noirlover

Started off on fairly interestingly, then devolved into a completely generic rom-com. The idea that true (or passing) love cures mental illness was a joke. (The premise worked better in the far superior A Beautiful Mind, where the main character at least reasoned his way to a more believable kind of sanity and stability, even if that's not really what happened to the real person.)

I do not get all the fuss over this movie. Jennifer Lawrence was good but I was disappointed it had such a pat, Hollywood ending that wrapped up these troubled characters with a big red bow.

Don't believe the hype: This is just standard Hollywood fluff.

So, it seems the writer-turned-director David Goyer realized he had a crappy script, lame plot, and badly cast villains this go-round and turned to two young hotties - Jessica Biel and Ryan Reynolds -- to keep us distracted from how awful the film really is. And for me, it almost worked. Well, Jessica does nothing for me, but Reynolds, who got super buff and shows if off nicely in several scenes, was like Han Solo riding in to save the day with his (mostly) funny one-liners. Every time he was on screen, the movie was watchable. When he wasn't, I was waiting for him to come back on. He totally steals the film.

And what happened to Parker Posey & Natasha Lyonne? They are both looking haggard and awful these days.

The Dracula, Dominic Purcell, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. His beefy, Army grunt look is all wrong, his clothes ridiculous and the fights are disappointing. If he's so invincible, why does he run away from Blade when they first meet? Very poor villain behavior!

Oh, and I haven't mentioned Wesley Snipes yet. He makes it through with a few shreds of dignity left, but given his feud with the director, that's it for him and Blade. Which is probably a good thing, after this film. But I'd totally see a Nightstalker spin-off. Or hell, anything else with Reynolds.

I found "28 Days Later" extremely overrated and a waste of a good premise so I don't agree at all with people who prefer that movie to this.

I'm actually not really a big fan of gore or military films but somehow this really worked. It's like "Aliens" or "Predator," but with werewolves. You can imagine the rest. And be prepared to cover your eyes four or five times at least.

(Mild spoilers) What's good: Great characters that you care about, very tense scenes, & excellent, very scary werewolves. They way they tower over the men and the way they stand with their long arms (forepaws?) and claws makes me think of "Nosferatu." Very effective. So nice not to have CGI monsters. These are sooo much better than those "Mummy" films or some crap like "American Werewolf in Paris."

What's not so good: You can see most if not all of the plot twists coming a mile away. Also, with lots of cupboards and big furniture sitting around the farmhouse, why don't they put them all in front of the windows? That's what I'd be doing and I have no training as a soldier!

Still, very, very satisfying rental or night out at the movies. Highly recommended to all fans of horror & suspense who don't mind a lot of blood and guts. (Literally).

I'm now a big fan of Sean Pertwee. He is excellent as the gruff sergeant. And Kevin McKidd has changed quite a bit since Tommy in "Trainspotting." Here he's very believable as a hardcore soldier. And I can't believe that the dastardly Ryan (Liam Cunningham) was the perfect papa in "A Little Princess." Good acting all around.

This one is just awful. I'm a big fan of Oliver Reed, but I was very disappointed by this lame entry. It features the most ridiculous werewolf origin story I've ever seen. Add the fact that Oliver doesn't become the werewolf until very, very late in the film and voila - a major disappointment. Sure, the original "Wolf Man" film is a little bit dated and hokey, but it has this film beat every way possible. This one has no atmosphere, no thrills. In short, if you see it on a video shelf, keep walking! Rent the 1941 classic or "An American Werewolf in London" instead. Or "Ginger Snaps." There are many other wonderful Universal & Hammer horror films. This one is waaaay down at the bottom of the list for me.

I can't help but compare this to 'Gladiator' and find 'Troy' sadly wanting. 'Gladiator' was one of my favorite films of recent years and I thought Russell Crowe was magnificent as Maximus. (Sure the film had some issues, but the good far outweighs the bad for me). You absolutely believed him as a soldier and general and a man of the ancient world.

The same cannot be said of 'Troy.' Brad Pitt as Achilles is the big Achilles heel of the film. (Sorry, couldn't resist). He doesn't have the necessary heft as an actor and seems to expect his newly muscled physique to be enough. It isn't. He's fine when he's in combat scenes, but whenever he opens his mouth, his "now you hear it, now you don't" British accent is embarrassing. Especially alongside real British actors, like the always excellent Sean Bean. (Thank goodness Bean gets to provide the opening and closing narration as Odysseus. Can't get enough of his marvelous voice!)

Apart from Brad's woeful acting is the presentation of the character of Achilles as a very unheroic hero. He's basically a glory-seeking jerk, all about individual acclaim and definitely not a team player, kind of the Kobe Bryant of the Greeks. He doesn't care about country or king (true, his king is corrupt), but compared to the noble and far superior character of Hector, we instinctively root for Hector. Eric Bana as Hector is the real hero of this film and whenever he's on screen, the movie actually works. Eric, all is forgiven for "The Hulk!"

To paraphrase a Gladiator quote (as this film does freely in its familiar dialogue), Achilles has the strength, but Hector has the honor. At one point, one of Achilles' men tells him, "To serve you has been the greatest honor of my life," but we never see why. Sure he's a great warrior, but he's disrespectful of all authority and frankly a self-centered brat. All he cares about his himself and his cousin. Hector is the true leader here, making the hard choices and taking the brunt of the fallout from Paris' rash decision to take Helen to Troy.

The rest of the cast is mostly good. Orlando Bloom plays Paris as an experienced ladies' man but inexperienced and frankly bad warrior, which worked for me. Some of his dialogue is naive and laughable, but I think people were laughing at the character, not the actor.

The only other actor I had a problem with was the girl who plays Briseis. She was extremely annoying and her whole love storyline with Brad Pitt was completely uninvolving and only slowed down the film.

And I'm not an expert on the Iliad, but I do know that Agamemnon meets with a different end than in this film. Read the play 'Elektra!'

Overall, I give the film a 7/10. Worth seeing, if you can tolerate Brad Pitt for nearly three hours. By the end of the film, I was actually cheering for him to be taken down, I hated him and his character that much. And did they ever explain why Achilles is invincible? If they did, I missed it. I think they should have explained it for the majority of people who are unfamiliar with The Iliad.

Such a comedown from the Fellini of the 1960s! At a certain age, some artists have nothing left to offer, like Woody Allen today. They just end up recycling their previous ideas in increasingly crass ways. That's the case with City of Women, which is easily one of Fellini's worst films. It's crass, vulgar, and endlessly offensive and stupid. Whereas the harem of women in 8 1/2 was funny, a whole movie of cartoonish stereotypes of women (slutty, man-hating, and always one with enormous breasts - please!) and the man who's more afraid of them then in love with them. Do yourself a favor and just skip it. Or at least don't see this until you've seen every other Fellini movie first. I hate to think of anyone seeing this as their first Fellini movie because it would definitely turn them off all his other films!

Where to begin with how awful this film is? How about the smug, self-satisfied Amanda Bynes, whose every line is delivered in superior, smarmy fashion? She's such a brat, you just want to smack her.

The whole stereotypical 'American shows Brits how to love life and not be so stuffy' plays out in the stupidest way, especially at a dull party where Amanda shows everyone how to dance. Naturally, they all break into a choreographed dance. Words cannot convey how embarrassing this whole scene is. It just gets worse from there.

Even the usually wonderful Colin Firth can't do much to save this film. Surprisingly, the young male love interest is charming amid all the nonsense. If only the film's star wasn't such a deeply annoying brat, the film might have had a chance.

(No real spoilers). Glad I rented this so I could fast-forward through the many hippy dippy folk songs, especially the ever-present 'Corn Rigs' song. Urgh. There are so many songs that it's almost a musical! Christopher Lee's wig (not the Mayday one, but the fluffy, light brown one) is also cause for alarm! However, I did enjoy this film apart from these serious detriments and I'll watch Christopher Lee in anything. (I prefer him in stuff like 'The Devil Rides Out,' where he's very elegant .) Some joker had ruined the ending of this movie for me, but I still didn't know exactly how it was coming, or why. It's a strange, subversive film that seems very much a product of its time, what with the hippie values and all. There's been talk of remaking it, but I imagine they'd have to jettison the songs and some of the Woodstock-era sensibilities. Who could play the religious, stiff-necked Sergeant? Would a character that old-fashioned and devout even work today? Perhaps Mel Gibson or Jim Caviezel would fit the bill, but I can't see them agreeing to it! By the way, first heard of this via 'Shallow Grave,' when Ewan McGregor is watching it (clearly he's watching the 'Oh, God,no!' ending). 7/10

This is one of those movies that people call a 'curiosity' when they want to be kind. I've seen nearly all of Fritz Lang's films and this is easily the worst. Despite a great cast -- Stewart Granger, George Sanders, Joan Greenwood -- this adventure film is D.O.A. Nearly nothing happens and then it's over! Not much in the way of swashbuckling or intrigue ... or well, anything, except whether Granger will take in his lost nephew. And frankly, the little boy doesn't seem worth the trouble! The film momentarily comes to life whenever George Sanders is onscreen, but that's only about 10 or 15 minutes. The flat, set-bound Technicolor production is par for the period, but since nothing much is going on, it's a real liability here. Good for Lang for trying something different from his film noirs -- but too bad this didn't work out. I was really ready to like it, since I'm always up for a good yarn, but was sadly disappointed.

I'm not a big fan of Susan Hayward, but her sometimes irritating brand of spunkiness really works well in this film, although I think she was at her best in Nicholas Ray's 'The Lusty Men.' Tyrone Power is also makes a surprisingly good Western hero. As noted by previous posters, he's not ultramasculine, but he keeps his head, is resourceful, and saves the day in his own way. Add crazy-eyed Jack Elam as his usually dastardly self, and tense, well-played situations and you have a nifty little western that's worth watching anytime.

I've seen a lot of films but this is easily the one with the all-time worst dialogue. Also proof positive that Theresa Russell = horrendous film every time. It's not even possible to imagine how bad this film is -- it defies description. Ever worse -- I saw it at a film fest billed as one of the "Best of Erotic Shorts." If this was the best -- god help us, what was the worst?

This film starts out at full-throttle nightmare pitch, so it has nowhere to go and no suspense to build. Sure the final twist is "clever," but it doesn't hold up. The fine cast is wasted thanks to the lurid overdirection and the screenwriter seems hooked on unbelievable plot twists for twist's sake.