AccessCardRequired

Incredibly lengthy. The character of the daughter boggles the mind. A thriller without thrills. Constantly repeating scenes, events. Clearly the story could have been told in four parts.

Mind-blowing why the lame script went into production in the first place. Story is predictable, the dialogues are so the nose, it hurts. And it doesn't help with those ludicrous CGI's. Apparently the budget was a good 8.5 Mio Dollars. And again it proves, if a flic has more producers than the cast, a movie usually sucks.

... all of you are great actors, but happened here? The script is less than mediocre, did you habe a chance to read it before hand? You are a stellar ensemble and you had nothing to play with. Why would you do this? The constant medium close ups in the directions is not helping at all. It's painful to watch. Take the eating cake scene for one example. One sister smears the cake, or whatever it was, into the others sisters face. And then what? Nothing... Seriously? Editing is a joke throughout, camera / lighting has no style. I don't get it.

There is zero character development. Zero emotions and worse zero humor.

Very unfortunate, and judging from all the votes, ratings I am not alone.

Interesting all 10 star ratings are by first time reviewers. Well, to the movie: it's a seriously bad C- picture. Screenplay is packed with no logic whatsoever. Acting is bad. One cliché follows the next. Not worth it.

... the premise sounds interesting. The setting (Athens) is there, but none of the actors can't act. It's literally painful to watch.

There's a lot wrong with that movie, which I really wanted to like... Why Alice took the part, no idea (money?). Her first 10 Minutes for screen time is a waste, cause I don't believe a second both the leads are great lovers. Washingtons charaktere is a joke. He pretend stumbling is annoying as he does it all the time in this film. Still didn't get the part of the embassy guy. What was that? They wanted a realistic thriller, but the moment Washington jumped off the what, 3rd floor of a car park, I was really really glad the film was over.

.... why do those studios think they can remake all the classics they have in their vaults? In about minute 15 Denzel walks out of a saloon and has pretty much the same line in QT Django / Christoph Waltz when he walks out of a saloon... then I stoped watching ... so I can only give my five cents to the first 20 minutes. Stupid remake...

... it's pure gold. Great to watch Sandy's journey to continue... Wonderful writing, it's the details that make the entire series great.

Woman in the window was a Fox 2000 pictures before Disney bought 20th Century Fox and basically shelved the film. (they probably didn't know what to do with it). So eventually the flic was bought by Netflix. But why? They say the finished film and didn't see it as a disaster? I don't get it.

I really really tried hard to get in the mood for this kind of "thriller" but could not keep my eyes open to follow whatever the ludicrous storyline was all about. Terrible movie. Waste of time. Netflix must be desperate to get their hands on fresh movies. But with this one they failed terribly.

I love Casablanca as it is for me a flawless movie!

Then I looked at the one-star reviews. Or better to say, people who really, really hated this film. It's interesting. Lots of reviewers hated the fact that the characters smoked so much. Hello, back then everybody did.

Some hated it, because it wasn't shot in color. (haha)

I learned, most of the reviewers don't seem to have any attention span whatsoever. They perceived the movie as too long. (102 minutes btw) Anyways, the film is great, as it basically is about two plots.

The ill-fated love between Ilsa and Rick. And the refugee subject matter everybody is in. So what has changed after some 60+ years? Try to watch it, if you haven't seen it. Casablanca is a delight. Fresh. Honest. Exciting.

... one of the worst. Advertised as a swashbuckling picture with vampires, and for the first 40 minutes not ONE fight erupts. Cinematography is simply bad, any visual thoughts must have passed this D.O.P. Same with costumes, acting and worst of all the terrible terrible script. It's actually an insult to Hammer Films, who later went bust. Not particular on this movies, but on all the awful films they made in the 1970s. BUT, watch it as a lesson how not to do a movie.

Saw it at European premiere. Overall it is a nice comedy. Not for hard laughs, but a somewhat sentimental story about an excellent salesman who is fired, because he doesn't have a college degree. Hence he goes back to community college and ends up falling in love.

So far so good. The entire cast is good and Julia is excellent as a hard drinking disillusioned teacher. Tom's direction is a bit slow. So is the build up of the story. It seems to move endlessly among A story, B story trying to please everyone.

Tom decided on a strange, sepia colored 70s look for this one. It's so unreal, or maybe real, I quiet was turned off by it. I suppose for a mature adult audience in their mid 40s this one works. Teenagers will see the Transporter CGI nonsense, while their parents will have a good time with this love-comedy-drama story.

Adele - is a fun ride into the mystic of Egyptian folklore, set in the early half of the 20th century in Paris. I won't get into too much into the storyline but the mad ideas are just fun to watch. It is NO Indian Jones, it is the journey of a very, very modern woman, who wants to bring back her twin sister out of a, well, a coma. Luc Besson transports you into a strange but beautiful Paris setting, with all kind of weird characters. Set design is marvelous, very detailed, one can smell the times. The film has humor and suspense and toward the end, you just have to sit back and enjoy the ludicrous ride. If one accepts it, you have fun. The girl playing Adele - Louise Bourgoin - is one hell of a knockout. Loosely based on the comic strips by Tardi, the story is a mix of book 1 and book 4, I think. The film is rated PG in Europe, a glimpse of a bare breast can be seen and no minors would mind it - why should they, in the first place. Unfortunately the film didn't do too much business in France and I hear it is not coming out theatrical in the states, so I am deeply afraid, there won't be a sequel. Although the last three minutes in the film suggest a great second adventure of beautiful Adele. Try to catch it on DVD, when living in the states.

It took 13 years after "The Third Twin" to put another Follett Novel on the screen - okay a little TV screen. Whiteout is a fast paced real time thriller novel, which was somehow optioned by two German Companies. Network Movie & Constantin Television. (Two rival TV-Producer on the same film,I suppose they shared the film rights cost...)

Anyways, the result is a 2 x 90 Min. TV feature of mediocre quality. Casting is Eurotrash, involving an Italian actress who is the love interest to a German actor. Boy those two must have hated each other - no chemistry whatsoever.

Tempo, Speed, Rhythm in the first part - less than zero. What a painful experience. Although the settings are nice, the directing by award wining Peter Keglevic, can pass by the plain awful script. Sped picks up in the second part, but it is too late. Damage has been done. Do not waste your time on this, it is a shame, such a bloody shame...

how bad can a TV movie be? Try watching this RTL movie. No humor, no thrills, no action and NO STORY. A bunch of losers all fight a race to find a huge diamond, which then again will save a dome in Germany from collapsing. And to top it, this "Film" was financially supported by the Bavarian Film Fond. The writers should be hanged, together with the director. This "film" is a poor sample of a waste of money and shows unfortunately that RTL is seriously giving up their movie devision. How desperate must all the well known German "actors" be, to have signed up for this? A mind blowing stupidity. On a good count, the producers probably saved on a script / Continuity girl.

I went twice to see this movie. First on the Berlin Premiere, second time a week later. Why? Well, on premiere night I had tickets in row 7, of a huge theatre. I was hugely excited to see the new Bond (as I always have been for the past 25 some years). But hey, I had to LEAVE the theatre after 15 minutes. You simply can't watch that fast edited MTV Style movie in row 7 (!). No chance, absolutely. Okay so I went again, this time a nice seat all the way at the end of the same theatre. I could endure the MTV cuts, but not the massacre the producers did to Bond. (the director can't be held responsible, since the producers chose him and not vice versa).

In 21 previous Bond films, one could really like the British super spy. His character, his smartness, some cool one liners, and yes, Ms. Broccoli, we the audience loved the gadgets. We loved Moneypenny, Q and M. Why did you take it all away? Why? We may never know...

This Bond is just another action flick with a really mediocre storyline. For heavens sake, change the characters name, and you are not in one single moment reminded of the great super spy. Why bother then?

For the action: Filming hand held and edit MTV style does not mean action automatically! The great Frankenheimer knew that, when he filmed some of the best car chases in "Ronin", Foster probably never saw that classic....

For a reminder, since it comes up so many times in reviews on IMDb, Bond and Borne are two completely different franchises. Borne is chasing after his history, while Bond is saving the world. Just because Borne was such a huge success, don't try imitate him. Arrgh what a terrible film, it is such a shame. Regardless of what the box office says!

P.S. and then you even dare to take away the gun barrel montage in the beginning, and no more "Bond, James Bond. Are you people mental?

Excruciatingly painful so called event movie. A lame story taken from Dan Browns Da Vinci Code. Cosma Shiva Hagen stumbles through this mess of a loop hole storyline from Germany through France all the way into the Namibian Desert. As usual the bad guys are all dressed in black, and German screen legend Joachim Fuchsberger gives a sad performance as the Pope. Some actors are French, which is not bad, if the producers would have just invested in a proper dubbing. This movie didn't make any sense at all. Either filled with over lengthy dialogs, or mindless chase scenes, which only shows the audience how stupid the bad guys are. The movie could have been over after 5 Minutes, - SPOILER - if the baddies didn't only shoot Johannas father, but her as well. Mind you writers: An adventure action film needs to be plausible. Otherwise you lost your audience. Pro Sieben certainly did. The ratings were just above average for the first part, the second part, some 800.000 viewers decided not to follow the outcome. Cosma deserves better scripts, cause she is about the best thing in this dud of a film.

the film would have a US theatrical release - don't you think. Saw the film, loved the books as a kid, but please what what this all about? Nothing of the flick reminded me of the lovely books. The kids are too polished, too wise, too boring - that is not the acting, but the weak, weak script they had too suffer trhough. Why South Africa? I can tell you, cause it is cheap to shoot there, nothing else. The film was a major disappointment in Germany (box office). Generated some 900.000 viewers - tha'ts not enough to recoup the investment of nearly 10. Mill Euros in budget. No idea, why they made another one. Too sad, great promise, weak, very weak result.

Just came out of a preview in Berlin, Germany:

What really made Indi big back in 1981, '84 and '89, was the kind of old school look and action. All the action was plausible, remember. Well, this is the weak part of Indi IV. (spoilers) At the end of the film, when the spaceship resurfaces', and a hurricane like storm destroys the ancient city, that's where the movie left me blank – why? It reminded me of the visual effects in Pirates of the Caribbean III, when both ships go under in a giant twist and twirl. That's way over the Top and for me doesn't fit in a Indi Jones Film. On the other hand, the story is cool. Plays with the Erich von Däniken Ideas…, Mutt, the kid, who I thought was gonna be terrible is a real surprise. Second Best is Cate Blanchett. What a woman, what a great actress. Boy she makes that Russian Character really believable and scary. On top of all, Harrison. He looks and acts great. Why did the press and the producers made such a fuss about his age? A bit sad, that Mrs. Allen had a bit of a weak part. Overall, if you wanna see an entertaining film, love Indi Jones, than go for it.

Too bad for all that effort put in the movie. German producer spend / raised some 18 Million Euros, to make a movie about THE flying ace of WWI - Der Red Baron. Why didn't they spend some money on a decent script? The film starts off with a band, you lean back in your seat and think, this is gonna be fun, well at least for the first 15 minutes, then, well, then there is simply not a story in the film. We jump from one air battle scene into the next, who cares that those old planes have a speed like they have to battle the death star in Star Wars.... Worst is, and its not a spoiler, the end, when the baron dies, this segment is told OFF screen. No battle, no nothing. You have the feeling they ran out of money. Casting wise, a huge mistake trying to connect the hero with his lady. Headey & Schweighoeffer don't match, there is NO believable connection between them. Not for one second you understand the love they should feel for each other. She is simply too old, he is too young. Schweighoeffer plays great, so does the rest of the cast, except Fiennes. The poor fellow has simply not one good scene for himself. He was just cast to give an international flair to the pic. Too sad, for what could have made a great story....