|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 78)
|
|
 |
Bad... boring... 88 minutes too long... typical scenes of several half naked females being mutilated... Pacino gravely disappoints. Was expecting so much more.
3/10
15.5.2008 -
musicalair@ - age: 36-49
It was alright. Not great, but still worth seeing.
7/10
14.5.2008 -
shadowhacker@ - age: 18-25
Meh its an ok movie.. I wouldnt spend 10 bucks for it but still.. You see it's one of these movies where the scenario just isn't that good.. when you see movies with wellknown actors, you get to expect a lot, and thouse when the movie isn't THAT spectacular you get to be displeased. Well I went on watching this movie only because I was bored so I wasn't that displeased. The actors did their job. The scenario isn't on the same level as the actors so it gets pretty predictable all along, but hey it's still worth watching Al Pacino with a gun lol. Just kidding.
7/10
13.5.2008 -
xploratio@ - age: 18-25
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I always use the rating system on this site to gauge wether I will watch the movie in theaters or catch it on disc. Or as in the case with some movies, neither! This is that movie. Avoid it at all costs! I was lured into it, as probably everyne else was, due to Pacino. What was he thinking taking this role? Is he that desperate? The scenes did not flow, the acting was terrible, you can spot when they used body doubles for Pacino, the way the murders took place was plain stupid, even the car prop was visibly fake, and they kept shooting the car in slow motion! I wanted to walk out but I was hoping for a killer ending, do you think there was one? Check my rating...
1/10
11.5.2008 -
tumuerte@ - age: 26-35
Al Pachino... wow... what a movie... I would of never of thought the blonde girl was the killer... just kidding... I never saw the movie yet... I just never posted a review before... so there you go.
5/10
11.5.2008 -
thegusbus@ - age: 36-49
I strongly recommmend not seeing this movie. The plot was not good, the acting was bad and it just did not fit together.
2/10
9.5.2008 -
ze_vulture@ - age: 26-35
Wow, this movie is almost as bad as funny games. The story was a little better but the acting was much worse. This was the worst acting i've ever seen in a movie. So phony it as painful to watch. I feel bad for Pacino having to work with such amateurs. It's really hard to believe how bad the casting was given that this was a movie he was starring in. It was probably even worse than a "b" movie. I just can't get over it!
1/10
5.5.2008 -
alois,dantius@ - age: 36-49
I thought the movie was a masterpiece... brain movie that'll keep you thinking and suspense that keeps you on the edge of your seats! I really enjoyed it. I am surprised it has such a low rating!
10/10
5.5.2008 -
talk2omololu2000@ - age: 18-25
Al Pacino is the only reason I gave a five. Worst acting otherwise that I have seen and plot was weak.
5/10
4.5.2008 -
europeane@
| | | | |
From the opening scene I knew I was in trouble. I kept telling myself the terrible acting had to be on purpose because it was so blatant and plagued just about everyone on screen. It shouldn't have been such a surprise though as every actor besides Pacino is a virtual unknown or has-been. You'll know the faces, but will be asking yourself when the last time you saw these individuals on screen was. The film is horribly put together with all kinds of names and events to keep track of that really do nothing for the story at all (by the way, unless you're writing for the Pink Panther series who the hell names a character Guy LaForge? ) The one thing you can count on in the film is Pacino's incessant cell phone ring tone which will annoy you to no end and is equaled only by one of the stupidest bad-guy catch phrases in movie history "Tick, tock Doc..." People (18 of us poor souls in the theatre) were actually laughing out loud during most of the film. It wasn't the good kind of laughter either, but the "are they kidding? " kind. Terrible film!
2/10
4.5.2008 -
mazey6@ - age: 26-35
No, I haven't seen it. What more could you possibly want? I haven't seen the movie. To be honest, I don't imagine it's that good. Quit wasting your time in theaters; go outside, read books. Life is too short.
10/10
4.5.2008 -
jamesbond555@ - age: 18-25
Loved it AL-Pacino is Hot & sick like usual, well done worth the it!!!
10/10
4.5.2008 -
zdarwash@ - age: 18-25
I don't get why ppl didn't enjoy the movie it was another great Al-P movie.
10/10
4.5.2008 -
jess_blas@ - age: 18-25
Great Movie AL Pachino is simply Hot & amazinggg.
10/10
4.5.2008 -
sun_kiss06@ - age: 18-25
This is a movie you should not miss!! Al Pacino is masterful. One of the better movies produced to date. Don't pay attention to the other ratings.
9/10
3.5.2008 -
canadiancruisers1@ - age: 36-49
Great movie let me say if your going to see this movie it is very good you will enjoy I admit some parts are all around but you will enjoy it.
8/10
3.5.2008 -
kiger455@ - age: 13-17
I really don't know what the people who did not like this movie are expecting from a show! It was suspenseful right to the end - Both Al Pacino &the supporting actors were great & it certainly kept you riveted throughout the whole thing. My husband, myself & a friend went to it & all 3 of us enjoyed it immensely! Anyone who wants entertainment from a movie should go & see it!
9/10
2.5.2008 -
barty3298@ - age: 50+
This movie should have been called phone booth 2 or Cellular because it seemed like someone was on the phone the entire movie. With Al Pacino in the lead role I was finding myself liking his character but everyone else just kind of floated in and out with no real consequence. If it was called 88hrs it might have been more believable. He drove across Seattle (Vancouver. Actually) like 8 times in the movie and still managed to have a plot. Pacino fans: YES! High Paced Thriller fans: NO!!!
5/10
30.4.2008 -
ryan_evans0@ - age: 18-25
Although nothing close to a great movie this one is not as bad as the ratings it gets indicate. Thanks to Pacino's presence who caries the thing mostly alone. Could have been a lot better though. Way too much scenes with people on the phone... and a downright terrible performance by Leelee Sobieski. So bad actually that one wonders by what miracle of god she broke in the movies business in the first place...
6/10
29.4.2008 -
cmerciari@ - age: 36-49
Al Pacino is an excellent actor! I love this movie!
10/10
29.4.2008 -
king_dream_fish@ - age: 18-25
This movie takes advantage of the cell phone. The cell gives modern writers too much opportunity to throw in new elements. It's laughable. I can't see how Pacino survived all the running around while REacting to cell phone dribble.
5/10
29.4.2008 -
tyndallroy@ - age: 36-49
Well worth the time and money invested. Of course I do not know how you can not enjoy a movie with Al Pacino in it, and as well a great supporting cast. Although I was able to figure out who the bad person was, it was still a great ride.
8/10
29.4.2008 -
bobo1514@ - age: 50+
Al!! What happened? Terrible script, supporting cast was a joke (my wife and I laughed several times at how bad it was) We went because we love Pacino. The plot was all over the place. Bad, bad, bad! Still love you Al, I guess they can't all be home runs! Let's move on.
1/10
28.4.2008 -
mwatson@ - age: 26-35
It kept you guessing right up to the end. The end was great. I thoroughly enjoyed the whodunit. Al Pacino plays such a great arrogant character.
9/10
28.4.2008 -
moodymb@ - age: 36-49
If you like Al Pachino you won't after watching this movie. It's incredibly boring with stupid plot twists. I fell asleep watching it. Guaranteed raspberry award. Fortunatly for Pachino it's easily forgettable.
1/10
27.4.2008 -
bassano@ - age: 26-35
Not as bad a movie as the reviews seem to indicate. It was entertaining, and it kept me riveted until the end. What more do you want? Besides that, it's always fun to watch Pacino on screen.
7/10
27.4.2008 -
celestialace@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Not really sure what all the negative reviews are all about. Why don't you go watch yourself and make the judgment? It was a GREAT movie and Al Pacino is the greatest as usual.
9/10
27.4.2008 -
samarraz@ - age: 26-35
Very good movie. It was full of suspense and mystery throughout. Some may argue that it's unrealistic in terms of how much happened in 88 minutes, but you it is a dramatic thriller movie and you should expect it. Not Pacino's best work, but I thought it was pretty good given some of the poor movies he has been in lately. Overall, if you let yourself get caught up in the drama and mystery then you will enjoy it. But don't go into it thinking it will be a masterpiece just because Pacino is in it or you will be disappointed.
7/10
27.4.2008 -
adgraham15@ - age: 18-25
Terrible script, supporting cast brutal, acting horrific, editing awful. Pacino should be embarrassed. Need I say more!
2/10
26.4.2008 -
riley28@ - age: 50+
This was a terrible movie and the story line was so predictable I bet I could have created this movie all on my own don't waste your money. The acting was good but anything else involved in this film was terrible.
1/10
26.4.2008 -
jmurphy@ - age: 13-17
Really great movie, but however to many things happening at once. 88 minutes seems to short of a time limit.
8/10
26.4.2008 -
trustme2424@ - age: 13-17
Whats the same thing over again? No need for more of this stuff.
1/10
26.4.2008 -
the751@ - age: 18-25
This movie is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. I don't have anything good to say about it, everything is bad. 88 minutes should have gone straight to DVD, the only reason it didn't, is because of Al Pacino. He must have some big money problems... or maybe he should be the one consulting a psychiatrist for picking this movie.
1/10
26.4.2008 -
krayzie_lady@ - age: 18-25
| 
