imdb-2078
Joined May 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews13
imdb-2078's rating
Great acting can't save this film, in which absolutely everything feels unnatural. Its origins as a "graphic novel" are all too apparent: every scene, word, and action feel like panels in a comic book.
The problem is that it disturbs the flow of the movie; it's hard to stay with the plot when every character acts like a comic-book character instead of a real one. If the movie were tongue-in-cheek it might work, but clearly we're supposed to take things seriously -- and that's hard to do when every word and action ring false.
Mortensen is very good, Bello is excellent (and smokin'), Ed Harris is brilliant, and William Hurt is completely miscast as a Philly gangster boss.
Both the violence and sex are graphic; the former is gratuitous and disturbing, the latter is very affecting.
The problem is that it disturbs the flow of the movie; it's hard to stay with the plot when every character acts like a comic-book character instead of a real one. If the movie were tongue-in-cheek it might work, but clearly we're supposed to take things seriously -- and that's hard to do when every word and action ring false.
Mortensen is very good, Bello is excellent (and smokin'), Ed Harris is brilliant, and William Hurt is completely miscast as a Philly gangster boss.
Both the violence and sex are graphic; the former is gratuitous and disturbing, the latter is very affecting.
Wow, is this bad.
The problem with this movie--besides a budget of $11--is that the premise contains no real conflict for the hero to overcome--it just wouldn't be that hard for the US military to detonate a bomb in an evacuated Los Angeles. So the makers start pulling obstacles and conflict out of thin air about halfway through--none of which make a lick of sense.
Characters inexplicably turn bad or suddenly start behaving contrary to everyone's interest, including their own; boogie men pop up out of nowhere for no discernible reason; and of course the hero's daughter improbably needs to be rescued from conveniently nearby. She, by the way, survives a car fire by hiding--get this--in the trunk. Yeah, that would work.
About three-quarters of the way in you realize that the reason the bomb has to be detonated in Los Angeles is that the director needed to shoot this movie across the street from his brother's dry cleaning shop so he wouldn't be late for his shift.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "A-hah! This guy doesn't recognize a spoof when he sees one! Clearly this movie is tongue-in-cheek!"
Wrong--it isn't. It's just really, really bad.
The problem with this movie--besides a budget of $11--is that the premise contains no real conflict for the hero to overcome--it just wouldn't be that hard for the US military to detonate a bomb in an evacuated Los Angeles. So the makers start pulling obstacles and conflict out of thin air about halfway through--none of which make a lick of sense.
Characters inexplicably turn bad or suddenly start behaving contrary to everyone's interest, including their own; boogie men pop up out of nowhere for no discernible reason; and of course the hero's daughter improbably needs to be rescued from conveniently nearby. She, by the way, survives a car fire by hiding--get this--in the trunk. Yeah, that would work.
About three-quarters of the way in you realize that the reason the bomb has to be detonated in Los Angeles is that the director needed to shoot this movie across the street from his brother's dry cleaning shop so he wouldn't be late for his shift.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "A-hah! This guy doesn't recognize a spoof when he sees one! Clearly this movie is tongue-in-cheek!"
Wrong--it isn't. It's just really, really bad.
Ben Kingsley and Shohreh Aghdashloo are brilliant in this adaptation of Andre Dubus III's novel. Kingsley in particular simmers as Col. Behrani; his performance at the climax will stay with you a long time.
Jennifer Connelly is quite good, though perhaps a bit young for the part. The decision, though, to make her character somewhat sympathetic undermines to a degree the motive for her behavior. This may be the film's only objectionable flaw.
One wishes they'd resisted the temptation to make Connelly's character more complex; it would have reduced the need to rely on Ron Eldard's deputy as a plot driving device. People surely do stupid things in life, but you'll be hard-pressed to accept his character's exceptionally numb-skulled behavior as anything but an expository tool. Kingsley versus Connelly would have been enough had they allowed both, and not just Kingsley, to dig in unwaveringly.
No matter. Suspend your disbelief, ignore the plot problems, and let it wash over you like a parable.
Jennifer Connelly is quite good, though perhaps a bit young for the part. The decision, though, to make her character somewhat sympathetic undermines to a degree the motive for her behavior. This may be the film's only objectionable flaw.
One wishes they'd resisted the temptation to make Connelly's character more complex; it would have reduced the need to rely on Ron Eldard's deputy as a plot driving device. People surely do stupid things in life, but you'll be hard-pressed to accept his character's exceptionally numb-skulled behavior as anything but an expository tool. Kingsley versus Connelly would have been enough had they allowed both, and not just Kingsley, to dig in unwaveringly.
No matter. Suspend your disbelief, ignore the plot problems, and let it wash over you like a parable.