Reviews

Watched it, enjoyed it, but...

Adrift in Manhattan follows the lives of 3 main characters for a very brief period, each having a problem. They connect at some point in the movie, but it isn't clear why they connect or why it results in something, if it does at all. I really don't need to have everything layed out for me, but some clue as to what is happening would be nice.

Spoiler: I only read here that their lives seem to connect cause of some subway line, or it is supposed to revolve around that. I never would have guessed that, so there is something pretty wrong with the movie. Actually i was wondering if some of them were living in the same building, or if it was all just coïncidental. Characters don't have a lot of lines so you get no information from there; no interesting dialogues.

The acting is OK. Camera-work is OK, its all pretty OK and i didn't fall asleep, but I'm pretty sure a few weeks from now i won't remember what this movie was about at all. I don't even think i know what it's about now. (?!) If the object was to show coïncidence on peoples lives, Magnolia is by far superior to this one. If the object was to depict people dealing with huge personal problems i know a lot of movies that pass this one left and right. So i guess i don't get what this is about, what the object was, or they messed up.

Something's adrift in Manhatten for sure, but what that is remains the question.

Doubt is a movie about moral (good and bad) and takes place in the early sixties in a somewhat cliché setting considering the problem it hints on; pedophilia.

There is nothing wrong with this movie. The story is good and it is told well, technically and artistically. The pace may seem a bit slow, but considering the setting it is correct.

The actual topic i think is not the pedophilia it hints on, but the moral change in a changing world. The whole story spins around the 2 lead characters that do not agree. Streep plays a seemingly cold hearted, pragmatic woman that finds her safety in conservatism vs her male opponent that is in favor of change and interprets love in a rather unconventional (?) manner. All this in the setting of Christianity, thus questioning the very basis of this religion.

You are slowly taken into this big question (if u are open to it), leading to an 'open end' I was particularly taken by this end scene, where Streep suddenly breaks the continuity of her character and emotionally proposes the final statements, which feel more like a question that you have to answer. It is a bit strange that the movie makes this turn here, at the end. But i like it!

The complexity of the moral angles plus the setting it is in, make me think this movie will not be understood easily by youngsters, so i gave it a PG-40

Normally i don't read comments from others before a movie, but now i did, cause i was wondering why this movie got such a high rating. A lot of people say its fantastic and i read some people who really hated it. Im not a Bat Man fan, though i had bat toys as a kid, a long time ago, so i went in pretty open minded.

I still don't know why this movie got such a high rating. I fell asleep 2 times during it. OK, I'm a bit tired lately, but a good movie sure keeps me awake.

The story is kinda lame. The classical batman story is good versus bad, pretty simple and straightforward, but the writers chose to abandon this theme more or less, stating that 'good' will always turn to 'evil', given enough time. Yea, sounds pretty deep, but isn't. Go read Nietzsche. I found it all pretty predictable and where it wasn't, it was too far fetched to ever be realistic. It leans on the psychology angle to pressure people to chose 'bad' over 'good', kinda like 'Saw' (and others), but not as good as that. Actually that theme gets worn out pretty fast. The pace seems way off, in the beginning i was like "Huh, whats all happening?", going way too fast, other passages are too slow (prolly where i fell asleep). The art of telling a story - any story - is to take the listener (or viewer) along for the ride with all possible means. This just doesn't happen. It's not the worst movie ever, but surely not the best either. The acting is pretty OK, Freeman and Caine always deliver. Batman obviously has a cold as soon as he puts his cape on, or watched Darth Vader too often and replicates it as a 10 year old. The Joker is totally not funny and where he should portray the madness, the only thing he knows to show is to stick his tongue out periodically. Didn't find him scary at all, not funny, nor interesting. They nominated the guy for an Oscar ?!?! The only reason i can think of why that is, is cause he's dead? I'm not saying his acting is bad, but it's by far not *that* good. "You either die a hero, or live to become a villain", has to be made true by awarding a posthumous Oscar?

Effects and stunts are OK, but nothing new or exiting.

All in all its doable, but i wouldn't recommend it to anyone over ~13. Gave it a 5, cause its not all bad. Maybe i just outgrew Batman.

No, we're not destined to do this forever and in fact, before redoing a Batman, you need a really good angle on it. So think twice.

I bought this DVD a couple of years ago and really like the movie. Its one of my favorites and shows a Tom Cruise in a very different role, where he is magnificent. I had no intention of giving a review on this one, cause its not brand new and there are plenty of reviews. I did not read them all, but i read some of the 'hated it', cause i wondered why it didn't get such high votes as id like it to get and well, i have to say my thing:

People complained that it is not totally historically correct and I'm sure it isn't. Never looked at it as if it was. People complained Americans are too ethnocentric, putting Tom Cruise, there in the spotlight and yes they are. But this movie is that ONE Hollywood movie that *tries* to depict another culture, without throwing bombs at it and making it totally bad. Thats exactly the reason i cherish it! It could not be done without giving the American viewers something to identify with. They aren't gonna watch some serious Japanese movie... get real. Surely there will be some flaws in it, so what? The main object is to lay down a nice story, a moralistic story, in another culture, learning how that culture differs from yours and try to accept it, even appreciate it up to the fact that you want to live there! And that is done superbly! Can not be done better! This is exactly the movie that addresses what we are losing today! Our identity, our own cultures, since everything has to become western, 'civilized' capitalism. It is GREAT in showing exactly that what we know is not always best. That NEW is NOT always better! Yes without advancement we would still be apes in trees, i admit, but advancement one way, is going backwards the other. Maybe we would be better off being still apes in trees! NEW is NOT always BETTER

In the DVD set there is also some explanation about Bushido and i think that is far better than what we have here. (the 'west') New isn't always better. Western philosophy died decades ago. Im not saying eastern philosophy is better, cause there is none. Philosophy comes from where the Greeks started, with logic and that is exclusively reserved for that. In the east the knowledge wasn't layed down by logic reasoning that could be followed and deducted by everyone. They were written as simple, one lined moral guidelines. With all our logic reasoning philosophy and societies following with great lag (POST MODERNISM is NOTHING), we will find that west meets east. Or, we would, if the western systems hadn't swallowed everything else. Thats is why this movie is a pearl in an ocean of Hollywood pretentious bogus and drama. Ever wondered why there are so many good movies, more and more, that are about people in our free and tolerant and social western societies that are going totally crazy? It is a mirror of society. We are euthanising ourselves collectively. That is why this captain drank. He had ghosts in his head from killing Indians for the west. A whole culture slaughtered. And he ended up in Japan and saw something else...

Now, are you happy? And if not, to which country will you go? Aren't they all the same by now? Is that progression? It surely doesn't give you more freedom...

Progression is a movement in a certain direction. We call it development because we think we control where we go and think it is better if we can do this or that. But moral is subjective! Read Nietzsche! THINK! If i walk backwards, i still progress, i still develop, but who is to say if it is better or not? Do i go forward or backward?

New isn't always better and yes you may call it hypocrite that this movie could not have been made if we were still apes in trees, but then again, there would not be a need to make it.

Do you think Star Trek is realistic? Thats child's stuff. It never widens the horizon on moralistic issues. Hardly any movie does that well, if at all, because it is extremely hard to comprehend, to feel deeply that all we ever made for ourselves is ultimately hell, without any way to escape. Yea who enters here, abandon all hope. No, we rather see lies, cut and dried good and bad. Its easier on the eyes. Sleep well my friends...

Thats the main reason i will never let this great movie be put down by ignorant people.

Apart from that, it is a great story, well casted, well acted, great shots, great action, good pace, good dialogs, truly a GREAT movie. A MASTERPIECE. As The Japanese leading actor would say: "Perfect". as he dies. As it was supposed to be. Perfect.

And Tom Cruise stood there and wondered, on the brink of understanding it. He HAD to stay alive to serve the story. To be, not the pretentious westerner, but the loser who smelled at it, and got so close.

Go see it if you haven't.

Usually 'hinsight' created sequels aren't as good as the original and this (part III) is no exception. In fact i sat it out, but was increasingly annoyed by the lack of creativity and intellect. The last half hour is more like a crusade for religion (happens more and more in Hollywood it seems) than a serious attempt to make a good sci fi shoot'em up style movie. So the story is lame, the acting is doable, effects are OK, but nothing new or exciting.

In the beginning old friends meet again, but these are all new actors (apart from Rico) and this is quite confusing. Obviously the makers found that a problem too, since the emphasis is overdone. The war turns into showbiz and commerce, which is too realistic maybe (?!) and a battle is lost at some secret planet somewhere (its top secret so we aren't supposed to know either) The brass flees from the planet and ends on some other secret planet due to a flat tire, after which Rico has to go get them. And thats good for Rico, since he joined up in a hanging party, which have become in vogue. To 'spice' it up a bit, we get some boob shots and then Rico saves the day. Alls well that ends well, so they overkill a new bug-brain by destroying the whole planet its on. Or at least i hope so, or there will be another sequel. (To stay in sync with the movie) God forbid!

You can miss it.

I have been looking for this movie for years. I remembered seeing it in ~81 and was pretty fascinated about it. But i forgot the title and couldn't find it on internet till now. So I'm looking forward to a review with my older eyes.

I read some comments here, specially the negatives and on historical accuracy. Basically i think their objections lay in the fact that these different hominids did not co-exist, which is true as far as we know, with some exception; for instance the disappearance of Neanderthal and rising of cro magnon at the same period. There will probably have been more migrations from Africa to Eurasia, so it is not unlikely that newcomers had to find a place there. NOT as unlikely as stated, but not Australopithecus and not Java or Peking man. And apart from that, we keep adjusting knowledge about pre historic people as we go. Whether or not these people controlled fire is still a matter of discussion, was it homo erectus 1.5 million years ago, or Peking man, 500.000 years ago? Java man 1 million years ago? Australopitecus didn't seem to have it (6.5 - 1 million y.ago). Agreed, by the time archaic homo sapiens (120.000 years ago - modern history) stepped in, it was there for at least a couple of 100 thousand years. Still it is possible that knowledge was lost at times and had to be regained. So much for the bad historical incorrectness i hope.

I don't think the movie was set out to be totally historically correct, if possible at all due to new findings, research and postulations, but to give us a glimpse of what the world was like back then. How people interacted, the possible origin of language, how tribes could have interacted (apart from if a certain hominid was there or not) and to show us how much we still look like those apes-with-a-new-brain and how much we changed due to language, cultural evolution, philosophy, science and the machines we made.

You shouldn't look with with our modern day morality. In prehistory, rape doesn't exist, nor does murder. It is just mating and killing. Morality only comes with intellect.

Im so thrilled of seeing it again after 25 years.

PartII: Saw it again and it's still interesting to see a movie about our roots, without any understandable dialog. I won't make a late career in linguistics, cause all i could figure out was that 'Atre' probably means fire. Yes, there are some flaws in historical accuracy; A very early hominid together with homo sapiens sapiens is very unlikely to say the least (and even if so, homo sapiens sapiens would have had the advantage in size and intellect), but if i look past that and imagine that was just another late homo species, or tribe, OK. Other issues: It is unlikely that a group would launch an all out attack on another, having half the group killed for sure, in a setting where there is no environment pressure. It is very unlikely that hominids belonging to the same group and over relatively short distances would have so much difference in culture (refering to the homo sapiens sapiens groups). It is much more likely that they conquer the earth and undergo minor variations over short distances and some bigger over vast distances, also in time. The difference here is 'continental', not regional. The more advanced group resembles still existing tribes in Africa. Due to harsh circumstances intellect was more driven in northern regions (eurasia), opposed to Africa. The 1980 idea about Neanderthals was pretty off, they weren't as savage as depicted here, that is, the others were no less savage. They may have looked more stupid with a less flat face and lower forehead, but had a larger brain (still they didn't make it up to modern time).

The quest for fire is somewhat unlikely, but not impossible.

The development of language is interestingly put. It is obvious we didn't start out with an alphabet, as stand up comedians, debaters, or poets. So the Uh's and Ah's make sense, we probably developed language from emotional verbal outings such as yawns, shrieks, sighs, and so on. Of course the most important things would be named first. I think the movie reflects this pretty well. The thing i wonder about is the rate language would introduce itself. The potential intellect in homo sapiens sapiens was no other than the potential we have now, there were no physical obstructions, so it seems likely to me that once language kicks in, it will evolve tremendously fast.(some years) Very interesting to see man on the brink of cultural evolution.

Cinematography: Very nice.

Music: Not good. I found it disturbing at times. It is recognizable 1970-80's and i would love to see the movie again without music.

Sexual acts: That's a flaw. This is depicted in an almost feminist way. It is very unlikely that the caveman cared for the sexual pleasure of his 'mate'. Even today there are many cultures where the male just takes the female.

Love: Another flaw i'm afraid. Again, even today love is questionable. Nomadic people are usually not monogamous. This only set in after we went farming, for investment reasons. The whole concept of monogamous love found it's high tide a few centuries ago and has been declining since. It is very unlikely that a caveman went back for his 'love'.

Humor: Dropping a small stone on someone's head is even considered funny today (but not nice), so yes.

Acting: Good job.

I could go on, about social structures, the missing missing teeth, and more, but enough said. Ill stick to the 8 rating, cause it could be done better, but it is surely worth a view and a must if you are interested in our roots.

I am legend is a very predictable story of what happens when an engineered cure for cancer turns malign. The resulting virus, which mostly resembles rabies, kills most of the population worldwide, except for some 500 million that turn into... of course, a sort of werewolves that feed on the remaining million that are immune. This in itself is a very worn out and unrealistic theme by now and the werewolf angle only makes it more silly.

Our 'hero' is living in the remains of a big city (NY) and luckily for us he is a biological engineer working for the military. In his house he has a laboratory (¿) to find a cure, which he has time for, when he is not out shooting deer, weredogs and -wolves, or is engaged in another boring 'activity'. The dramatic height of the movie is when his dog dies, which had about the same impact on me as when i see i stepped on an ant; boring. There is hardly any character development and well, it's Will Smith, which usually plays Will Smith. The acting is mediocre, at best.

The camera-work is less than mediocre. There are too many scenes that play in the dark, so you can just guess whats going on, which is not so hard, because its all terribly predictable. They spent way too much money on the making of this movie, for it to look so bad. It may be nice if you live in NY to see what your city would become, but to me that means nothing. (and why is there a Lockheed SR71 blackbird on an aircraft carrier? The thing can't land there and they've been out of use for quite a while now *edit* i found it is Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, in NY. Nice if you live in NY and know these things, otherwise useless *end edit*). I watch a movie to see nice images, not 15 minutes of utter darkness...

The end comes pretty hastily with a few narrated lines that should give the whole thing meaning. Should, but doesn't. Along the way there are a few lines that attempt to give it some depth, as in philosophical truths or meaning of which the best is: 'I didn't do it, we did', i want to reply; 'no really, you did!'

I think they tried to copy the i robot feel-style with the music of Bob Marley (Was stevie wonder in I Robot) and they added an anecdote of Bob to give it some 'depth'. Bob was great at making music, but that doesn't imply he was a great philosopher. In the Netherlands we have Johan Cruyff, maybe you heard of him; an ex great football (soccer) player which tends to say things in the media. So now he is quoted for his 'wise' saying: "Every disadvantage has it's advantage" (pronounced with Amsterdam accent for dramatic effect). Goes to show that someone great in one field isn't necessarily great in another.

As for humor, there isn't any. I think they tried a few times... "I wanted to save the bacon".... but... no.

Very, very disappointing movie. I even wanted to stop watching a number of times, but didn't because i kept hoping a movie with Will Smith in it would get better at some point. It only got worse.

My advise: You can miss this one. There are a lot of better movies already made about virus outbreaks and apocalypses. Watch one of those again, saves money and its less boring. Unless of course you want to be apocalypticly bored.