Reviews

Sense8 starts well, with a compelling story and intriguing characters. It slowly builds up tension as the characters start to understand that they are linked as part of a cluster of 8 people, able to communicate with each other remotely, and slip into the persona of another to use skills unique to one of the 8. It's a very interesting concept. The cinematography is excellent, filmed at 9 location scattered across the globe. That alone makes it worth while watching. However, it is not perfect. I read that Netflix had originally contracted the Wachowskis for 10 episodes, but after filming completed, the Wachowskis told Netflix that they needed to expand the show to 12 eps as they simply had too much content. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, they would have been much better off sticking to 10 episodes. Some scenes seem to drag on unnecessarily. By the middle eps, the show starts to drag, it borders on becoming tedious. I suspect this show will have a higher than usual abandonment rate. Fortunately, the last 3 episodes really pick up the pace, and it ends well.

The scenes with Lito and Hernando were done in such a way that it made it seem that the Wachowskis were very in-your-face, defying you to state that they were unnecessarily bold, threatening to label you a homophobe if you didn't like them. The problem is that they simply dragged on far too long. No straight couple is given nearly the screen time embracing each other as Lito and Hernando. Yes, I know they are gay, yes, they kiss, yes, they have sex. I get it, why flog it to death? Why show essentially the same scene over and over again? When the couple breaks up (I checked the Contains Spoilers box), why did they carry on with Lito's anguish seemingly without end? Yes, he was emotionally distraught, I get it, stop beating me over the head with it. Those scenes just seemed to drag on forever, like they simply had this footage and used it as filler. More crisp editing certainly would have made for better storytelling.

The show is also quite dark. Many characters contemplate suicide, it seems to me that they hardly represent an alternate (or superior) human species, they are so weak emotionally, evolution would have long ago sentenced them to extinction. The emotional turmoil is almost too much to bear, the show starts off as sci-fi/action/mystery, but quickly devolves into "Steel Magnolias". Had I known it was so depressing in the middle episodes, I probably would not have started it. However, it does pick up the pace, and it does finish well. All in all, a fine start. Looking forward to season 2, and hopeful that the show will concentrate more on the mystery, and less on the tragedy.

If you can ignore the animal cruelty in the film, and just focus on the martial arts, this is truly an impressive film. Unfortunately, quite a bit of screen time is wasted while Jet Li accidentally kills a dog, and then proceeds to consume it. It is quite an odd scene, with other novices from the Shaolin Temple coming out of the trees to enjoy a good old German Shepherd kabob. There is another scene where a lamb's throat is crushed by a follower of the evil king, and his lackeys run around killing sheep with lances. I understand the setting was long before the existence of PETA, but it was nonetheless surprising (disturbing) to see actual animals butchered on camera.

Nevertheless, the Kung Fu in this movie is spectacular. Jet Li and his co-stars have such incredible command of their movements, it is breathtaking. The action sequences pull no punches, there are no comedic Jackie Chan moments, instead it is all-out war to the finish. In my humble opinion, the fight scenes are some of the best ever filmed.

R.

Jackie Chan has made some good films (Police Force, Rumble in the Bronx, etc.), but most of his most recent work has been sub-par. This film hits a new low. It is incredibly dull, shored up by only 2 decent fight scenes in the entire movie (the second of which was marred by a ridiculous tango sequence midway through). There is little plot to speak of, other than Shu Qi going to Hong Kong because she finds a note in a bottle. The rest is pure rubbish. It is one of those Ernest films where the henchmen all look at each other, grab their faces, and scream at least 20 times in the movie. It was funny when the 3 Stooges did it back in the 40's, but it is no longer even remotely humorous.

Just about the only thing I can say about this horrid film is that the female lead is very attractive, hence the title. Other than that, this picture is a dog. The sparse action scenes have all been done (by Jackie Chan no less) in many other movies, and done considerably better. There is really nothing at all to the "love story", it is so incredibly contrived that it just comes off as a big joke.

Very very poor outing for Jackie Chan.

R.

Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh are both very accomplished Martial Artists. Their talents are on display in this wire-guided action movie. It is important to note that this is a wire-guided movie, because that may not be to all tastes. Chinese Martial Arts movies fall into 3 categories; no wires at all (Bruce Lee movies), partial wires to make the hits seem stronger (many Jackie Chan movies), and full blown wire-guided extravaganzas (Crouching Tiger, House of Flying Daggers, and this movie). Some people find it slightly ridiculous that the fighters are running up trees, making impossible moves, and dealing out punishment which often sends the opponent slithering half a KM away. This movie is full of that, so be warned. Nonetheless, the fight scenes are sometimes incredible, and at other times somewhat ridiculous.

Jet Li takes on an entire army in this movie, armed only with a length of bamboo. Naturally, he does incredibly well. Yet as enjoyable as the action scenes are, they are tied together by the most moronic filler scenes ever conceived. At one point, Jet Li thinks he is a duck and spends the next 20 minutes prancing around impersonating the animal. The "comedic" moments would have been better placed in an Ernest movie, they are that ridiculous. Also, many many people are killed in this movie, yet that doesn't stem the flow of Ernest moments. It would have been much better to take a more serious tone, something along the lines of House of Flying Daggers or Crouching Tiger. The filler is so frustratingly bad, the dialog is so stupid, and the acting so poor, that I could not give this movie a higher rating than a 5 despite the impressive fight sequences.

R.

I am glad that Luc Besson moved on from this Cannes film festival fodder and into more entertaining movies. Although it does take a fair amount of gall to direct a post-apocalyptic film in black and white with absolutely no dialogue, it seemed obvious to me that it was geared for the Film Festival set; things happen incredibly slowly, and there is no explanation for many elements of the film (people can't talk, fish rain from the sky, etc.), but how could there be as there is no dialogue? If you absolutely must see everything Luc Besson has directed, then by all means, see this movie. But if you are looking for a well-made Besson, then search somewhere else. Luc Besson has directed such classics as Nikita, Leon, Subway, and Le Grand Bleu, all of which are infinitely more entertaining and watchable than this post-modernistic French cinema which was likely praised at the time of its release as the future of film. Fortunately, it wasn't, and Besson went on to bigger and better things.

I wonder how the scriptwriters failed to miss this blindingly obvious plot hole, but I really do have to point it out. The premise for this movie is the discovery of time travel, and a rather original way to make it lucrative. By sending time tourists back in time to hunt Tyrannosauruses, the company is providing a unique and profitable adventure. However, they constantly remind their patrons not to touch anything, not to stray off the path, and not to influence in any way the past for fear of altering the future.

As explained in the movie, killing a single bee 65 million years ago, could deprive a flower from being pollinated, and hence not provide an animal with food, then a prey from a meal, etc. etc. all the way down the 65 million year old road. Of course, any animal will simply eat the flower next to it if one didn't get pollinated, but that is not the plot hole to which I am referring. This concept of causing vast changes via a very small and insignificant event, is called the Butterfly Effect. And this movie bashes you on the head with that analogy.

In order to dramatically alter the future, one of the characters actually steps on and kills a butterfly (gee, how obvious a Butterfly Effect is that?), thereby changing the past and violently causing the downfall of mankind. That may be a bit of a stretch (to say the least), but there was also the matter of the volcano. The company picked a moment in time where a Tyrannosaurus Rex gets trapped in a tar pit and dies anyway, therefore shooting it first with ice bullets in no way alters its fate and thus avoids any conundrums for the future. Also, they picked a moment 5 minutes before a volcano blows in order to provide a margin of safety, should anything go wrong or get left behind, the volcano will wipe it out anyway. There is even a dramatic scene with the hero returning to the present day in the nick of time, just as the destruction wrought by the volcano arrives to wipe out everything in the past. Do you see the problem here? How in the world could stepping on a single butterfly one minute before it was to be incinerated by a volcano have any impact at all on the future? Even if some butterfly-eating predator was deprived of a meal, the movie demonstrated in intimate detail that the volcano wiped out everything, including the butterfly and anything within 100 miles that was planning on eating it! So a butterfly living one minute less than fate had provided for it is supposed to turn the Earth into a paradise of monkey-lizards? That makes no sense at all! People who see this movie are expected to be pretty loose with the plot, after all they have to accept time travel and all the conundrums that evokes. But I still find it amazing that the single event on which the entire movie is premised, is so fundamentally flawed.

Other reviewers have commented on the fantastically bad special effects, but at least one of them provided an explanation. Apparently, the production company decided to screen test the movie prior to putting the finishing touches on the effects. When the abysmally bad response came back, they threw in the towel rather than throw good money after bad, and the effects were never improved upon. Too bad, the dinosaur wasn't that bad, neither was the actual event which projected them back in time. There was a hilarious green-screen on the sidewalk scene which was so poorly done it was incredibly obvious that the actors were walking on a treadmill. A few finishing touches would certainly have improved the whole, but the plot would still have bite marks large enough to fall through. Ha ha.

This film is almost impossible to watch, and will only be praised by either jaded film critics or people feigning artistic understanding. I suspect the only reason this film has any following at all is that it doesn't follow the typical path to tell its story, rather it is a mishmash of disjointed images strung together with "Theatre of the Absurd" dialog. It is incredibly boring, pretentious, and fantastically frustrating. It also throws the whoring homosexual lifestyle of two losers back in your face, daring you to criticize the movie and thus be branded a homophobe. What an incredible waste of time.

I am sure film critics everywhere are raving about this (no doubt) Cannes Film Festival fodder, however that just shows you that existential film making is still only the darling of the festival circuit. It is yet another in a long list of "if you didn't understand my movie, you are a plebeian" pet projects from a director throwing nonsensical moments together and pretending they have meaning. Ho hum, what tripe.

This movie is one of the most popular, and certainly the best Bond staring Roger Moore, but it also contains some of the worst series-killing moments which foreshadowed the abysmal "Moonraker". There is an awful lot to like about "The Spy Who Loved Me" as it features one of the best Bond girls ever; Barbara Bach as Russian agent Major Amasova. She is beautiful, cunning, and strong, and doesn't just fall helplessly into Moore's arms at the drop of a zipper. This film also featured one of the most impressive cars in the entire series, a Lotus Esprit famously equipped as a submarine. The action is crisp, the opening sequence is terrific, and the plot is generally very good by Bond standards.

But the movie does have its flaws. Wholly unlike the previous efforts by Sean Connery, Roger Moore plays Bond more of a dandy than as a secret agent. He is constantly snapping off puns, groaners, and one-liners, which when used sparingly in the Connery films were often witty, whereas for the most part they just make Moore appear foolish and full of himself. That type of wordplay was carried to absolutely ridiculous extremes by later Bonds in "Die Another Day" and "The World is Not Enough". Also in this film, are terribly shot fight scenes. The fistfight between Sandor and Bond is a farce, worse than any of the fake fighting you will see in the WWE. The fights between Jaws and Bond are not an awful lot better. Also bad are some of the effects. For instance, the ski sequence at the beginning was excellent, but the need to show Roger Moore in a ski outfit ruined some of the effect. It was so obviously faked on a set that it just looked ridiculous. They should have just shot the entire sequence with stunt-men, and dropped all facial shots of Roger Moore "fake-skiing", it would have been much more realistic. It should be noted that the film was released in 1977, however the capacity to at least make those types of scenes look realistic had been with Hollywood since back in the 60's with the release of "2001". Don't forget that 1977 was also the year "Star Wars" was released, and nowhere in that film do you find examples of such shoddy camera-work.

Jaws is also a terrible villain. Richard Kiel is a fine actor, and he certainly looks the part of a vicious assassin, but why in the world make him invincible? He is human even if he has metal teeth, there is no need to turn him into a caricature! But in this film, he gets shot in the teeth (sigh), kills a shark by biting it to death, rips apart a truck with his bare hands, bites through a thick metal chain, and has about 20 tons of rock and rubble fall on him to no effect. It gets much much worse in Moonraker when we see him falling out of an airplane before happily walking away, followed by a scene of him biting through a cable-car cable. When they had an actor with such an imposing presence, one has to wonder why they would waste him on these light comedic moments more worthy of an Ernest movie.

Still, the movie is certainly one of the better Bonds. The end battle between the evil forces of Stromberg and the combined crews of 3 nuclear submarines is extremely well done. The whole "taking over the world plot" is held together by a very sinister bad guy played by the excellent Curd Jurgens, and the gadgets and vehicles were all very well thought out. It is just incredibly frustrating to start finding Three Stooges elements showing up in the storyline. I think what happened was that fans were awed by the jet-ski, the sub sequences, the Lotus Esprit, Barbara Bach's impressive cleavage, etc. but the producers thought that they were actually appreciating the more slapstick moments (the car ending up sticking out of the house, Jaws wiping off his coat every time he should have been killed, Bond's endless puns, etc.). So instead of making Bond wiser, darker, and more refined in future movies, they just turned him into more of a clown. And the same thing happened to Jaws, don't forget in Moonraker he turns good because he falls in love with a girl who has braces!!!!! (The travesty! Talk about wasting an otherwise impressive character!!) All in all, a very good Bond. It could have been better, but a worthy addition to the series nonetheless and the last one before the abysmally bad "Moonraker".

R.

There is very little right about this movie. From unresolved plot points, to very poor scripting, this remake should never have been made. The two leads have absolutely zero chemistry, the audience cares not a whit about either one. Tom Welling is absolutely wooden, he is given a smart Aleck, wise-cracking black sidekick as an obvious ploy to appeal to the greatest number of young people, and a returning girlfriend played by "Lost"'s Maggie Grace. This movie in just one long horror-movie cliché; it has all the usual low-budget bits from every B-movie ever released and absolutely nothing original.

It's really too bad, because the actual story is pretty good as horror movies go. The founding fathers of an island town were in reality a bunch of murdering thieves, and their leper victims have returned 130 years later to exact revenge upon their ancestors. But Rupert Wainright completely botched what could have been a fine tale. Why are these ghosts obsessed with breaking glass? Why is that? At the very beginning, instead of offing the stereotypical scantily clad females in a ghostlike manner, they are simply thrown through windows. On a boat, in the middle of the ocean.... that's the best the scriptwriter could come up with? And why start it off that way anyway, the way every single other low-budget horror movie has ever started, with unnamed extras being dispatched in a predictable manner?

Fast forward to Tom Welling discovering his boat is missing. They take a speedboat out and instantly find the missing vessel (small ocean). Then they discover 3 bodies, all having suffered violent deaths, and what do they do? Well Maggie rushes into the deepest, darkest part of the ship of course. She opens a giant freezer, just like anyone would do after discovering 3 mutilated corpses. Then with the bodies and ship safely back at the harbour, instead of handing over what is obviously pretty compelling evidence to the police, Tom Welling implores his girlfriend to hide the camcorder? For what purpose exactly? Because it might provide evidence that his friend and shipmate, the only survivor, is innocent of the crime? So he asks her to hide it? What......? She promptly finds a spot where she can watch the video on her own, determines that his friend is indeed innocent and then...... loses the camera into the water because she was walking on a very narrow wet beam? What???? She never seems to be overly concerned that the only proof that Nick's friend is innocent has just been lost due to her carelessness. And she conveniently finds an old journal walled up inches above the waterline (after playing around in some old fishing net which mysteriously envelopes her), behind bricks so loosely placed that the journal would have washed away 100 years ago? She also makes no attempt to retrieve the camcorder (even though it is in no more than 15 feet of water).

The morgue on this island seems remarkably easy to access, because old Maggie just wanders back there to check on all 3 bodies without anyone so much as batting an eye. No one seems at all concerned that they run in there, find her screaming over a corpse at least 50 feet from his gurney, and no one even bothers to ask her what happened? Or to care that she just dragged that corpse (I mean, were we supposed to think that they all knew it got up and walked over to her????). Later on, poor old Spooner (the wisecracking sidekick) is at the hospital under guard, on suspicion of brutally murdering 3 people, and he just gets up and goes out the window? And his plan? He is going to take a ship off the island! At night, in the middle of the same dense fog he witnessed kill 3 people! Man, his character isn't too bright. That is the best the scriptwriter could do?

And the Fog is supposedly killing people related to the original founding fathers, so the innocent extras are killed for exactly what reason? And why is it clearly spelled out that Nick Castle has the same name as one of the Fathers, yet the ghosts never once go after him? Even after they dispatch the mayor, old Nicky runs out into the graveyard to watch, but no ghost even bats a translucent eyelid? Not to mention that scene added yet again to the broken glass theme running rampant through this disaster.... And what type of ocean does Selma Blair fall into anyway? Her car goes off a 30-foot cliff, she swims out and then manages to find her son 5 minutes later, after apparently getting both a blow-dry and a dry-cleaning? Plus she has an amazing propensity for finding her son considering that her car went off the road out in the middle of nowhere. And why exactly did Elizabeth go off to join the ghosts at the end? She was the reincarnation of the original Elizabeth? OK....... except that her mother was a descendant of one of the founding fathers, therefore she was most certainly not the ghosts original wife, rather she was one of the ones they came back to kill! So she had been having nightmares for what reason exactly?

Ah, why bother? The plot holes are so many, the movie was just SO LOUSY, this is lazy film-making at its worst. Is anyone surprised that the scriptwriter also wrote the incredible bomb "The Core" ? Or that the director Rupert Wainwright's chief contribution to "The Arts" has been a score of rap videos? It shows baby, IT SHOWS! R.

Thank God for libraries, otherwise I would never have discovered this series. It's brilliant, some of the best TV I have ever seen. If you liked the Sopranos, you will love this. The action all takes place in Montreal, with rival mafia gangs fighting it out for supremacy and control of the streets. Nicola Balsamo is a rising star in the mafia underworld, but he is torn between trying to go straight to stay with the love of his life, and living up to his past. The only problem I could see with this series is that it nearly cost me my job, as I ended up watching all 13 episodes on DVD in just a few nights. I kept thinking, "Ok, just one more ep..." I don't know if an English-language version exists or not, but I highly recommend you try to watch it in the original Quebecois French. Although some of the expressions were new to me, the story is not difficult to follow although some of the subterfuges could get quite complex. The characters are interspersed with English, French, and the occasional Spanish speakers, anything non-French is subtitled. Quite a few characters are Anglophones, and just like in present-day Montreal, the French-speakers have to swap back and forth between the languages depending on who they are talking to.

This series was terrific, the tension was relentless, the twists and turns kept me glued to my seat. This is far better than any English-Canadian television I remember seeing recently. We anglophones are missing out! R.

What a terrible movie. It reminded me a lot of "America's Sweethearts" because that starred A-list Hollywood actors trying to be funny in completely predictable and ridiculous situations. This movie is exactly the same, it has nothing new to offer. It is very standard formulaic fare, a popcorn movie of the worst sort, which is not even in the least bit amusing. Yes, both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are attractive actors, but that is about it. The rest of the movie is a waste and makes no sense at all.

Their agencies send them on a hit to take each other out because they are married to each other?????? Did they not think that perhaps one MIGHT see the other and MIGHT not shoot them because they were MARRIED? Gee, that sounds like a solid plot. Or how about Jolie jumping off the roof while holding her handbag with one arm? I can take incredulous stunts, but not when they make fun of the audience. That was as bad as many of the ridiculous stunts in Charlie's Angels 2. And as many reviewers pointed out, they are apparently the only people their agencies employ who can shoot straight (didn't Schwartzenegger already do that to death in Commando?).

And what about the bit when she said her "Temps" did all the cooking? So are we supposed to believe the temps had been living in their basement for 6 years delivering food via the magic elevator oven but Brad Pitt never noticed? What happened to his honed hit-man senses? And she has made 312 hits in the past and he never once wondered where she might be? Presumably if she dresses as a hooker for her MO, she would probably be better off whacking guys at night, but I guess old Brad is a sound sleeper. And why pick 312 anyway? That is an impossibly high number which equates to 1 a week for 6 years. Guess no one else ever figured out someone was offing people..... I know, I know, it was just a summer popcorn movie, but how about a little effort on the script? I mean the Jackal spent months, if not years, setting up his one single hit! I actually laughed out loud when she said 312, having just predicted the entire conversation.

And I won't even start about the 97 guys dressed in black they whack, fortunately only Pitt and Jolie were smart enough to wear bulletproof vests whereas the trained assassins, (who had planned the raid), arrived wearing apparently bullet-seeking outfits, have never heard of cover, and whose strategy appears to be running into an endless spray of bullets. The entire movie was fantastically frustrating. There was no attempt to make any sense at all of the plot, even the beginning was ridiculous. The Columbian police were looking for a lone assassin, therefore because Jolie joins Pitt at the bar, it can't be her???? Come on, how about a little effort?!! There was not even any good humour, it was all the one-liner obvious put-down type.

Just terrible. It's drivel, tripe, brutal. They made them out to be too cool, too tough, and too perfect, and all they ended up being was moronic, sickening, and smarmy.

Sigh.

FF was slow, clichéd, and dull. The special effects were fine, but you had to wait until the final fight scene to see them. The first 80 minutes were all very typical, very obvious, and very boring character development. All of the "emotional" moments were telegraphed from a mile away, and used dialog repeated a thousand times in other films. There was absolutely no deviation from the standard action-movie formula, this movie was as boring as Elektra. I did not go and see FF expecting "Gone with the Wind", but nor did I go to see the incredibly lame and dumbed-down script. I urge you to click on the "Memorable Quotes" link in IMDb for this movie, and you will see that none of them are at all memorable. Most are groaners. This movie was one giant cliché from start to finish.

As superhero movies go, it had no originality. The bridge scene was well done, but completely ridiculous at the same time. At one point they convince Jessica Alba to take off her clothes (no nudity) and turn herself invisible because they can't get past the police line on the bridge. She does so, with the obvious moment when she flashes back to visibility in her underwear, but then moments later, all 4 of the FF are standing on the part of the bridge they couldn't' get to earlier, along with a huge crowd including Ben Grimm's ex-fiancé. It was terribly obvious that the Alba scene was added just to titillate Alba fans as it had nothing to do with the plot (and was not that titillating either). There really were only 2 actions sequences in the entire film; the bridge scene and the final fight. Both were well done (in terms of graphics) but the rest of the movie was a boring mishmash of dull dialog and Soap-opera plot development.

One further note. I urge you to sort these comments in IMDb by "Loved It" and just have a look at the comments from people who rated it a 10. Almost all of them have only ever rated one movie, and they use language telling you how well the director developed the characters, how well the script worked, that it was the best summer movie of 2005, etc. It is so incredibly obvious that all of these comments are plants by the studio to boost the IMDb ratings. Is nothing sacred any longer? One "person" who actually did rate more than one movie conveniently gave 10's to all of 20th Century Fox's offerings in 2005 (FF, Elektra), and very poor ratings to every one of their competitors (War of the Worlds, Sin City, both of which were far better than this incredibly formulaic film).

4/10

I saw the potential of Stealth prior to seeing it, but what a terrible film it turned out to be. The premise is flawed from the outset. The audience sits and waits for the plane to become self-aware, waiting for it to wreak havoc on the world. Yet when it finally goes haywire, that sequence lasts about 10 minutes before it is back in the fold again. It was fantastically anti-climactic despite this being a mindless chase-and-explosion movie. There was no suspense at all in this picture. None! What was going to happen next was telegraphed ages before it occurred ("Why does it have a pilot's seat if it has an AI? Well for maintenance and testing" Gee, do you think he will pilot it at the end of the movie????) They could have done so much more! They could have had the plane take out whole cities, why not? Instead, Jamie Foxx is killed although really it was his own pilot error, and a bunch of nukes are bombed (as they should have been anyway).

The 3 central characters are the most unmilitary pilots in the history of film. They pick and choose what orders they want to obey, and they abandon destroying nuclear warheads in the hands of terrorists because some farmers MIGHT breath in some radioactive dust afterwords? What about the millions who will fry in a nuclear holocaust if they don't destroy the nukes? Instead, they have a collective bout of left-wing liberalism, and abandon the mission (sigh). Could it be any cornier? Or how about the fact that Jessica Biel and her C-cup (she says it, not me!!!!) can evade the entire North Korean army, shoot bad guys out of towers with a completely blind volley from her tiny gun, and then fall into her wing mates arms with dead bodies all around her? I thought they were going to start making out, they were just standing there with fire all around them with no idea how many more soldiers might be a little upset that they had just wasted a few hundred of their friends. How about if they at least crouch down a little? Instead they go off on some Sweet Valley High speech! Man, it was pathetic.

What a bad movie. The graphics were pretty good, I liked the special effects, especially when the robot plane moved from one side of the formation to the other. But why do movie studios spend 100 mil on effects and 50 cents on the script? Furthermore, what exactly is Biel's character saying to women out there? Pine over your whore-chasing man long enough, and despite throwing his amoral ways back in your face over and over and over again, don't worry, eventually you will win him over? The entire plot was just ridiculous from start to finish, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

R.

Both Charlie's Angels 2 (CA2) and Cat's Eye are more or less the same film; 3 babes run around performing ridiculous stunts, following an incredibly lame and boring plot, and finishing off with atrocious dialog. Neither film has anything going for it, except of course they star 3 attractive women in tight outfits. Both films are so incredibly stupid it boggles the imagination. At least Cat's Eye has the defense that it was based on a comic book, CA2 was simply stupid in its own right.

The effects in this film are terrible, and the action sequences are even worse. At one point, the 3 girls are getting away from the police in a custom car when they have to split apart into 3 powered scooters (hey, it's a comic book movie). The policeman chasing them is stopped in his car, and pulls out a rickety bicycle. Despite the girls traveling at 100 KM/hour, the next scene shows the cop about 3 meters behind them riding his bike. Then he Inspector Clouseau falls, and pulls out a skateboard. The girls are still speeding away at 100 KM/hour, but suddenly his skateboard is miraculously going twice their speed and he is again right on their tail. The effects during this sequence must have been created on the original Commodore 64 because they are simply brutal. The gross similarities here between the ridiculous action sequences in CA2 and this film are obvious. CA2 just had a higher budget, so the effects aren't as bad, but both films obviously ran out of budget when it came time for a plot, script, or storyline.

Terrible. 3 out of 10, one for each of the 3 women in cat suits because this film had absolutely nothing else going for it.

A terrific film, very fun, very over-the-top. It is incredibly difficult to make a comedic action movie which works. Far too often, the jokes come off as ridiculous, corny, or simply frustrating (think any of the latest Bonds), or they clash violently with the too-serious subject matter. It takes talent to piece together a film with the precise balance of comedy and action, good and evil, without turning away hard-core action fans. This film is a great example of that balance achieved. Think about how difficult it is to pull off considering the rather extreme body count in this film, and the grave subject matter (nuclear annihilation). At no time does the viewer roll their eyes at lame one-liners, instead there are some truly impressive action sequences, and some very amusing comedic moments mostly from Tom Arnold in what has to be his best role of his career (unfortunately, that is not too hard to back up given some of the fantastically bad movies he has been involved with).

Schwarzenegger is at his best. And Jamie Lee Curtis was very effective first as his dowdy wife, then as his partner in crime. She pulls off her role beautifully, and was both funny and appealing. The bad guys are evil, the good guys are funny, and the whole is stitched together around some fantastic stunts. Not very believable to be sure (a Harrier jet backs into a building 50 stories up, and then flies away??), but that is part of the super-spy mystique.

A fine adventure, well casted, well acted, and certainly well scripted. It is generally not known, but this film was a remake of the French film La Totale! which I encourage Action Fans to see. You will be very surprised at how faithfully True Lies remains to the original French script. The only real difference is that True Lies is bigger, more expensive, and more explosive. Other than that, the movies are virtually identical.

Great remake! R.

Every single Message Board on IMDb has someone who posts "Worst Movie Ever". There are a great many terrible movies made every year, but this was not one of them in my humble opinion. It was very entertaining and introduced the audience to a new take on the Arthurian legend. As noted in the IMDb goofs section, there were a number of historical mistakes if this was to have taken place in 5th century Britain, such as the use of crossbows and trebuchets. However, that didn't take away from my enjoyment of the movie.

There were some scenes which were kind of ridiculous, but well filmed. For instance, when they defeat the Saxons on the frozen lake. I thought it was very well filmed, with great special effects, but the whole idea was pretty far-fetched. And later on we see Keira Knightley, all 105 pounds of her wearing a leather bikini, attacking the Saxon hordes. She does quite well in battle, killing at least 6 of them by my count. Obviously, that is just not realistic even if she had been trained by the 5th century equivalent of Jet Li. Just a few short scenes ago, she had been imprisoned and starving in a sadistic jail cell, and is now offing 230-pound muscular Saxons by the handful.

Neverless, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought the battle scenes were really well done, and it was not at all what I was expecting. I have no idea why some people are posting "This movie sucks" other than the fact that they just like to post that regardless of what they actually thought.

R.

Absolutely terrible. Unbelievably bad. Not the least bit funny. Moronic, extremely lame jokes, terrible acting, no plot at all worth mentioning, a perfect example of the decline of Hollywood films. After 10 minutes you will be pulling out your hair. The lines are so bad Ernest wouldn't have used them.

The first movie (Whole 9 Yards) was witty, humorous, and surprisingly good. Everything worked. Perry was particularly effective as the bumbling dentist whose wife is out to get him. Willis was great as a serious hit-man who doesn't want to be sequestered away in Canada. And both Peet and Henstridge were effective in their roles as an enthusiastic yet green hit-woman, and a mobster's wife (respectively). But this movie??? It had none of that. There was not a single memorable moment, nor anything that would even evoke a chuckle. The physical comedy was very forced, and incredibly obvious. The jokes were just plain terrible. There was no direction, this movie meandered all over the place. The whole bit with Willis pretending he liked to keep house? That was simply idiotic.

This movie was so bad it makes Charlies Angel's 2 look like a masterpiece, and that is really an impressive feat. It is hard to imagine how after the first one which was such an effective comedy, the same team could churn out this complete and utter crap. It boggles the imagination. It is actually hard to think of worst sequels, or at least ones that were so much more terribly bad than the original actually good film (if both stink, that doesn't count); CA2 is the best example I can think of but then again the first one was nothing to write home about. How about Jaws 4? Friday the 13th 27? I really can't think of a more disappointing film, particularly after the promise of the first 9 Yards.

Terrible, absolutely terrible. Should be retitled "The 3 stooges get Lazlo", except that would be an insult to the stooges. My advice? Rent the first one and pretend this one was never made.

This film had some funny lines in it, but for the most part is one of those films you won't remember any of the lines from the next day, and a month later will have you wondering if you saw it or not at the video store. Some of the funny scenes were likely unintentional, such as having a bunch of actors nearing 30 playing 18 year olds. One of them even gets carded at a bar and pulls out a long succession of fake ID yet it is obvious he is over 21. Probably the funniest scenes involved the crazy roommate, such as when he pulls out a gun and starts shooting at the police during a high speed chase, "They hate it when you do this". But other than that, it was a good idea wasted on a boring script.

It has it's moments, so it is a good time waster. But it is no where near as funny as other College movies such as Animal House. The jokes often seem tired and overdone, there was very little unexpected humour. Many of the lines are telegraphed from a mile away. Ho hum, not really a bad movie, just not a memorable one.

R.