow, it is only living true to the era that made these styles of films.
8/10
26.3.2008 -
riverdalekid@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
A bit slow but with moments of dark/dry humour which, IMO, could have been sprinkled more often throughout the movie. Will I see the movie again? Not in the cinema but, perhaps, on DVD to catch some of the outtakes :D
6/10
25.3.2008 -
hexarmcpentax@ - age: 50+
Just goes to show... not everything is as it seems. What do you think you really know of your neighbour, friend.. ? Very well-made film.
7/10
23.3.2008 -
squaawk@ - age: 36-49
|
