Reviews

One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time, particularly since the idea of it is quite a good one, with a lot of potential. Without the interesting basic premise it surely would have rated a 1.

So what's wrong with it?

1. 45 minutes of boring, badly acted, unconvincingly plotted, standard 'art-theft' action before the main plot line is actually introduced.

2. Shockingly weak dialogue - every bad thing 'sucks'. And sure there are lots of movies where every other word is fk or a variant thereof (which is fine if authentic) but here, almost exclusively in the latter half, the fk word is so clumsily and obviously inserted into almost every line that it becomes very tedious

3. Really poor characterisation. Are the characters smart or stupid? You can't really tell because the authors never decided - most of the time their actions and motivations don't ring true at all.

4. One glaringly obviously plot development - (no spoiler) but if you end up watching this movie to humour someone you love (the only excuse) then you'll know what's going to happen as soon as...

5. Do characters still have to smoke cigarettes? The year is 2002, not 1952 thanks very much.

Enough said. This movie is crap - pure and simple. One day someone may use the idea to make a decent movie - but it won't be anyone who worked on this movie.

What makes a good movie? Some of these factors might, so here's how I rate this one. Plausibility (0.9 / 10). Resolution (good ending (0.3 / 10). Production (4/10) How come everyone in movies lives in such sumptuous dwellings? Come on, give us a break! Acting (ah, now there's something worth talking about) (7/10) but how can an actor give something when what is asked of them is nothing but cliche? Music (5/10). Foxy babe(s) factor (6/10). Purely subjective this one, right? Waste of time factor 3/10 (I enjoyed the first 50 minutes but after that someone owes me for my time, right? How much is that worth?). Summary: Don't waste your time on this.

This film is the first to be released from a member of the Dogme 95 collective of directors formed in Copenhagen in 1995. The central premise of the collective is its 'vow of chastity' which, among other criteria, decrees that only hand-held cameras may be used. Unfortunately, this is one of the dictates that undermines the viewing of the film; on the one hand there is some great photography as seen in the early car scenes and on the other hand there is so much shaky and jerky camera work that viewing becomes very irritating, perhaps intentionally so.

Nevertheless, I add my endorsement to this collective and the purity of its aims. I rated this film 8/10 for its excellent cast and its unpredictable, cohesive, and disturbing narrative, but I would have rated the movie 9 if the subtitles had been edited for consistency and verisimilitude by someone for whom English was their first language. Forgive me if I am wrong but it does not appear so; characters use a wide range of strong language that is unsatisfactorily translated.

I must add that I particularly approve of the collective's disavowal of the use of script contrivances like murder and weapons - devices that are absurdly banal in typical film industry product.

This is a classic mystery/suspense movie which is skillfully filmed and is imbued with first-rate craftsmanship. The action all takes place in a single 24 period and is developed in a dramatically cohesive fashion. Perhaps most notable for its economy of script and absence of 'effects', it creates a mood of simmering tension rarely matched in today's formulaic product. Do not miss it.

This movie is absolutely atrocious, the only redeeming feature being an interesting idea. Unfortunately, the 'cube' idea exists in a vacuum - no attempt is made to put its existence into any kind of context, other than vague speculations offered by its unfortunate occupants. The characterization and dialog are both one-dimensional and the single plot thread, if it can be called that, which indicates the means of escape (no spoiler here!) is lame and predictable. The interaction between the characters is just about as cliche-ridden as anything I ever seen. Honestly, if I had not been trying to kill a couple of hours I would not have seen it to the end.

This film is a gritty and realistic depiction of the impact of sectarian conflict and violence in Northern Ireland on family and community life. Vengeance follows vengeance in a well-orchestrated and credible plot. Noteworthy for one of Margot Kidder's best performances.

Fairly amusing to begin with, this film quickly descends into realms of implausibility bordering on the absurd. The simple fact that Dustin Hoffman required hours of make-up work before each scene should be enough to make that obvious. Despite the film's flaws, Hoffman actually does pull it off and makes a convincing female soap-opera actor. The ending brings the whole film down to the level of a soap-opera, perhaps intentionally so. Enjoy Hoffman's performance but don't expect anything profound; this movie does not aim at gender politics, merely cliches and predictable audience tittering.

Terence Rattigan, who wrote the original stage play. This dialogue for this movie has been lifted almost verbatim from Terence Rattigan's script. This is not to detract from David Mamet, whose work I greatly admire (especially the amazing 'Glengarry Glen Ross'). It is an interesting period drama, taking the ideal of 'fair play' to an unusual and unconvincing extreme. The creditable attempts of the excellent cast are unfortunately insufficient to overcome the essential dullness of the text. OK for those who are charmed by customs and manners of Edwardian society.