dominik96

The basic story would have worked as a simple movie for children. A boy in the wilderness who is trying to prove himself as a hunter, fails getting any game or be good with the bow. The act of being accepted by the grown ups is in danger, but luckily we have some terrorists that bring down Air Force One. Boy can help the president out of the wilderness...and so on and on... anyone could guess the story.

Problem is that someone thought of making an action movie for adults out of this movie for children. They raped the whole story by adding blood and violence. The end results is so annoying like putting a fairy tale like Cinderella into the hood and adding a bloodshed.

This happens when Stallone has the chance to play with the script. The key point in this movie that gets the action rolling is totally unbelievable. A deep undercover cop has a private archive of his cases in his attic at home. Even his old undercover ID card can be found there, and it is found by the criminal who sells his whereabouts to a motorcycle gang. I could bet my right hand that the whole story with the motorcycle gang is the great input of Stallone. The movie without the motorcycle gang would work even better. It could have been a nice thriller where the tension is escalating step by step between Franco and Statham. Such a screenplay would be a superior work and would make greater use of an artist like Franco. Instead everything goes up into flames of idiotism.

The script is great and with some more jokes, a faster pace, bigger budget and some comedy star actors it would have been a box office hit. Instead it is a low budget movie and very good one. A nice romantic comedy, a feel good movie - that's it. The actors are nor a disappointment, but also nothing in comparison to some known faces in comedy. The best pick in this movie is the crazy neighbor. This one plays the part good and the character is believable. The main character Neil is OK, and the part of the sad single man with the broken heart is played well. The movie would be better if he could have added some comedic element. There were many possibilities for this with all the women in the bars. He didn't have to be always sad looking. A very good thing was the length of this movie with just 77 minutes. They had obviously no more money in the budget and maybe no more lines, so by not adding some boring material only to get 90 minutes and more they deserve credit for this. But the potential of this script!! Instead of making an awful movie like the internship, Vince Vaughn would have made this an awesome movie.

What you will get is a nice movie, but don't watch it with great expectations. A movie directed by Luc Besson and with the star actor Robert De Niro and on top of that Michelle Pfeiffer and Tommy Lee Jones has to be more than great, but it isn't.

The best actors in this movie are the two children. They make their characters likable and they saved the whole thing from being worse than nice.

Michelle Pfeiffer is awful. The only thing she adds to this movie is here name.

Robert De Niro plays his grumpy old man character with his hard gangster look. It is good, but we have seen it in so many of his movies, that one could wonder if he can play something else. His character has some comedic quality by showing an ex gangster who tries to overcome normal life obstacles with his gangster methods.

I don't like the end scenes because it shows so much violence and destruction which is totally unnecessary. It seems that Hollywood is nowadays on a NWO propaganda trip to desensitize the audience for this kind of overkill. 10 or 15 years ago it would be sufficient for one killer who would break into the house trying to kill the family or a bomb. In these days you need a handful of killers who are armed to their teeth and firing their first shot on the house with a RPG. The whole police department has to be killed as well as the fire department. Innocent neighbors have to go and destruction has to be accepted.

I was blown away by the first movie ZEITGEIST, so I am not some guy who just doesn't get it or is just not open minded. One part in the old movie I did not like: Jacque Fresco. So I was disappointed when Zeitgeist: Moving Forward started with him. I fully admit that Zeitgeist: Moving Forward shows existing and real problems, but there is never a deep thinking about the causes. Why bother with the causes, when you already have the supposed antidote for everything: scientific dictatorship. The argument that too much government is one of the reasons for existing problems and that economics in form of the Austrian school of economics could be the answer, is not discussed. The producers are aware of their lack of argument and are eager to throw Mr. Hayek and Mr von Mises in the same place as Keynes. More freedom and less government is no solution, and in one sequence Mr. Fresco denies the existence of freedom at all - it is only an illusion. Paradise on earth could be reached if only the people could get together and eliminate the existing power elite in government and replace it with a supercomputer: welcome scientific dictatorship. And the human race would be kept as sheep in ideal living conditions in circle cities. I think that this movie is very dangerous for showing real problems and presenting a false antidote. I was very unhappy when I watched this movie and found one false example after another. I don't want to go into detail, but just think about this few points after watching the movie: our economy can only produce tables of poor quality that can't last forever and the consumer has to replace it after it sure gets broken - so the statement in the movie. It is up to me if I go the IKEA and buy a table for 10€ or buy one of quality. I can think of many possible tables of different materials that will outlive me, but do I want a table so costly and one table for the rest of my life? Resources are distributed to meet your needs, and not demands - another statement of the ideal scientific world. So without money I live in my already made living space in the circle city. What if one decides to have a bigger place or a balcony? What if an Inuit decides that he would like to try a kiwi? It's not gonna happen, because it doesn't make a scientific sense to eat kiwis in the cold north, when you can survive on fish. And don't forget the animated beginning of the movie with the words of this evil Mr. Fresco "....I rather pledge allegiance to the world..." welcome global government and "....great depression... I found it hard to understand why millions are out of work.....while all the factories were sitting there....the rules of the economic game invalid..." - no mentioning that without a FED and an intrusive government there never would have been a great depression. Hayek and von Mises are no possibility and in the movie itself they are joking about possible criticism of this people - making a mockery of them, but such tricks do not work. The communist manifesto meets scientific dictatorship. I am very upset, because they have earned my trust with the first movie ZEITGEIST. I hope that all people can look through this wolf in sheep's clothing and don't give them credit and trust for their first work.

This movie lacks many things and is essentially a well made B movie. Nonetheless I gave it 10 points, because it is the first movie with a political message showing the possible effects of the NEW WORLD ORDER.

Some points are: peak oil, threats through GMO, corporate world domination , population reduction and elite isolation and separate evolution.

This things are never obvious mentioned with the intent to educate the viewer, but are rather a glimpse in the story. If you know what's going on in the world then you can appreciate the effort of the director or writer. If you have never heard about NWO,Bilderberg,CFR etc. then you will see just a mediocre B movie.

I was very thrilled to watch this movie about NWO - the first I know about that is no documentary.

The story: a victim with guilt takes justice into his own hands and is seeking revenge.

Recently there were two great movies that have the same basic idea.

THE BRAVE ONE - with Jodie Foster

DEATH SENTENCE - with Kevin Bacon

This movie doesn't bring anything new or better to the table, so that works against it.

The non-linear structure of this movie is not necessary, but was certainly used to make the movie appear clever - it isn't.

Ray Liotta as a good guy - waste of villain quality.

The music, when there, is only good for a much much darker movie - like SEVEN.

The director Brian Smrz has 68 appearances as a stuntman, so one can assume to see his experience in this field - NO STUNTS - NO ACTION ABOVE AVERAGE.

If you still want to watch this movie then I should mention the big holes of logic in the story. After an hour runtime logic and normal human thinking is in free-fall. I won't describe it in detail, because I could write about every minute from an hour till the end.

As an example I'll take the hostage scene at the end. The bad guys had plenty of opportunities to kill the main character LIAM , but they preferred to let him kill some of them first , before they are taking a hostage and are luring him out to a showdown. It doesn't matter that the bad guys had no problem to find him regularly before this incident - but now they need a hostage?? The hostage itself is another example how bad the story is. LIAM is a lonely guy, so who is gonna be a hostage? The script author had to construct a car crash with a young girl , who LIAM could rescue and build a friendship. Another nonsense scene with the young girl was , when she came to LIAM's car in the middle of the street at night and alone.And young is here not 16 or 15, the girl looks like 8 or 10 years old! It is really obvious how the script author had to construct the scene with the rescue of the young girl only to get his hostage, so cheap and artificial - just horrible.

You can watch this movie if you are male, your girlfriend is out of town, you have drunk some beer,the night is near,you love B-movies,have no possibility to get a good movie and you just need some company from the TV. The only other possible audience: tasteless and dumb human beings!

I can't imagine why people are giving this movie ratings higher than 6 or are describing the story as good? How can you compare a rating of 10 for this movie with a great movie like DEATH SENTENCE?

Now this movie has an average rating of above 6, but I am certain that when the hardcore Cuba Gooding fans are gone the rating will fall down like a stone.

First of all : it is a nice movie, but not a comedy that I have expected.

I saw Steve Carell on the funny poster and was eager to watch a movie in the tradition of a comedy like "Evan Almighty" ,"The 40 Year Old Virgin" or "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy". So if you want to watch a comedy like these, you will be failed.

I don't blame Steve Carell for my expectation of a great comedy, because he has also played in movies that were not funny or that I have disliked before. But the FUNNY poster of this movie and the good comments about this movie made me believe that I can laugh many times.

Don't get me wrong, it is a nice movie. I will not tell you the whole plot, but imagine a movie that your girlfriend would like to produce about feelings,emotions,love & parenthood, and you will get exactly this movie.

Dan in Real Life is a movie every woman dreams to direct or produce, but it is NOT the movie that was supposed to give me a nice evening with many laughs.

The basic idea does work for a nice comedy, and the script author must be very disappointed what the producer had made out of it. Problem is that the director and the writer are the same person: Daniel Waters. So one essential thing learned from this movies is, that Daniel Waters should only write, and never again be the director.

I won't tell the story, because reading it there wouldn't be much left for watching. If you want an average movie to spend 100 minutes, then you can watch it. If you expect a great comedy and a nice time in the cinema, then this movie is wrong for you. Escpecially because it has the appearance of a movie made only for video release but not for cinema.

The overall problem is the cast.

Simon Baker is good for romance movies and attorneys, but not for a comedy like this. Actors like Adam Sandler and Steve Zahn would be the right man for Roderick Blank. Simon Baker lacks the comedic element in his acting.

The secretary of Roderick Blank is also a prime playing role for a comedian, but the female actor here lacks also the comedic quality.

Patton Oswalt is the only actor in this movie with this quality.

Overall the movie is too slow. Even the music used in this movie is just wrong for a comedy.

Al Pacino has 88 minutes to solve a case, if not then someone gonna kill him.

With such a deadline everybody does expect a movie full of action and tension. Imagine you would have left 88 minutes....you would move worlds....

But for 40 of this 88 minutes Al Pacino almost doesn't change his daily routine. Other people would be DRIVEN to find a suspect, and Al Pacino is just wandering through the movie without passion.

The character's behavior is without passion - and so are 2/3 thirds of this movie.

In the last third the pace goes up, and suddenly everyone shown is becoming a suspect. Nonetheless the experienced viewer knows after 30 minutes who has done it, so the suspects thrown it are just noise.

The producers could have made more of the basic idea, and the performance of Al Pacino is also weak.

With one look at the actors you are expecting great things of this movie, but it will fail you. After 5 Minutes my eyes were wide open when I saw this many known actors, just great!!

With the story about a bank robbery I was quick to remember a great movie like "INSIDE MAN" with Clive Owen, but this story is much more shallow and is worlds apart from the quality of Inside Man.

There are more negative things:

-the repeating showing of a past incidence on a bridge - just weak

-Wesley Snipes ,what an awful acting skill - and his stupid hat!!

-the big surprise at the end, that Jason Statham is the bad boy, is more

than weak!! After a few minutes the placement of a 10 dollar bill in

a restaurant was so obvious and deliberate done for the audience, that

no one could have missed

The punchline is, that anybody who has seen a few movies about a robbery can foresee any meaningful situation in this movie. Furthermore the known elements of a robbery-movie are not well done, and with so many actors it is just a disappointment. The weak script was only worth a TV movie,but not a big Hollywood production.

I've expected a comedy about the NVA, but this is a parody. It shows the national army of Eastern Germany in a light that is not appropriate, and definitely not true.

One can make a comedy about everything, as long as the underlying facts are not changed. Even a comedy about the German KZ is possible, as Roberto Benigni with "LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL" has shown.

The movie NVA would be an "OK" comedy, because the jokes in it are overall OK. Nothing special - not hilarious, but enough to live with it.

The point is, that the movie makes a farce and a parody about the NVA. A death machine that was ready to attack WESTERN EUROPE along with it's friend the RED ARMY. An institution that used everything to get the utmost from it's soldiers. An army that marched into the CSPR in 1968, and was ready to march also in POLAND to destroy the SOLIDARNOSC. You can't make a movie without showing the tiniest bit of evil, or would you make a parody about a KZ,Guantanamo or 9/11??? Showing Osama bin Laden as a funny screwed guy? 90 minutes about a funny Osama in a Afghan Taliban camp, where he makes jokes and is training his soldiers would be comparable to what this movie is doing about the NVA!

An Irish woman is on the search after the father of her unborn child. Unfortunately she doesn't know much about him, only that he can be found in the polish city of Walbrzych. His name is Marcin and he works in one of the many illegal coal mines in this city. The coal mines are a nasty reality in this city, what is very well known in Poland. But this movie only uses this on the sideline... Instead it's all about the sad Molly looking after Marcin,working as a room-service and living in a pension for prostitutes. It is a very long search,without any tension,action or anything else that would make this thing worth watching. Even when the story isn't great the location was a chance to show some polish social reality or something else of Poland, but it failed big time!! The only insight we get, is of the little hotel , where Molly is working and is wasting her time and yours too....

This piece is so bad, that it doesn't even deserve a rating, but I was fascinated how bad a movie actually can be. The story is about an ex police officer, who is something like the MOZART of crime investigation. Because of a serial killer the NYPD takes him back into service. The cast is like a who is who of Hollywood. With Kline,Sarandon,Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio,Harvey Keitel, Danny Aiello,Rod Steiger,Alan Rickman.Problem is that everybody gets minimum of 5 minutes for showing himself, on account he or she is a movie star. With the exception of Kevin Kline, who has 20 minutes. This makes 50 out of 97 minutes. If you want to have a nice time, than don't ever try to watch this movie! Only watch it out of curiosity to see a comedy without jokes, a movie without logic,too much stars etc.! Two examples: What is doing a police chief all the time in movies? Yes, yelling! So Aiello is yelling and yelling.... Or the computer geek in movies...what the computer in this movie achieves is astounding. Even modern ones would have problems... The January Man is by far one of the worst movies ever made, the ANTIMOVIE. And this achievement makes it a must see one on my list....

There is this odd feeling of giving only 5 points, but age doesn't protect a movie from a fair rating. Every movie has to face the competition, and there is no rebate for older participants. The story begins interesting with Poitier and the nuns, but it fails to invent some new jokes or more aspects. A black guy is building some nuns a church. It is enough for the first steps or the general direction. Delicious food doesn't become better if you are chewing one piece for 90 minutes. The same rule can be applied here. To skip some 30 minutes in the middle of it, has no negative consequences. You will not loose any clues. No tension,no action,no colour,no jokes only a story that becomes more boring with every minute and a comical situation that looses it's stance after ten minutes.

A character study of a player at it's best. State of the art work that enables everybody to get an insight in the mind of a player. The movie begins at a slow pace, but that is necessary to produce a good foundation for all what comes next. That is what i thought. The whole thing works for some time, and you actually can feel the pain of our character, but a few minutes later i had to realize that it has become my own pain. After half an hour i gave up all my hope, and only the need to know the end gave me the strength to watch the whole thing. To make Minnie Driver a boring person is a negative achievement, that shows the whole misery. Minnie Driver without a sentence would be sufficient for some nice moments, but not with this director. The movie had all ingredients to be more, but it failed big time, like the main character. After 70 minutes i had the hope for a nice end, but it didn't work out. There are people that call such a movie, a deep character study, that shows some real feelings. Yes I felt sorry for myself to be exposed to such a boring mess. Pain.

After hearing for more then 2 hours of Quran suras, because one of my neighbors had to play it very loud, i looked forward to this BUCK movie. No wonder this religion produces terrorists, because hearing this voice screaming suras is the living hell. Having survived this torture i was so excited when the movie begun. BUCK known for many nice movies before, that all are very nice and comical, was more than a promise. I expected everything, but not such a disaster!! I couldn't stand more than 30 minutes. The storyline is unbelievable. There was no situation in this movie and no minute that i could take as realistic. No joke worked. The good actors act horrible..... I could give it 1 point, because as a BUCK fan i am disappointed, but i don't have to. It is simply gruesome, and i haven't seen anything so bad as this 30 minutes of this movie for a long time. The fact that so many celebrities worked in this thing, makes it incomprehensible. See for yourself, when you don't believe! But beware!!! Mixing it with Quran suras is dangerous....One more bad experience tonight and i am ready to kill.......... :-)

How do you imagine the life of an unemployed without family, possession or future? Dull is certainly one of the answers, but this movie does the utmost of this basic story! It's a great achievement to tell something so boring without becoming itself dull and boring. At some points it is even funny and every minute is well done. Really intelligent script with great actors. Especially the actor of Santos! By far the best way to get a glimpse of a life nobody wants to have. It isn't a movie for everybody, because it isn't an easy popcorn movie. The presence of your mind is required but you will be certainly rewarded with an insight that you'll hopefully never experience.

A movie with Tobey Maguire and this situated in the American civil war, was the snag that got me. I had to see this movie. The movie begins... A short introduction...OK, it plays in Missouri. Special problems with the North and South of Missouri and the German settlers. It seems to be interesting... Then the first awful thing: the time jumps in the beginning a year forward, and the audience doesn't know which time it is actually. I disliked it, and until the end i didn't know in which year it plays, because it jumps a lot in the time without one little date. For a historic movie, not really a good sign. The next bad thing is Tobey himself. He seems to practise for his next role in Wonderboys. This little psycho touch with the "i am not here attitude" and short sentences to speak, doesn't work out here. In the first minutes we have an action scene, in which Tobey looses one of his fingers. I think "nice" and i am now eager to see more, and i am waiting and waiting, to be very honest: i am still waiting. After this little action scene Tobey and his 3 companions are spending a lot of time in a hideaway in the wood. And the movie is getting longer and longer. Now we have to learn how stupid the war is with 3 little examples: First one: Tobey is a German, the other Southerners dislike Germans...... Second one: Jeffrey Wright plays the Afroamerican Daniel Holt, who is fighting with Southerners. (By the way, this Black-White racism, is getting more and more boring. This thing is exhausted, for sure in movies. Dear Americans, if you have to go on and on with this, take some other races, like Asians too.) And third thing are the letters from the enemy. Oh, who could have thought about it, they have the very same problems like we have.

OK, i've got the message: War is bad, and our heroes are between this insane thing....

Next action scene, and a short one, the farmers house got arsoned and Tobey shoots the perpetrators. Then we have the next action scene with an insane attack on Kansas City, in which the suspension is built up between Tobey and an evil crazy man. Now the audience is waiting for the result in this case. You think that there will be a last shoot out between the two, a nice action scene....And the end: Tobey invites his enemy in the wood for a tea...then he says him, he has to get out of here..... THE END A long stupid movie.....

Two strangers find themselves in a small Kansas town. Matt Dillon, the bad boy, constrains the other guy to a bank robbery, and this and the resulting problems with a police search, hideaway ,sharing the money etc. makes up the story. Don't want to get into details, so you have more of this movie. I was surprised about the low rating and the classification of this movie as thriller. Because it is definitely no thriller!! The beginning and the first half are hilarious!! The whole background of Kansas and a small town is wonderful, and is not only nice to watch, but becomes part of the story. The pace is high and Matt has some great comedian moments in it, really funny!! I could go on and on about the wonderful first half. At this time, the movie is definitely a 7, and with more work effort, it would have become more, but that's hypothetically. The second half is far worse. Matt character can't decide if it is evil or crazy,the whole love story is too much,no surprising elements and the pace becomes far too slow. At the end i gave it a 7, but the second half is a 5. Nonetheless it's worth to watch it, because there are not many movies out there, which can profit so much from a background.

The story begins with the murder of a child, and the arrest of an Indian, the alleged killer. The Indian commits suicide, and the police got their scapegoat. Now Jack Nicholson finds out, that he wasn't the true murderer but a serial killer is still at large. Bounded through his pledge to the family of the little girl, he wants to find the true serial killer. OK, so long the story. This movie uses an awful lot of known actors, and so it hurts very much when they are wasted on a bad story like this. All in this story you certainly have seen here or there. So normally such a patchwork would make a 5, but with this actors it got highented up to a 6. But then at the very end, the people in charge realized their predictable script, and thought "we've got to make it". So they did!!! They invented such an end, that they put all on the table', and lost all!!! I will forever remember this movie for it's end!! The utmost possible breakdown of an end!!! I felt like someone shot Nicholson's head off!! Just horrible!!! Whoever did it, i am sure like hell he is still regretting it. A 3, and i am generous!! Something that no one can predict, is not automatically good!! I love surprises, but this one makes me cry!!

The thing that comes to someone's mind, by seeing a Woody Allen movie is the word "nice". As the naive art in painting, his work accomplished the same title in the world of cinema. Whichever movie of Allen you will see, it won't be great, it won't be bad, it will be a "nice" movie....and once again this movie is another pale of "nice". If you want to spend 140 minutes without exhausting your mind, but nonetheless have a "nice" entertaining, than it's your movie. Particularly if you're at risk falling asleep and then waking up, because it won't matter! I mean, i don't think i will ever see an Allen piece of art, that surprises me, it will certainly be nice and smooth. Not more, not less. It's almost like an established brand in the cinema. And dear reader, this little text of mine i am writing right now, by watching this movie. That shows quite "nice" the character of it... And the ultimate question is: "will Allen finally struggle for excellence, and try to make a "great" movie? When judging his wife, you must notice that he hasn't done it yet with his women.... Not a good sign for his movies...

There are many questions that everybody will have after watching this movie. The first one will be : why an Italian neighborhood? OK, you can have one, but with Italian actors, or at least Italian looking actors. But here we have with Leguizamo a Latino and with Adrien Brody the Overjew. Who gonna believe they are Italian? Why does this story play in the seventies? Nothing special that has no room nowadays, but the production costs have sure gone up. Oh, i haven't mention the story yet, but surprise there ain't one!!!! A murderer commits his crimes,point. And it's not as this has the most space in the movie. No, there are plenty of side stories, that no one needs. Like Adrien Brody the Italian punk, who does sexual favors to old men for money, but has nonetheless interest in women..... WASTE OF TIME

I gave it a 10, and it really deserves this rating. The story is nice and the speed of it is high! The movie took all it could out of it, and so it must be a 10. What can I write more? It is a short-movie, and I have to complete 10 lines of text! God, it is excellent craftsmanship! Short but really good!! The only negative point in this movie, could be the translation of it. With french and Flemish , it really needs good translation. Still more lines to write! So get this short-movie, and watch it! You won't be disappointed! I am surprised, that IMDb has this movie as drama, because i see it more as a dark comedy. the story has no flaws it is stringent, and it goes like a red line through the movie! really really good work, but far to short, that i can get more lines to write about! get it, watch it! that's my message!

I zapped through my TV program and found this little gem in the middle of the night with subtitles, and this movie is more than nice!! In the end i gave it a 7. Like the most of the European movies it lacks certain elements of action, but the story is nonetheless surprisingly new, somehow. Alone the end of the movie is so great, that it is worth watching! Manolos "rabbit" job is also more than comical, and for some people it might be a good idea for their own business. It is hard to get the whole movie to one point, but "nice story" would fit it the most.For all friends of everlasting tense and action this movie isn't worth , but the people who want a nice story with some lows in the whole, then watch it!!