A Perfect Getaway [2009] Movie Reviews on CinemaClock

Crap. No character development, story has been told many times before.

Not a true phychological thriller, but was good brain candy. A bit predictable at times. I had it figured out by the 1/3 way point but it took my girlfriend almost to the end. Worth seeing. Likely a good renter on a cold night.

Somewhat confusing. Not sure what it was in the movie camera that triggered the I know who the killers are?

It wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. You'll probably guess the ending early but it's still fun to watch it play out. Nothing special but if you have time to kill, you could do worse.

The farther the group travels into this mysterious and isolated Brazilian community, the further they are from the possibility of escape... and the closer they come to the dark secret that waits for them in the lush jungle and underground caverns of the Brazilian jungle, and they must fight a primal battle for their lives in the most terrifying of all human traps."TURISTAS" is the first American production to shoot entirely in the country of Brazil. Oh [...]!! , WRONG MOVIE, OR WAS IT? Same movie all over again, guess they thought 2006 was gone and forgotten!

7.5 is what this one should get, I really liked it, although I figured out the twist early in the movie it was suspenseful enough to keep me interested. I didn't find it long or boring like many of the reviews say. It had it's funny parts, too. I'd watch it again on DVD for sure... pay attention from the beginning and you can prob figure it out, too!

This was a very good movie one of the best one's I have sen in a long time.

I really liked it. I love Steve Zhan as an actor and he's good in this one. I kinda guessed who was " it" before the big reveal but I almost always guess who done it :) Great scenery, good story, good suspens. All in all a good summer movie.

The plot moves by SO SLOWLY. It's easy to fall asleep during the movie.

Good one. Review more often, plz~!

28.8.2009 - dgfcuk@ - age: 36-49

Post a Reply

They were role playing - what did you expect them to do, broadcast their intentions to the audience? There were clues - the video tape at the start, uneasiness about the Vancouver shoot, the backpack rummage. It was passable summer fluff.

19.9.2009 - parker2@ - age: 36-49

Post a Reply

This was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The viewers were groaning, rolling their eyes, and laughing in disbelief of how bad the actors were and the stupidness of the story. People were actually walking out of the theater! I was very disappointed and thought it was a total waste of my money and time. I do not recommend anyone to see this movie. Whoever made this film should be ashamed and embarrassed to have created something so horrible. It lacked everything.

Story sucks, too simple, no purpose, not even intriging.

Less than Ok, I gave it 5 because the location "Hawaii" the best part of the movie (location), the plot is bad.

This movie was mysterious! It tricks you real bad... a bit confusing and screwed up at some parts but overall good movie... Go see it if your into suspense! :)

Very cheap production... My wife and I both didn't enjoy it.

I feel like this movie started off way too slow and nothing really happened unit it was past the half way point of the movie. It's very boring for over half the movie and they could have done a way better job of adding more to the plot. The twist at the end was a sad attempt of trying to make this movie good. It was a complete waste of 10 bucks and I wouldn't watch it again for free.

The movie did not explain certain things very well, some things were pointless. Had potential.

Great movie. Acting was superb, twist although obvious at one point was great. Very entertaining, intense and engaging. A must see in my opinion. I especially liked the somewhat reversal of the lead actors in last hour of the film; thought it was very interesting.

Excellent movie, had a really good twist to it. Recommend to thriller lovers.

Great thriller, not for those who have low cognitive skills, doesn't suprise me to see a few poor reviews. Acting was great, with a plot with more twists than a bag full of twizzlers. One of the better movies of the year.

"... not for those who have low cognitive skills..." I'm glad you enjoyed it, however my opinion is diametrically opposed to yours.

19.8.2009 - tdunne@ - age: 50+

Post a Reply

Well played went to it think what ever nothing is really on tonight, but I left thinking more. Best thriller eye have seen in a long long time.

The idea behind this movie isn't that original, as their have been many movies which have dealt with the subject of murder and catastrophee during holiday or honey moon vacations. One of those movies that come to mind is Curtis Hanson's 'The River Wild' with Meryl Streep, Kevin Bacon and David Strathairn, where Meryl Streep takes on a pair of armed killers while navigating a spectacularly violent river! In this movie directed by David Twohy, with Steve Zahn, Timothy Olyphant and Milla Jovovich, a couple, Cliff and Cydney (Steve Zahn and Milla Jovovich) decide to spend their honeymoon on one of the most beautiful and remote beaches in Hawaii when they learn from a group of freightened hikers about some horrifying murders which took place on an adjacent beach on the same island! Unsure wheather they should stay or leave, they join up with another couple and that's when things begin to go terrifyingly wrong! What this movie lacks in originality, it makes up for it in it's sufficient dose of suspense and twists and turns including a surprise ending! The acting is good and needless to say, the movie is filled with the breathtaking scenary of Hawaii! ; Although 'A perfect Getaway' is far from being a perfect movie, it may just be the perfect getaway from your everyday stress and routine! Indeed a movie worth seeing! Enjoy!

It was such an insane movie keeps you on the edge of your seat at all times. And by the end of the movie it makes you want more.

It was pretty intense in suspenseful terms. The concept was okay, but pretty confusing. They should have made it a little easier to understand, but it was overall OK.

The acting was great and the scenery was great. The plot was terrible. After the "twist" just after the middle, nothing from the first half made sense. One of the worst scripts that ever made it to the big screen. A disaster!!! Don't waste your time on this clunker. I would give it a '1' but that rating is reserved for movies like "Battlefield Earth".

Omg the script was really bad. If someone figures out what they were thinking for making this aweful movie, please let me know.

It wasn't terrible and I generally enjoyed the movie but it was a uni-dimensional plot.

This movie was better than I expected... Good thriller and the acting kept me entertain...

It is a very engrossing movie - full of twists. Definitely worth watching.

Hollywood has a new slogan: no matter how badly a script is written, there will always be an audience stupid enough to appreciate it! In this case, an appreciative audience must be totally unfamiliar with the notion of subject position. [...] This cinematic miracle is achieved by a black and white cinematic flashback around one hour into the film -- in that flashback, the entire story is retold in order to allow a different story to be added on as a closing. Good that they used black and whites, because that strategy has not been used since the 1930's Superman serials. The acting was surprisingly good, given how stupid the script was -- at least till the last fifteen minutes when not even Anthony Hopkins could have held it together.

Why does the audience have to be stupid? Perhaps they just like certain things that you do not, you're supposed to review the movie, not critique the viewers.

4.9.2009 - boondockbitch@ - age: 18-25

Post a Reply

I use the word "stupid" in a technical sense, meaning "presumptively witless". It would take a witless person -- one who neither pays attention to details nor remembers them -- to champion this film. Films have what Aristotle called "substance" and "form". Their "substance" is that they are (or were) made from images on cellophane. Their "form" is achieved when the cellophane images are put together in a meaningful order. The same can be said of the alphabet -- the substance is the individual letters and the form is the abc's. Anyone who recites it as ABCEFGHJKLABABC is witless, lacking both the powers of observation and retention. The word stupid is a dirty word these days, but I am willing to use it for people who drink milk they have been told is sour, who back their cars into their own garage doors, and who don't know the days of the week, all other things being equal (in other words, I certainly do not use the term as a substitute for the various categories into which the mentally challenged are positioned) People watching a film who cannot remember earlier events in it and hold the story accountable to those events are observationally lazy. They too have pleasures, like putting gum over their noses and blowing bubbles out the holes, but they are witless pleasures (like this film) If you liked the film and don't like the witless charge, you do little by barking orders at me with respect to what I say in my review. Instead, why don't you tell me how the film is a good film, or why my critique of the structure of the film does not hold water (by the way, for someone with an email address such as yours, you are pretty sensitive about the use of words by others) For myself, I am very glad we have the word stupid, and I try to use it whenever possible and appropriate. Music, film, and books gravitate more and more toward the stupid and there seems to be a democracy of the stupid out there as well (i.e., I am stupid, but I am among the many; therefore I am right) Historically, the tyranny of the stupid is a relatively new phenomenon, and you might learn about this if you read THE REVOLT OF THE MASSES by Ortega Y Gassett. I am afraid, however, that (assuming you enjoyed this film) you would not be able to do so.

8.9.2009 - com2013@ - age: 13-17

Post a Reply

I was not trying to insult you, so I do not understand why you are responding this way. My enjoying this film or not enjoying it has nothing to do with my intellect or wit. I am not angered that you did not enjoy the movie, or that you think only the witless can, but if I want to see a movie I see one, if I want to stay in and read through a good book, I do that. My email address has nothing to do with what I believe, and I did not bark orders at you. For someone calling me sensitive you should take a look in the mirror, or read a book about people who look in the mirror, your choice. Again, I apologize for my question, as it seems you have been offended by it, that was not my intent however I see your intent is indeed to offend with no cause. I hope the next movie you see is to your liking, and that the "masses" that you deem less than up to par intellectually are not called petty names if you do not. Again, I was not "barking orders" at you and I find your hostility unwarranted though a tad amusing, so thanks for the smile.

8.9.2009 - boondockbitch@ - age: 26-35

Post a Reply

Well let's go through the witless task of seeing who is offending whom. I did not seek you out. I responded to your email. I didn't choose the name of your email address which I find (when I hear the word) at least as offensive as most people find the word stupid -- but I will accept for argument's sake that someone else is forcing you to use it. Again, I contend, in opposition to what you say, as a matter of literary fact, that enjoying the film or not enjoying it is a sign of witlessness, just as you would have to be witless to enjoy reading secret messages from Zoroaster in a bowl of alphabet soup (there is nothing there to find) Effectively you are suggesting that aesthetic delight is a matter of personal taste, and that is not so."Delight" is a personal state, as I suggested with regards to nasal bubble blowing in the last email, but the aesthetic is not. To be aesthetic means, in part, to have form, a term which I already explained. Indeed, I am not particularly sensitive, however, I brook no quarter in this environment -- I have no reason to do so. I did not seek you out for this debate, you sought me, and I responded -- now you are boo-hooing about offensive this and masses that. Perhaps I am bombastic and unnecessarily aggressive -- I'll leave that on the table. But your first note is not as innocent as your second note characterizes it, and your second note is anything but apologetic in your "Well, excuuussse me," form. Let me give you one last bit of advice -- your theory of democratic aesthetics (i.e., what I like does not have to be what you like) flies against the entire knowledge tradition in Western culture -- lust is unique to persons but taste is not. In the fifteenth century, for example, people enjoyed watching bears get tortured to death by dogs. Do you want to say "their choice" and call this an aesthetic form? Well what about genital mutilation then? What does it take to get people, such as yourself, to admit that it is not (as the popular saying goes) "all good"? Why is it so many people refuse to admit that there is a right and a wrong, a stupid and an intelligent? Is it just so that they do not have to do any thinking about which is which? Or do they want to eliminate difference by claiming that it cannot be justified. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it's great to talk about the talentless at football or basketball, but when it comes to the mind, suddenly everyone is a Blaise Pascal or no one is. Well, I don't buy it. I referenced you to a book called "Revolt of the Masses" but I did not use the term pejoratively. If you need to paint me as an opponent of the masses, however, feel free to do so. The masses allowed the United States to get into a war in Iraq, and the masses are opposing public healthcare because they claim that it will lead to euthanasia. The masses watch Glen Beck, for heaven's sake. Certainly the elites can be just as stupid -- again I use that dreaded word. I have no problem identifying that sort of thing, and I am sorry you do because as long as people such as yourself maintain an "'s'all good" philosophy, ignorance will rule. There is such a thing as a bad movie, a movie which can not be appreciated by anyone who is intelligently attending to it. I can name many. Again, I note you say nothing in defense of this movie -- perhaps you have not seen it and only wanted to set out on a moral crusade against the word stupid. Keep in mind that I will continue to use it and that you are reaching a small audience. Why don't you write a magazine or journal article on the subject if your concern runs so Deep? I don't know why you keep apologizing for offending me in your first email. I find your second note far more offensive because it does not respond to my reply in any meaningful way, it struggles to perform offense at having been thought to give offense, effectively it is a loose piece of writing with no purpose other than to out smartypants me. I had been hoping you would respond by justifying the notion that intelligent people could enjoy this film (or at least that a person who was not stupid could) Apparently you have no interest in doing that. You do seem to need to get the last word, so I will let you do that now. Happy trails!

8.9.2009 - com2013@ - age: 13-17

Post a Reply

Ok, you win, the world, except for you and those you associate with, are stupid. I can't wait until you write a movie, have it produced so I can watch it through the gum bubbles on my face. Thanks for the generous gift of giving me the last word, which by the way, you had until I decided to respond.

9.9.2009 - boondockbitch@

Post a Reply

[ATTENTION: This comment reveals content of the movie.]
Do you always misrepresent the other person's words and then attack the misrepresentation as an argumentative tactic. This is the second time you have done it with me. I did not say that all except for my associates are stupid. I did not even say that I was not stupid. In fact, if you look at the other reviewers, you will see that the majority agree with my take on the film -- some even refer to appreciating it as the result of cognitive impairment. YOU say you blow bubble gum on your face -- I didn't. You might be much smarter than I, and good for you. The one advantage of there being smarter people out there (and there are plenty) is more opportunity to learn. Incidentally, [CinemaClock] edited out a line in my original review, so as not to give away the movie outcome and that line contextualizes my use of the word stupid, which I used in the abstract: the missing line, which is replaced by an ellipsis in the published version is "They must be willing to accept that, for the first forty-five minutes of the film, not even the main characters know that they, themselves, are the killers." Wouldn't you find it kind of weird to watch an hour of a movie in which a couple is terrified and asking EACH OTHER "who are the killers" and then about an hour in, it turns out that they are? The more you write the more I find it impossible to believe that you saw this film. The movie is indefensible. Incidentally, I have seen that plot structure work successfully once, in the film IDENTITY, starring John Cusack -- that was an extremely well-crafted psychological thriller, and needed to be in order to render such a bizarre cinematic landscape possible. Look up my review of Rambo and slam me for that one (I gave it a 10) -- at least you'll be working from a strong footing. Finally, as a matter of fact, I have not written a movie script, but I have written over a hundred short stories, published a novel quite successfully, and published about two dozen articles on literary theory as well. Believe that as you will or you will not.

9.9.2009 - com2013@ - age: 13-17

Post a Reply

First of all, my first review was a question to you, not an attack, which you seem to have chosen to perceive it as. As for the missing line, I am sadly not a psychic, had you just explained that to me the first time round none of this would have blown to the proportions it seems to have reached. Can I become irritated when being answered in condescending tones, most definitely. The fact that you're published has nothing to do with this really, though good for you, I know it's a tough field with much competition so you must be very good at what you do. What all this stemmed from was my asking you why you critiqued the people who watched it, I don't understand why it got such a rise, it was an honest question and one you could have answered much more nicely, if not out of respect for others, strangers or not, then out of common courtesy. A simple "They edited my review and took away from the context of what I was trying to say" would have sufficed. And you should not be so quick to accuse me of things that you yourself are guilty of. In your first response you say I am barking orders at you, how? Why? You ripped apart my response to that by saying I should have offered examples of how the movie was good, which had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. You can review movies all you like, rate them a minus 9 if you feel the need, again, the question was simply why insult the audience. As for the movie, I am not saying it was the best i've ever seen, in that I side with you, I didn't think it would take a witless person who blows bubbles from their nostrils however to enjoy it.

10.9.2009 - boondockbitch@ - age: 26-35

Post a Reply

Well it looks as if we're winding down this disagreement which will be as pleasant for me to end as I am sure it will be for you. (1) You now suggest that all would have been well had I contextualized from the outset. Perhaps so. But, you will recognize, if you look back, that I called no one stupid in the first posting as it appeared -- rather, I said that Hollywood was creating films under their apparent presumption that there would always be an audience stupid enough to appreciate (essentially) anything. (2) You say that what I have published or not published has nothing to do with this disagreement. By way of clarification, that statement was made in reply to your comment that I should write my own movie, which I took as a veiled claim (e.g., see Kraeplin "an imperative statement is often a declarative") -- the veiled statement being "you are not a competent judge of cinema writing because you are not a writer." It was by virtue of that implication that I replied with personal history (3) I am not, in fact, using a condescending tone, to do that I would have to regard you as an inferior, which I do not -- I am using a declarative (and I will admit bombastic) tone. You have used by times, as I suggest in (2) above, ambiguous tones that have ranged across the declarative, the sarcastic, the bombastic, the condescending (for example, when you say in reply two that you are "amused" by my "hostility"), and the imperative. Often it is impossible to be sure which one you intend, a strategy that is known to have remarkable effect in oral dispute. For example, you began this dispute with a complex and ambiguous message, exploiting a principle also pointed out by Kraeplin -- "a declarative statement is really a command." You write "you're supposed to review the movie, not critique the viewers." This sort of statement seems to simply say what is the case, but there is absolutely no sense in using it in this context unless it is also imperative. It's like when you're mother says to you "I see you're wearing THAT dress." As a matter of fact she is only saying what she sees, but the statement only makes sense when one examines what she "means" (i.e.," the dress looks horrible, you should wear something else") Of course when you say to your mother "You're saying I look like a tramp!" she can simply respond "I didn't say that, I'm only saying I see you're wearing that dress." In such discussions, language becomes a game full of trap doors in which the objective is staying out of the holes, not understanding. In my case with you, I responded to your statement "you're supposed to review the movie, not critique the viewers" by taking it the way the daughter in the dress takes the example above, as a veiled imperative, and I therefore referred to you as "barking orders." That's, to use your expression," why it got such a rise." You, like the mother in the example I gave, are saying that you only pointed out the "dress". This is a well known and slippery discursive strategy in which speakers play BETWEEN what they mean, what I mean, and what has and has not been said; so that catching them is like trying to pick up a rattlesnake. It does not work so well in writing but it provides for extended debate. (4) Finally I did not say only a person blowing nasal bubbles from his or her nose would enjoy the film -- I used nasal bubble blowing as an example of a personal preference that is not an aesthetic pleasure. Apart from these contestable claims, thank you for your positive comments about my life as a writer. As you say, it is a very difficult craft and almost universally unrewarding unless writing is its own reward. For me, it has been the primary source of virtually all of my sorrows, so that the desk is in many ways an Old Testament altar. There is a famous and relevant line from Michelangelo: "Painting and sculpture have ruined me." Most writers (and many of them are quite good) are granted only sorrow as compensation for their efforts. As a matter of observation, you are a good writer: the line by line is good, and you are mentally "quick". I should point out that, to my knowledge, I am the inventor of nasal bubble blowing, an art which I cultivated with friends in a Pittsburgh coffee shop. My piece de resistance was a moth bubble large enough to allow me to press it against my nose and blow two nasal bubbles inside it. That was probably a rainy day. Well, we have come close to the end of this I should imagine. We both agree that the film was not very good. You say your only question to me was "why insult the audience? " To that I will reply," If you look at my original email, you will see that I didn't." So, on these things we can perhaps resolve the issue as one grounded in misunderstanding. For all that has followed, I am sure we are yet to complete the task of fully embarrassing each other, but I do look forward to the challenge of your next post,

11.9.2009 - com2013@ - age: 13-17

Post a Reply

Yes, I agree, this wind down is much needed, but I would like to tell you that it was not my intent to hide a command behind my question, it was simply what it was. And no, I do note that you do not in fact call someone in particular stupid, rather you insinuate a large enough amount of people are, for example those who enjoyed it versus those who did not. If you want to argue that we can, I would of course, and perhaps I am assuming wrongly, believe that you can admit at least to being insulting on some level. That is not to say my responses lacked such context. And yes, I believe that this has emerged from two very strong willed people not willing to bend on the issue, perhaps and hopefully until now. As for the public embarrassment, that was certainly not my intent as to view the replies you must click on them, only your review is available to see without clicking on the replies link, and I would like to believe that this dispute would not interest many except for the involved parties. To put it quite simply, as per your example, I do not think you look like a tramp. My question was, honestly, meant only as that and perhaps this is where it all went wrong. On an odd note, I have thoroughly enjoyed the mental stimulation required to answer your responses, it is not often one can debate an issue intelligently, which you obviously can indeed. I am sorry to hear that writing is a source of sorrow for you but I can understand, often times what begins as pleasure can be transformed into agony. I apologize for using the term condescending when in fact you are right, the correct terminology for the situation was bombastic. Hopefully you can see why one may have misread the intent behind your responses as hostile, though I do not feel it is condescending to say that it amuses me. It was the hostility in question that amused me, not your obvious intelligence/status or personality. I simply believed you to be irate with me for what was supposed to be a simple question. Hopefully this clears the 'electronic air' between us and I do sincerely hope you can rediscover some happiness in what you do.

11.9.2009 - boondockbitch@

Post a Reply

Sorry one last thing just in hopes of clarification, I do see that you say it is hollywood that has the new slogan, but seeing as how hollywood has not outwardly said anything remotely close to that, it's new slogan is yours, does that make sense? That is not sarcasm, I am honestly asking if you understand what it is I am trying to convey.

11.9.2009 - boondockbitch@

Post a Reply

Yes, you're right -- if I say Hollywood has that slogan, chances are I believe that they have discovered something real. Most people seem to have rejected this film, which is a reason to have some hope that I am wrong in my assumption of Hollywood's assumption and the implication. However, when I saw it and wrote my review, I was still coming "coming down" from public glee over Tarrantino's adolescent wet-dream and Cohen's sado-masochistic one. I saw WHITEOUT last night which is equally as bad as Perfect Getaway in terms of believability, but it ups the ante in general boredom. I used the term "embarrassed" provocatively, perhaps humorously -- nobody needs to be embarrassed in a good debate if they are able to stand up for themselves with intelligent argument. It's true, a lot of uninterested people would roll their eyes, but interesting people would find it interesting to read; and, as you say, no one will see it anyway. Incidentally, your finest moment is the one in the short note immediately above, but I suspect you know that already. I do put flagrant remarks in some of my reviews because I am "fishing" for just such an opportunity as this one. I was not disappointed. Just as you say, it can be an opportunity to think. And I agree with you, I am not rhetorically innocent in the stages that we have gone through here. No winner, but no loser; and everyone has the opportunity to struggle with ideas. All in all, it made my week a little more interesting. Thanks.

12.9.2009 - com2013@ - age: 13-17

Post a Reply

Good suspense and drama. Acting was excellent. Reminded me of the reality show Survival a little. Middle part became confusing when they began their honeymoon. You have to look for the clues at the beginning of the movie, which I didn't.

It was not what I expected. This movie is mostly confusing and could be much better... but not bad when seeing the magnificent hawaiian sceneries...

This was honestly the worst movie I've ever seen. 2 hours of my life ill never get back. The first 40 min of the movie was okay but after the "twist" it just got retarded. If you saw the commercial then you pretty much saw the good parts.

REALLY BAD!!! I never post reviews but I am so upset that I saw this film that I really want to warn people to skip it. See something else, anything would be better. This is just not worth it.

Blah it was ok... nothing to write home about. It was VERY PREDICTABLE... anyone whos seen more than 2 thrillers could have figured this one out, it was so obvious.

Nothing much good about this movie; they try a twist to make us, viewers, a bit confuse to which couple is the killers, but at the end it doesn't work and you are left with a bad plot story. Not worth your money.

Woow , too good for words. There were funny parts scary parts and sexy parts, all in all , it was amazing :)

I expected this movie to be somwehat like Turistas and was pleasantly surprised that it was more of a thriller than a horror. I thought it had a good little twist and was unlike anything I've seen recently.

A "Who's Doin It? " type of movie with enough twists to keep you interested. A generally realistic and well acted film.

The movie could have been better if it did not make the audience as fools.

Enjoyed this movie, beautiful scenery and good story line. Well acted. Just remember when you go on your honeymoon you had better be will equiped!

As far as movie thrillers go this is a very good one. The main twist plot although we are given clues along the way is very well done and it still managed to surprised me. Very good acting from Timothy Olpihant and Steve Zahn.