The opening sequence was a series of around 200 two-second film clips filmed with bad lighting. I could not see nor understand what was happening. The same with the car chase in India except the lighting was better. This may be an attempt to liven up an action scene using rapid camera changes. When I watched the fight scene in Munich (again 2 second flashes filmed in extremely bad lighting) I stopped the movie and went to the credits. I wanted to see who was responsible for this spectacle and make sure that I don't waste my money on anything else he may direct. It could have been a good movie. It had a good plot and story line but the filming was horrible. If the director had held the camera shots for at least 5 to 10 seconds it would give your brain enough time to comprehend the images your eyes are sending it and put it together with some kind of continuity.
Reviews
3 Reviews
Panic Room
(2002)
What is the reason?
30 October 2003
I am not a film critic so I won't attempt to dissect the movie on it's plot, cameras, etc. Just curious as to why the writers felt it necessary to have the "F" word emitting from the mouth of a 12 year old girl. I'm not a prude or anything like that but I am curious as to what that added to the film. Would the film be less by just omitting a few words. Does it have anything to do with the ratings or the context of the movie? Just curious. By the way, I enjoyed the movie. A good thriller that kept me on the edge.
Murder in the Heartland
(1993)
A remake of a classic
4 November 2001
This movie does a fair job of re-telling the Charles Starkweather story but falls short of the original picture starring Martin Sheen. The story itself is quite different and I have to believe the latter is a little bit more accurate. Excellent acting by Tim Roth and Fairuza Balk's courtroom scenes were quite good. Overall a fair movie.
Tell Your Friends