Reviews (13)

  • I'm surprised this movie practically got no attention and me being the first writing a comment. Yes, the story isn't really that new. And the cast.. well, it's actually two actors only -both quite unknown (at least to me). Hopefully I won't be bored to death -was my thought when I started watching it. Btw. I have a rule: if movie doesn't catch my attention in first 15 minutes, it's dumped. I try to keep it short.. Both actors did their job excellent and made the story believable. Penny and Harris, both pleasant to look at, are natural in showing just enough emotions. Ok, maybe I'm biased because I find Penny very cute... Story itself maybe isn't that special. Still, it's never boring and keeps your attention all the time. As always, the end is very important for such kind of movies, as it can (and often does) ruin the whole experience. The end is different than I expected during watching the movie.. is better than I thought it will be.
  • Sometimes I can't understand reviewers here. I mean, if a sci-fi movie is reviewed, then writer should criticize it (good or bad) from sci-fi view angle. And even then, one shouldn't compare one sci-fi genre with another.

    Anon is raw sci-fi, without amazing effects and stunning fights. It's story is more actual than ever.. or at least it should be. In a society, where we "feel the need" to be "connected" all the time.. without second thoughts about possible consequences in very near future.

    In short: good actors and good idea well presented. Makes you thinking after movie ends -which is the main point of good sci-fi. I give it 8 stars.
  • When young, I was a big fan of Agatha Christie and I've read most of her books. Most of them have a "unexpected twist" at the end, which is probably the reason one just need to grab her next book. Needless to say, A. Christie was a master in playing games with readers mind. But you know how's with the stories that have "unique" twist at the end: one is surprised (jaw-drop) only reading/seeing them for the first time. Murder on the Orient express is no exception: if you know "the story", then there's no point to watch this remake. Actually, compared to the book, this remake is quite poor and I can imagine, those who didn't read the book, may be disappointed (in sense "what made this title so famous?"). We have a bunch of great actors, but none of them leaves a mark -except K.Branagh playing famous detective. I would blame a script for that. Let me explain: In A.Christie's books, reader has always the feeling he can solve the mystery. Of course, reader's guess is usually wrong.. still, even after the crime is solved, reader still believes he could solve that, if he would pay enough attention when reading. Now, in this movie, that feeling doesn't happen.. it can't happen, because there's no time for small details and hints. Regardless of my title above, I recommend the book.

    Being picky about details myself: landscape between Vinkovci and Brod (where story happens), is in reality totally flat.
  • Now, after reading other reviews here, I feel lucky I've watched this crap only first 30 minutes -then I skipped to last 10 minutes. Hey, don't envy me, it was pure luck :-) Anyway, I still regret watching R.Mara eating for over 5 minutes. I wonder.. people actually pay to see this "movie"?

    And you know what? Now I find "no-signal" screensaver on my TV quite entertaining.
  • If you're younger than, say 40, then you'll find this movie extremely boring. Well, I think it's boring and I'm over 50. To be honest, I would probably stop watching this movie in the middle, if there wouldn't be Sam Elliot. It's his appearance that keep you watching, not the story. The thing is, there isn't much of a story: no "big" questions and no answers... you need to imagine them just by looking at Sam's face expressions. Or maybe even I am too young to understand "the message". About relationships.. there aren't any either. The idea of good looking young woman (Laura Prepon) falling for such old man is kinda unbelievable, so it should be supported by some dialogs -looking into each others eyes just isn't enough in such case.

    Btw. Who at IMDb decides about movies genre? Because, if this movie contains any of comedy elements, then I really need to get checked by a shrink.
  • Before I watched this movie, I didn't read reviews about it, nor did I pay much attention about kinda poor rating. I only knew director S.Hicks from his "Hearts in Atlantis", which I quite liked at that time. And for that reason, I didn't wanted to be influenced by other opinions before seeing Fallen. Here it goes, my opinion...

    OK, I realize this movie wasn't made for me. Meaning, if you're male above 40's (or above any age?), don't watch it, because it's just silly. I can't imagine even teenager would buy such story nowadays. As for women/girls of any age, if you like seeing romantic fantasy (say, angels) movies, maybe you watch again "Ghost" (1990) or "City of Angels" (1998) movie -after all these years, both will leave bigger impact.

    I rate Fallen with 3 stars -truth to be told, Fallen is better than watching commercials.
  • I started to watch this movie with big hopes... and I insisted to watch it for over 45 boring minutes. And I just can't stop asking myself, where from those high ratings (at IMDb) come? Or maybe it's because I'm from Europe, not understanding how people live and act over the pond?... how they cope with death in family? I ask, because whole 'drama' in this movie is highly unnatural and relationships unreal. Not to mention, that so many "f*ck you" just has no place in such story -I assume script writer ran out of ideas on many places. C.Affleck is.. as he is in most movies: in bad mood, thinking about something all the time, asocial. For the rest of the cast, I already forgot them. "Masterpiece", huh? I would give it 1 star out of 10, but because I suffered only first 45 minutes, I give it 3.
  • Crime, drama, mystery... no action. Not easy to make a good movie of such genre nowadays. And when reading story-line, one might think "haven't we seen them all?". Yes, we probably did.. but this one belongs to good ones.

    Main role suits Adrien Brody perfectly. His "average guy" appearance gives the movie certain authenticity. But then, he never disappointed me. I never heard of Yvonne Strahovski before, though. In this movie however, she reminded me on Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. Difference being, Yvonne doesn't appear that cool'n'smart -which is only good in this case.

    Story, in general, is not that new. But it has interesting plot, which is presented very good and kept my attention all the time. Now, even this movie is categorized (also) as mystery, I wouldn't say there's any. There are just things we don't know till the end of movie. OK, I admit, I found relationship between Ivonne and her husband kinda "weird"...

    And finally, movie ending. In my opinion, it's perfect!

    So, if you like this genre and you're in the right mood, I recommend to give it a try. I give 8 stars.
  • I'm not really a fan of thriller movies in which legends and cults are used for a plot. Because most are quite predictable and so it is Sacrifice. Thus, after reading a storyline at IMDb, I kinda knew what to expect.

    I admit, main reason for watching this movie anyway, was Radha Mitchell. I just think, over the years, she's getting better and better. I can't judge her acting, but one is for sure: she leaves a mark in a movie.

    So, even nothing really surprised me during watching Sacrifice, it got my attention all the time -it's something that makes a good movie in my eyes.

    Thus, if you like such genre, I recommend seeing this movie. I give it 7 stars.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I assume you haven't seen this movie yet and you're deciding if it's worth to spend time watching it. At the time I write this, there are only two reviews here, so...

    First, current rating of about 6 stars is just right, I think. That is, if you like mystery stories with a touch of love. Of course, this movie can't compete with movies like City of angels, Sixth sense, What dreams may come, Ghost -to name some of the best in similar genre.

    The Driftless Area has a good story, and I think cast was picked very well. Pierre (A.Yelchin) appears so "next door guy" which suits this role very good. And if it ever happens to me I see a "ghost", I hope it will look like Stella (Z. Deschanel).

    OK, story interesting, good cast, nice photography... What I missed in this (kind of) movie, was: emotions. It's not about acting, it's just good story is presented badly. I can't judge who's fault that is. Relationship between Pierre and Stella is quite sterile, considering their destiny is to stay together (forever). In general, it's an easy to watch movie with almost expected ending. However, if you like complex and mind challenging content, see The Fountain (2006).

    I give 6 stars.
  • Before seeing a movie, I usually check it's rating on IMDb. I don't read reviews, though, so I can make MY opinion about movie after seeing it. And if my 'judgement' doesn't fall close to IMDb rating, then I read reviews -asking myself, maybe I just missed something. We learn all the time, right?

    In short: this movie is utter crap. Not even worth to analyze it.

    So I wonder, where from rating of 7.3 (at this time) for this movie comes? I mean, on scale up to 10, if movie is rated above 5, then it should be worth seeing it in cinema... I guess. Anyway, if you haven't seen this movie yet, don't waste your time on it when (if) it comes on TV. Switch to commercials instead -will be more entertaining. I give 1 star rating for this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've read here (and elsewhere) what's the story. Here (on IMDb) the story is told in three statements (which is, the same number of words used in the whole movie). Now, one would expect, there's "more" in movie, but it isn't -that is, the "Storyline" in IMDb is actually a spoiler.

    OK, is there some message behind? Some "revelation", "deep though"? I say: no, there isn't any -and I'm one of few movie fans, who think that "The Fountain" (by D.Aronofsky) is quite a good movie. No story, no message in "The Tree of Life". What's left is.. picture. Too bad, that I already seen all those stellar constellations, solar systems, sunsets, waves, etc. on various documentary channels.

    Funny thing is, that I can't comment acting.. because, again, there isn't any acting -literary.

    There will be some, pretending recognizing "the truth" in the movie.. being on some kind of spiritual trip while watching it. Whatever.

    I voted with 1 (one) point.
  • When I started looking this movie, I didn't know what to expect nor did I read any reviews. M.Jovovich may not be the best actress out there, but Resident Evil was quite entertaining and Perfect Gateway worth to see. As I never heard about Osunsanmi (director of 4th kind), I was hoping to be surprised with some fresh idea... you know, like M.Night Shyamalan did with Sixth Sense.

    No, I won't "analyze" Fourth Kind here, because it doesn't deserve that.. it is utter crap even for brainless people.

    What wonders me is, how come this movie can have (hight) rating of 6.5 right now on IMDb?

    For those, who get their movies "for free": don't! -it really isn't worth.