bongo_x

This is the more way these shows should be done. Entertaining, informative, light on drama. It still could be a little more information and a little less "character" for my taste, but it's much better than most.

I'm tired of shows that are supposed to be about practical matters full of artificial deadlines, fake disasters, personal drama, and people who obviously don't know what they're talking about presented as "experts". This show is not free of these things, what reality show is? But there's less than many other shows of this type. They take the time to explain things and follow up on results later.

The problem with movies like this is that you have the people who hate slow, mysterious movies and it's automatically 1 star because there were no car chases or dubstep, and the people that feel they have to defend anything quiet and ambiguous like this and give 9 or 10 stars. "So boring" vs "You just don't get it, man". These types of films always only get 1 or 10 ratings. Really, it's not possible to make a so-so version?

Sometimes people try to make moody, interesting, thought provoking, different kinds of movies and just don't do a great job. This film was right up my alley in every way, but in the end I just said "meh". It wasn't awful, but it did feel a little dull and needlessly drawn out, seemingly because there just wasn't enough to say to fill the time. There also wasn't much to get, really people, it's not that deep or obtuse.

If there had been more eye candy (besides the obvious) I could have dealt with the other weaknesses easier. But I didn't think the visuals were all that interesting as a lot of people seem to. The whole thing was very film school and didn't totally feel like the work of a mature director, but if you told me it was a student film or something a first timer made on credit cards I would have believed you and said "hey nice effort, keep at it".

I would like to give it more than a 4 just because it's totally my kind of film, but it really didn't deserve it, and as I said, that's the problem with these kinds of movies, people voting for what kind of film they like instead of how good this particular one was.

Not a great movie by any means, but I was entertained and I've seen worse. If you want to compare it to "Wild, Wild West" or "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", and in ways you could, I hated both of those movies, so it's a winner there. It certainly could have been better, but I wasn't offended.

Josh Brolin carried the movie, everyone else was along for the ride.

There seems to be a lot of love/hate for Megan Fox, but I don't get it. I think this is the only time I've seen her, but she's not a great actress and isn't amazing eye candy. She's just there. Not the worst actress ever, not the sexiest thing that ever lived. I'm not sure how anyone can get worked up about her either way.

I can't figure out why people pick some movies out to barrage with hate. I can name dozens of movies that were worse. Faint praise, I know.

This is one my favorite versions, or I think it would be if I got the full 78 minute version. The weird editing of the short version would not make this a great choice unless you already know the story really well, in which case you can fill in the missing parts.

I love Hicks as Scrooge, and think he may be the best ever. In contrast to some others opinion here, I think his performance is more realistic and not as over the top as some.

You can't really talk about any version of "A Christmas Carol" without comparing it to others. I don't love the Alastair Sims version near as much as everyone else seems to. This one, the George C. Scott and Patrick Stewart versions are my favorites. I seem to enjoy the ones that stay the closest to the book even though I had never read the book until a year or two ago, after I'd seen all these.

I walked in thinking this was going to suck, but I was surprised that it immediately seemed way better than I expected. The actors were all great, and the characters were good, except the girl (and I can't figure out what she was even doing in this movie). There was some actual funny dialog. So now you just need to blow some stuff up and it's done, right?

No. It started out entertaining and just got more and more painful as it went on, until in it melted down in a mentally deficient mess of convoluted sewage. How freakin' complicated does this story need to be? The hard part was already done, just pull off the mission and go home, everyone's happy.

And the AWFUL editing and shaky camera work gave me headache. I was thinking I hadn't seen an action movie this badly shot and with a story this unnecessarily complicated since "Smokin' Aces", and what do you know, it's the same guy. This movie is 10 times the movie Smokin Aces was, but that's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

This director really needs to be stopped before he becomes the new Paul Verhoeven.

I loved the stuff that was there, but it's exactly like someone telling you part of an interesting story, but not all of it. I like a little ambiguity in a film, but this was more than a little. The things that were good would have been better as part of a complete, cohesive film. There's a fine line between leaving things open to interpretation and just not being able to tell a story.

One of the main problems is that it is set up as a mystery. That is the whole drive of the movie in the first half. If the director did not want to deal with the details of the mystery he should have written a different movie. It just didn't work as well as something like "Le Moustache", where it didn't really bother me that things were unresolved.

Frankly I'm baffled about the comments about figuring out any mystery. I went to the internet because I thought I had missed something (not uncommon), but I didn't find anything that I didn't see the first time. I thought it was a film about guilt and it worked great on that level, but the lack of cohesion in the end dampened any enthusiasm I had earlier.

Not a bad movie, but it could have been really good. If you love coming attractions trailers this might be for you.

Just plain dumb. It's like stoned teenagers making a film about philosophy. I suspect that's close to the truth. It seems like there were a lot of drugs (and immaturity) involved, and that thing where people who are really high think that their every rambling thought is brilliant.

The closest thing I can think of is the 3rd and 4th Batman movies. I can't say if I hated it, there was just nothing there. It was kind of annoying though.

I wanted to turn it off after 30 minutes but I stuck with it. If you're 30 minutes into this one and don't like it, turn it off. It seem to run out of steam as it goes along. I know that doesn't seem possible, but it's true.

I suspect it's much more popular with those under 30. There seems to be a lot of "Oh my god, I SO get it and you SO don't". I didn't see anything to "get". It was one of the least subtle movies I've ever seen, and didn't really have anything to say.

"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you."

Don Marquis

US humorist (1878 - 1937)

In the first 10-15 minutes I thought it was going to be a big, dumb, action movie and that's what I showed up for. Instead I got a train wreck with nearly no entertainment value.

This movie is to action what showgirls is to sex. Even though this is one of the most violent movies I've seen, there is no "action" and I just didn't care about any of it, much the same way that showgirls could have naked women on the screen the whole time and make it boring.

Every 5 minutes someone walks in and shoots every one in the room. That's the "action". Most of the time you have no idea why they did it and it doesn't seem to fit into the story at all. This is not cool, stylish, over the top shootouts, hong Kong style, it's just "walk in the room and shoot everyone".

There is about 10 times as much plot as is needed and it's incredibly convoluted and dumb, and I'm talking "WTF" dumb. There are so many characters, and some of the people are in the film for 5-10 minutes. People die and I'm thinking "who was that?". Someone kills a dozen innocent people, for no reason that I can figure out, and then literally a second later there's sad music telling us we're supposed to sympathize with them, again for no reason that I can see.

There is about 10 minutes of funny dialog, and the actors where all pretty good. it's just that there was nothing for them to do.

This may be my new "worst movie ever", and I don't take that title lightly. I actually recommend it to a few people because it's so stunningly bad on every level that it's worth watching.

The acting is painfully funny, but you can't entirely blame the actors because the script is just awful. The directing, editing, EVERYTHING is just terrible. On top of that the story is hilariously convoluted (I can't prove it but I swear the time line doesn't make any sense) and the people involved couldn't decide from one minute to the next if they were trying to make a "pouty teen soap opera" or a "wacky comedy" or an "edgy thriller". One minute it's long lingering shots of nothing that make you wish for the pace of "Eyes Wide Shut" and the next it's "CSI" camera tricks with wacky music, still about nothing though. Hilarious.

I almost turned it off (which I never do) but I got sucked in to watching this train wreck of a film unfold in front of me. You have to make it past the first 20 minutes or so, which just feel like a slow, boring, badly acted movie. After that it just gets progressively worse, even when you think it can't. I'm not sure if it's 1 star or 8 stars based on that.

I like the idea of this movie. I like the deliberate pace and moodiness. I like the music.

I just don't think it really worked. The whole thing was inconsistent and haphazard. The acting was inconsistent, The characters were inconsistent. Stanton and Kinski were pretty good, not great, but good. Stockwell and Clement were terrible, but I can't really think it was all their fault. Some scenes just seemed like they needed to be re-shot. I couldn't forget that I was watching people acting. The boy, Hunter, was probably the best actor in the film and I generally don't like child actors.

There was some beautiful scenery, but on my DVD it seemed bright and fuzzy and washed out. Maybe the original was better? Most of the movie seemed like they were making it up as they went along and they didn't really know what they wanted to say.

Really could've used some editing.

I didn't think any of it had any emotional resonance, mostly because none of the characters seemed real or fleshed out.

The music was nice, but we've since heard better stuff from him.

It wasn't a terrible movie, just ehh. One of those movies you watch and afterward have no feelings about.

I would have loved this when I was a kid. The style, costumes, sets were all fantastic. The kids were really good, and I think most child actors are hard to watch. The artwork in the credits was great. That's really the reason I watched it, I saw part of it on a plane with the sound off and it looked so good that I had to check it out. but...

I would have enjoyed it a lot more without Jim Carey. I never liked him and this film didn't change that. Any moment he appears on screen you are watching non-stop Jim Carey shtick, the same shtick he always does. "Stop the film, it's time for me to get mine".

Maybe he suited the part just fine, I didn't read the books, but I didn't enjoy it.