|
Showing all 32 reviews...
|
|
 |
My wife and I rented this movie based on the manager's recommendation at Blockbuster, and we actually laughed at it because parts were so bad. This is one of the very worst movies I have ever seen, boring, meandering, poor acting, just lame all throughout! My favorite part is where Wahlberg smiles at the main actress in a closeup and has spittle in the corner of his mouth. The editors didn't even catch that!
1/10
29.12.2007 -
nanolovesjesus@ - age: 26-35
Haha, yes I saw the Movie, Mostly becuase Mark is a hottie and Newton is my favorite actress along with Halle berry!!! Kool Movie, If not in focus and paying close attention uh you would not understand it, and thats what I like about the film, attention captivating or don't waste your time.
9/10
11.6.2003 -
cyberjunkiegrl19@ - age: 18-25
I just rented this movie and I loved it. However, I must warn you that you will either hate it or love it. There is no in between with this movie. If the presence and music of Charles Aznavour does not inspire you, if you don't like Paris or the French language, if you don't find the different types of music refreshing, if you are not taken away by the beauty of the main actress, if you are not well rested enough to maintain your concentration through out this complicated story, if you don't think that Mark Walburg is about the coolest actor around (I loved Rockstar!) then you might loose interest while watching the movie and once that happens, you will hate it. Recommendation : rent this one when you're alone and not with a group of people who talk through out the movie.
9/10
25.4.2003 -
alainplourde@ - age: 26-35
I thought it was a really interesting movie. It was fun to watch though it gave me a bit of motion sickness; I recommend sitting in the back half of the theatre. All in all, I'm glad I went.
8/10
23.11.2002 -
robynpit@ - age: 18-25
Very French, sheeshheeee.
10/10
21.11.2002 -
ncerad@ - age: 18-25
Witty and fun!
10/10
21.11.2002 -
rschaf@ - age: 18-25
I thought it was a pretty good movie! I recomend you to see this movie if you like twists and mysteries. Dum dum.
8/10
19.11.2002 -
funkachikity@ - age: 13-17
It had potential but as the movie progressed it kept going downhill. I felt like I was suddenly watching a bad David Lynch movie. When the truth is revealed it's so disappointing. I have had better dreams than this movie. Although the Parisian cop and Thandie Newton had the best scenes it's not worth paying for. Unless you enjoy torture...
4/10
19.11.2002 -
resp16@ - age: 26-35
This was b-a-d! Horrible. Painful, to say the least.
1/10
13.11.2002 -
bubbaf@ - age: 26-35
Horrible.
2/10
8.11.2002 -
napigyl@ - age: 26-35
This movie is missing one of two things... If it was supposed to be a mind game movie then it was missing twists and turns... like following a straight road on the highway, easy to fall asleep... or if the movie was supposed to be a thriller type movie... then it was definitely missing action... If it was supposed to be a good movie then it was missing both.
2/10
2.11.2002 -
goldfinger_the_1st@ - age: 13-17
Allthough it seemed like a dramatic thriller, this movie seemed to be filmed through a comedic lens. I found it rather enjoyable.
8/10
1.11.2002 -
rylan_69@ - age: 18-25
I love this movie! It's fun, it's great, it's a masterpiece : a tribute to the French New Wave... Astonishingly good actors, especially the Paris cop, by a great French actress Christine Boisson. Her performance is the most outsatnding.
10/10
31.10.2002 -
gaymonk@ - age: 36-49
The best movie in years.
10/10
30.10.2002 -
xtreme_sport@ - age: 1-12
Absolutely worst movie I have ever seen. Looks like it was done by an amateur. The cameraman doesn't know how to hold a camera. Not one straight shot in the movie. Constant motion. Was he on drugs? The script is not at all the same as the original Charade, which was a fabulous movie. Very depressing. Very bad acting. I hated it. What a loss of time and money!!
1/10
30.10.2002 -
renee,landry@ - age: 50+
Ok I dont usually listen to critics or reviews but trust me on this one, it is HORRIBLE!, probably the worse I have ever seen! I want to warn everyone not to waste their money. The story sucks and the movie drags on for no reason! If I could give it a 0/10 I would.
1/10
30.10.2002 -
yasmine_ghali@ - age: 18-25
Horrible film... you're better off throwing your cash down the sewer.
2/10
30.10.2002 -
nelsonmunce@ - age: 26-35
Wait for the movie to come out on video then wait for a friend to rent so that you don't have to pay to see it. The story had potential but the camera shots, well - they certainly do make you sick to your stomach. Too Bad!!
1/10
30.10.2002 -
korrinas@ - age: 18-25
What a master piece haven't seen something this good in years.
10/10
29.10.2002 -
steacyjoseph@ - age: 26-35
Not entirely cohesive, but enjoyable enough for a few thrills and unexpected laughs. Goes from potentially dramatic thriller to comedy as the movie goes on, but I always found it kind of fun throughout for one reason or the other. Mark Whalberg was perhaps not the best cast character, however.
7/10
28.10.2002 -
lizthevw@ - age: 26-35
What a terrible movie. The premise was good, the camera shots great and the actors had potential. This said, it was baddly executed and turned out to be dumb. People were laughing AT the movie, not at the situation. Very disappointed.
5/10
28.10.2002 -
danelajoie@ - age: 26-35
Trust me on this, DO NOT PAY TO WATCH THIS MOVIE. Just like the rest of you, I have to agree: talented acters and bad screen play.
3/10
27.10.2002 -
anarjisse@ - age: 26-35
It's wasn't that bad. It was more funny then thrilling. What was cool about it was that about half the time the actors we're speaking french! Yay! French is cool!!
7/10
27.10.2002 -
natte_a_chat@ - age: 13-17
It was one of great movie this year... I know many people couldn't understant what the director wants... anyway, if you understand this movie, you will enjoy... I couldn't stop laughing at last of Sean... it was so funny and I like their acting... it was great... I like Tim Robbinson and Junghoon Park... they are the greatest acter in the world...
10/10
27.10.2002 -
danny74lee@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
This pathetic movie is Demme's misguided attempt to be stylish and New Wavy. In the process he loses all sense of story and his actors in handheld camera, rapid camera movement, and scenes that add nothing to the story. The handheld camera technique is so bad (as well as being pointless) that I spend 3/4 of the movie thinking I would throw up my popcorn. Truly folks this is a stinker that even the lovely Thandie Newton can't save. There is a big gun showdown at the end, and it's the kind of movie that you kind of hope everyone gets killed for having wasted your time so badly. Go see the original (Charade) and see what potential this movie really had. If you DO go see this one take a couple of dramamine at least a half hour before the film and don't have any butter on your popcorn.
2/10
27.10.2002 -
clags@ - age: 50+
Although I don't agree with the people who gave this movie a 1 rating I can't say I agree with the 10's also. This movie is a very uneven remake of a much greater film "Charade";made in 1963 and starring screen legends Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant and Walter Matthau. At times I admire Jonathan Demme's audacity in his choice of music, camera point of view, but he unfortunately lacks a little bit of direction. It's almost as if he was so afraid that he would make a mistake that he didn't go as far as he wanted. Mark Walhberg and Thandi Newton do a decent job but casting Tim Robbins was a mistake because the comparison with Walter Matthau (in the original film) doens't stand a chance. Still a entertaining film to see but only on DVD or VHS.
7/10
27.10.2002 -
y_menard@ - age: 26-35
Worst movie I saw this year...
3/10
26.10.2002 -
sylvain,st_amant@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
The bad thing about this movie is... even thought it's not predictable... it seems predictable throughout the most part of the movie... which made it just boring to watch, I don't know it wasn't that great.
5/10
25.10.2002 -
gabs66@ - age: 13-17
Worst movie I've seen in years. Dialogue sucked, direction and editing was all over the place. Don't waste your money.
1/10
25.10.2002 -
jrhill@ - age: 26-35
Well, I'm so happy I didn't have to pay to see this movie. It's so long, so boring. It's true, like others wrote already: good actors, pittyful american production who were obviously aiming for european style. The soundtrack was pretty good though.
4/10
24.10.2002 -
sam@ - age: 26-35
Just got back from a advance screening of this film and the truth is... this film is laughably bad. The film is an extremly flawed American movie trying hard to be a stylish french film. The script and direction of this film is all over the map. Johnathan Demme can't seem to decide what type of film he wants to make. Most of the blame has to fall on the four writers who share the screenplay credits (one of them being Demme) It is a shame that such a great cast of actors were forced to utter such lifeless dialogue. You know a film is in trouble when the french singer Charles Aznavour, in a campy cameo, gets the biggest reaction out of the crowd in just two scenes.
2/10
23.10.2002 -
smallcourtney@ - age: 18-25
| 
