उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

All these professional film critics. Oye. Gimme a break. Although they may make intellectual sense sometimes losing the point of a movie as escapism misses the enjoyment that could be... why so much dissection. Of course it's no Witness for the Prosecution or The Shining. But it's edge-of-seat creepy and it twists right to the end. Predictable maybe. But it's still engrossing. I'm not an idiot I love 12 Angry Men for a script and a brilliance in acting that runs circles around something like this. Or something like Fatal Attraction I know great from good from good to mediocre. This barely makes it to the last except it's worth the ride. Why analize a roller coaster if it 'works'. This is no masterpiece but it works. Enjoy the creeps!

As a psychological thriller, or a horror film, "Hide and Seek" doesn't break new ground. In fact, once it's over, the viewer feels somehow manipulated by what we have just witnessed. There are, supposedly, four different alternative endings for the movie, but unfortunately, the one being shown, doesn't add anything to what we have already seen.

Although the film has some interesting moments, director John Polson has gone for the Grand Guignol effect. Ari Schlosberg's screen play gives us hints about what to expect, yet, when we realize the mystery at the center of the story, we keep scratching our heads.

Suffice it to say, this film doesn't add anything to Robert DeNiro's brilliant career. Mr. DeNiro's last choices in films puzzle us, as well as his fans because we know he is capable of doing much better. Yet, as shown with this film and "Meet the Parents", and its sequel, "Meet the Fockers", "Analize This", and "Analize That", the actor keeps us wondering about his choices.

Dakota Fanning is a young actress who shows an uncanny sense of how to upstage Mr. DeNiro in most of their scenes together. As Emily, in this film, this girl shows an enormous range in what she is capable of doing. One can see Ms. Fanning growing to be another Jody Foster in later years.

The rest of the cast is completely underused. Amy Irving is only seen in flashbacks, which is a shame since she is a valuable actress. Famke Janssen has a few key scenes. The same goes for Melissa Leo, Elisabeth Shue and Robert John Burke.

The only consolation was it was shown on cable and we felt lucky not having spent the price of admission.

I'm not the greatest figurer out of plot twists, and I didn't figure this one out. If you did, then I can see that there would have been an air of disappointment over that aspect of the film. I didn't so, plot-wise, I had no problem with enjoying the movie.

I thought the ending was fine.

And, as usual, I thought Dakota Fanning was quite remarkable, holding the screen with an assurance well beyond her years (although I find her manner in the "Making of.." documentaries worryingly un-childlike).

I did have some other problems, though.

De Niro's character must have been the worst psychologist in the world, given his complete inability to apply any of his knowledge to dealing with his daughter's problem in any constructive way (and, yes, I know "That's because blah blah blah", but it's still a distraction when you're sitting there watching him to fail utterly to exercise a shred of competence.

I failed to understand some of the child's motivation for her actions and attitudes vis-a-vis Charlie and Dad, especially given the nature of the twist.

Elisabeth Shue and Famke Janssen - nice to see them, even if only briefly.

And De Niro - not your finest hour, Bob. Carry on like this, and Norton and Depp will be fighting over the "Greatest Living Screen Actor" crown, while you watch from the wings.

My score of 7 is a point or two higher than it would otherwise have been, solely on the strength of Dakota Fanning's performance.

Maybe Robert De Niro's doctor in Godsend (2004) went to the same medical school of horrors as his Dr. David Callaway in Hide and Seek, this year's De Niro toss away film, from which he deposits his considerable paycheck along with cash from Meet the Fockers. Why he doesn't concentrate his fortune and connections (as Clint Eastwood does) to craft an artful small film that would allow his acting gifts is the only mystery for me from his prolific but arguably spotty career.

Young Emily Callaway (Dakota Fanning) has lost her mother (Amy Irving) to suicide. Psychologist dad moves her to an older, rambling house in the woods in upstate New York to start a new life. Not new are the abundant clichés of the horror film: the suspicious neighbors, whom director John Polson makes as creepy as possible; the questionable sheriff; the doors leading to scares; the mutilated dolls; Emily's imaginary friend, Charlie, who appears to be causing numberless offenses in the house; and knives placed as objects of intrinsic interest; and a vulnerable girl friend, Elizabeth (Elisabeth Shue). I stopped counting, for the film is one extended cliché after another.

The interest for serious filmgoers might be the depiction of the psychological stat after a loss to suicide. Whatever the term might be such as "post-traumatic stress disorder syndrome," the film does a credible job showing how difficult it is for Emily to lead a normal life after the loss of her mother (and for her father as well). While there are echoes of Stephen King (The Shining's "Here's Johnny" comes to mind) and Hitchcock (think shower scene), there is no comparison in quality with those classics. The audience at the preview enjoyed some of the stock shock moments behind the many closed doors. Hide and Seek will titillate horror fans but disappoint discerning film buffs, who look for some believable edge and innovation.

Milton in Paradise Lost expressed the descent from happiness to despair: "Farewell happy fields, Where joy forever dwells: hail, horrors!" Hide and Seek is not a classic horror film; it is a classic underachiever.

You know what I don't get? Why is it that creepy little boys or girls seem to always get away with anything? Look, when I see a creepy little kid, I will say that that kid is a creepy little bastard! I call it like I see it. I realize that most kids in the world are not disturbed, but some are, and should you ever come across one, then please save humanity and do all us humans a favor by making sure that said creepy little kid is locked away for life. I realize that creepy little kids have been a staple for horror films, but to suggest that they should never be thought of as criminals is insane. Hollywood loves to portray kids as angels. Like I said, most are, but I think Hollywood needs a reality check.

This leads me to Hide and Seek, a movie that is mediocre even with powerful actors like DeNiro, Fanning and Shue. For some reason, Bobby makes more mediocre films nowadays then he does quality. I realize you have to pay the bills, but come on. DeNiro is one of the best actors ever, and his movie choices lately (Godsend, which is horrible)have sucked. DeNiro should have looked at the script and then decided to burn it after reading the first 3 pages. Either that or he should have demanded a love scene with Elisabeth Shue for extra compensation. Fanning parents saw the $$$$ there little girl would earn, and signed her up real quick. Well, that is my theory, cause she is way better than this garbage.

Fanning plays the "creepy little kid", and DeNiro plays her psychiatrist dad. Mom kills herself in the beginning of the movie, or at least that is what it looks like. Darling daughter becomes depressed and creepy, and daddy decides to move from the city to the country for a new start. Turns out the move is a bad idea, cause (excluding Shue's character) all the residents of this small town that we meet are creepy too. And why is it that small town folk are always creepy? Big cities have there fair share of freaks as well, but for some reason, this movie (along with many others) wants you to believe that small town folks are crazy as hell. Anyways, this movie goes from okay to flat out ridiculous in no time at all, and once the big "surprise" comes at the climax of the film, you feel as if you have seen this movie somewhere before. That is due to the fact that Hide and Seek turns into a rehash of many other films. Sad thing is the fact that Hide and Seek wants to be different........but it isn't.

I'll give Fanning credit. She does play her role well, and it was because of her that I watched this whole thing. This is a dark role for her, and she seems to eat it up. She does have a bright future ahead of her, but she needs to avoid crap like this.

After the suicide of his wife (Amy Irving), David Callaway (Robert De Niro) takes his mentally disturbed 9-year-old daughter, Emily (Dakota Fanning) to a new home in the country in upstate New York. Instead of getting better, Emily begins to withdraw further, and she announces to her father that she has a new imaginary friend named "Charlie." At first, her father sees Charlie as a way for Emily to express her feelings. Then a series of vicious acts such as menacing writings appearing on the bathroom walls, and other mysterious occurrences start happening around the house. David blames Emily for doing them, but Emily says that Charlie did it. But is Charlie imaginary? You'd have to ask Emily, who is the only one who can see Charlie. Charlie may actually be both real and very dangerous. The movie is well crafted and suspenseful with a great cast. For a thriller, I did jump a few times. The ending was a little disappointing, but not unpredictable. (20th Century Fox, Run time 1:40, Rated R)(8/10)

The pic talks upon a family formed by the psychologist father (Robert De Niro), mother (Amy Irving) and daughter (Dakota Fanning). The mother is dead and the rest family are going at home in the Woods located in upstate New York where happens terrible events . She's seen by a doctor (Famke Janssen) and the daddy meets a girl friend (Elizabeth Shue) .

From start to finish tension , thrills , chills and the suspense are continued . The film plot is warped and the final has an extraordinary surprise . The movie blends mystery, intrigue, horror , thriller, frightening events and a little bit of gore when the murders happen. In spite of developing in interior scenarios and with not many people , it is neither dreary , nor tiring , but entertaining . At the motion picture there is spooky and creepy atmosphere and although is a little slow moving isn't bored because there are amount of scares and shocks. The picture achieved limited success in United States , at Europe obtained more boxoffice than USA. The flick has certain resemblance to ¨The shining¨ written Stephen King , adapted by Stanley Kubrick. Interpretation by Robert De Niro is top-notch likeness to ¨Cape Fear¨. Dakota Fanning , the clever and psychic child is outstanding similar to her role in ¨Man of fire¨. John Ottman music creates strong emotions and the movie was professionally directed by John Polson. The yarn will appeal to suspense and horror fans.

Rating: average but entertaining .

Movie Buffs (snobs) will not be surprised by the stereotypical Hollywood ending, but the movie is not too bad throughout. Dakota Fanning puts on the typical scary little girl show to a above average level, and the cinematic action will make you squirm in your seat a few times. Therefore this movie isn't one that I would say you definitely need to see, but if you have some time to waste its a pretty good time. Also it gets bonus points for being a good date movie. The absolute worst thing about this movie is its lack of humor, though the dark overtones are necessary for a true horror movie there needs to be an element of humor(saving The Exorcist), even the Ring had its moments at the beginning with the two girls in the bedroom, this movie has no humor which makes us feel very little for the characters. This is the major downfall, but its still worth a viewing.

This was okay but nothing special. Frankly, I hate to see a young likable talent like Dakota Fanning play morose, ugly roles like this. Let her be a kid who laughs, has fun and acts like a kid, such as she did in "The Cat In The Hat." Since then, she's playing in rougher and rougher films although "Dreamer" with Kurt Russell, I am told, is a nice film.

Anyway, you know that with her and Robert De Niro, you're going to get some excellent acting. The movie also offers a lot of suspense. While it was not fun seeing a young girl mentally tortured and depressed all the time, it was nice to see De Niro play such a low-key role for most of he film.

I would think, without giving anything away, that one viewing of this film would be enough, even if one likes it. Once you know the ending, well......

If you are not a big fan of either Fanning or De Niro (I am) , I wouldn't even give it one viewing.

Why wasn't the wife's (Amy Irving) suicide explained. She had a devoted husband (Robert Deniro) an adorable daughter (Dakota Fanning). This caused the daughter to retreat psychologically into creating an imaginary friend and terrors only known in a child's mind. The pay per view had the alternate ending after the credits. That made it fun. This young star, Fanning, will be seen much much more as she is hauntingly beautiful as a child and is a hell of an actress already. The cast is great, Elizabeth Shue, and the rest do an admirable job in a somewhat strange film. I on't tell you the ending it is worth seeing and check out the alternate ending. OK so bu the end you know all the answers. I figured this ending out. It was all too predictable. But enjoyable if you leave your brain someplace else.

Widower David and his daughter Emily leave the big city for the country after the tragic death of the Misses. Due to the fate of her mother Emily is going through a tough patch, one might say she has some issues when weird things like mutilated dolls and dead animals appear. But the clincher is her new found "imaginary" friend Charlie. As Charlie asserts himself more and more, darker things start to happen and we all know what that means.

Not a horrible film but the script is horribly clichéd. I enjoyed myself but not quite the way the filmmakers had in mind. My friend and I traded quips back in forth as if we were at our own MST3K party or something. I noticed many others in the audience doing the same so we weren't alone. DeNiro was solid if a bit restrained. Fanning is a pretty good actress for a ten year old. She held her ground with DeNiro and even bested him several times. Hell she barely blinked for the first 45 minutes of the film. The direction wasn't spectacular, not overly flashy but didn't need to be. The script…ahh the script is where the film skids into a tailspin. A veritable Frankenstein's Monster of plots, devices and red herrings that served other films well but became a tepid pool here.

Disappointing but not a total waste of time if you can forgive its shortcomings.

Really, no but really. This has to be one of the most ludicrous movies I have seen. De Nero, why, why, why? Did you really need the money so badly. The problem is, it actually could have been good. What a pity.