Reviews

I can't believe that I lost around 2 hours of my precious time watching this garbage. The only reason why I did stand up and leave is because I was with my wife. What a piece of junk! Unbelievable. Grown-ups watch this??? I understand Bruce Willis' participation in this, but what's wrong with Samuel Jackson and Sarah Paulson???

I absolutely love this show. The opening monologues and the sections like A Closer Look or Ya Burnt are hilarious.

I was never ever a letter to stand SNL, this is not the same humor. This humor is sharp, it reminds me of The Colbert Report. I didn't like David Letterman either, he was too pretentious. And Jay Leno was OK, sometimes a bit too simple.

I find Seth Meyers' humor just right. But then again - I'm never into the popular stuff, so seeing other users' negative reviews doesn't surprise me a bit!

A lot of people complain about too much political jokes. That's exactly what I love the most. Our political class is a joke, nothing wrong with laughing about it.

The movie is good, entertaining and enjoyable. Richard Gere and Alfred Molina did a great job. The problem is that you are watching a supposedly real story, tied to the very history of the country and there is a major flaw related to the Nixon administration. The real Irving himself denies some other minor facts portrayed in the movie that don't affect "the big picture", maybe just the surroundings and didn't matter to me, but the story is tainted by one single fact that Irving refutes. That single fact was what, at the end of the movie, left me thinking "did this really happened?". So I did some research only to find that that single fact was made up in the movie. Since that fact is critical, I felt quite disappointed. That's why I "downgraded" the movie to a 6. Other than that, it's still worth to see how Irving was able to achieve such a hoax, since most of the other important facts are still true.

The story is beautiful, even though for some reason the idea didn't seem very original to me (I think I have seen a similar movie before). But the idea of self discovery and improvement was still very good.

What I didn't like, though, was the direction. I think the film itself was poor - poorly directed. I never got to relate to the characters, I never "got in" their situations, despite the fact that there are some circumstances that should rip your heart in two. The whole thing seemed to be a lot of different situations all pasted together rather than the flow of a whole story. I guess the book must have been much better.

The movie is still worth watching.

This is supposed to be a romantic comedy, but I didn't get one laugh out of it. Nothing. Not even a giggle. You may empathize with some of the secondary characters, but the actors playing the leading roles (Jennifer Garner and Timothy Olyphant) did such a poor job...! Almost every scene featuring any of them kept me thinking "God, how awful these actors are!". I really can't understand why Jennifer Garner is so renown. The only scenes that she can play acceptably are those that require her to show that particular smile of hers, all the other more serious or dramatic scenes are so hard to get into, because of her evident lack of skills. The only good thing about this film is the pace - it is certainly entertaining. It doesn't slow down or become boring at all. And that's about it!

This movie ruined a very good idea. I agree 100 % with other users' comments in the sense of "too many unanswered questions" and "A Marvelous Short Story Becomes a Mediocre Movie".

Regarding the unanswered questions, there are so many things in this movie that lead nowhere and serve no purpose that it would be annoying even to list them. The mood of the town and characters is set from the beginning, so all that keeps on adding to the mood and not the story end up being tedious.

In terms of the short story becoming a mediocre movie - there is almost no script here. If you rent the movie (like I did) and read the "summary" on the back of the DVD case, you will realize at the end of the film that EVERYTHING that happens is there, in those lines. Usually, that summarized plot only tells you what the movie will be about, without revealing anything further - it might reveal the first 20 minutes of the film, just enough to make you want to watch it. In this case, since the script must be 2 pages long, all that you read there is the entire movie, there is nothing beyond that. So what you have is a 2-pages long script stretched till total boredom throughout 2+ hours.

What makes this movie earn a 4/10 instead of a plain 1/10? The idea (that I learned is not very original, after reading other users comments), the acting (that I liked, despite what other people say), the effectiveness in setting the mood of the movie (I am just glad I don't live in that town!), the scenery and music. Not enough to make a good film.

This movie is pathetic. An abomination. I am not going to concentrate on the "regular" aspects of a film, such as if the film is slow or entertaining (this movie is slow, the first hour you are just waiting for something to happen), if the music is appropriate (it is; great music), if the photography and the film making in general achieve to effectively transmit sensations and emotions to the viewer (and indeed it achieves the aforementioned), and so on. I can only concentrate on the story. The story itself is an atrocity, and that alone ruins everything else. To me the story is the foundation and the pillars. I believe that an entire film is built on the story: great actors, directors, music, photography, etc either add or subtract to improve or worsen the story. This story is stupid, pointless, absurd. This movie went, in my humble scale, way down to the bottom, to that shameful pit where I left Boxing Helena, Eraserhead, Les Chemins de Katmandou and The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover. I never thought I would ever have to suffer again a disgrace like the four movies listed and there I was again, wasting my time, wondering how come anyone would put money, time and effort in making and distributing this waste of celluloid. Somebody in this forum describes the movie as "Unusual. That's why it's great". To me, if the movie is unusual and the story has something to it (like Memento, Seven, The Usual Suspects, etc), then it's unusual and great. If it's only "unusual", unusual and pointless, then it's a waste. Like this abomination. Certain people like to pretend that they are smart and cultural because they allegedly enjoy "unique" (bizarre) movies. I tend to believe that many of those in this forum who acclaim this movie belong to that group.

The movie has an "entertaining format" and keeps you hooked while you try to figure out the story, what is happening now, what happened in the past and what might have never happened. But all ends up being a big waste of time when you realize that the movie doesn't make any sense and that the film makers didn't have a clue about how to make the plot "complete the circle". When a film requires you to understand - and this movie certainly pretends that - then it has to make sense. Otherwise, you better sit down for pure entertainment, like a Batman movie. I've enjoyed a lot movies that ask you to think a little beyond what's just presented to you (like Jacob's Ladder or Memento). But this movie doesn't make sense - it keeps you thinking and in the end you realize that it was a waste of your time and money.

This movie is basically about politicians trying to ruin other fellow politician's careers for their own benefits. But the accusations they make to each other are SO naive and harmless compared to how evil, greedy and ruthless politicians really are that I find it hard to believe that somebody can take this movie seriously. And the touching final speech that the president addresses - where he "shows" how honest and good hearted a President can be - is ridiculous.

The only reason why I rated this movie with a 4 instead of a 2 is that The Contender can be a bit entertaining if you don't stop to think that they are portraying powerful politicians, maybe the the most despicable of the species that inhabit the earth. I found the movie offensive to my intelligence. Gary Oldman has a good performance, but nothing as good as he can be.

If you like to get in touch with reality, skip this movie.

I am not sure. Maybe I am too old for this kind of movies - only 30 - or maybe it is not a movie to be made in 2001. But the result is that during the first 40 minutes - or maybe less than that - Jeepers Creepers could be considered interesting, while sometimes a bit slow and too similar to other films. But when "the mistery" of the film reveals - which is, when you find out who "the bad guy" is - the only thing left is laughter and the thought of "Gee, I could be at home doing so many things instead of wasting my time and money here". Considering the wars, the hunger, the deseases, the violence, and so many other really scary things that happen nowadays all around the world, I do not think that a stupid pseudo-monster is good enough to scare anyone. At least no one over 16 years old.

Oh my god, what a crap! What a waste of celluloid. This movie has a stupid plot, that could be written down in 2 lines and even considering this, the plot has black holes. Poorly played by Di Caprio - several times he yells for no reason -, some passages pretend to be "crazy" and "unusual" and this pretension makes it even more stupid. It takes more than shooting absurd scenes to be "crazy" and "unusual". And the final idea of: "no place is perfect, pure friendship in a pure place is not possible, the American Way of Life with big cities and computers is better" is really disgusting. I rated this movie with a "2" and the only reason why I didn't rate it with a "1" is that the movie isn't THAT boring, just stupid. My God, I only hope celluloid is biodegradable...