Autant j'ai apprécié le premier (surtout pour les décors d'ailleurs)...

*

*

Waste of time - awful.

Author: jonathan parker from United States
2 April 2012
 

I quite recently discovered the underworld franchise. Generally not that fond of the fantasy genre, I liked the first 3 movies because they had something fantasy movies often lack; a good story.

Watching this fourth episode I was very disappointed. No story, no twists and turns, just fighting without purpose. The characters are not developed and you feel totally emotionally disconnected to whats going on. There's not even a connection to the previous episodes.

My advice is: stay away from this movie. Watch the previous ones one more time or do something else.

This is completely waste of your time.

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Why did Kate come back for this?

Author: oscarxp25 from United States
28 February 2012

There is an old saying that "money is the root of all evil". This statement is usually reserved for people involved with bribery, corruption, banking, and politics. Well, I am taking that statement and applying it to everyone involved in the making of this film. This movie was made to suck money from our pockets by people who don't care about a once worthy movie property. They destroy it.

The original "Underworld" was a fresh take on the centuries old rivalry between vampires and werewolves (called "lycans" here). It wasn't game changing cinema, but a movie with interesting characters, worthy performances, and slick action sequences. This movie, clocking in at a incredibly short 73 minutes, not only destroys, but turns its back on what once was a promising series. The second film was as good as the first. I did not see the third, but heard it was good. When people rip on "Twilight" for the terrible acting, the teenage girls now have a film to use as evidence to show it ain't that bad in Stephanie Meyer's universe. Everyone in this film is terrible; even Kate Beckinsale. Beckinsale, who was so good in the first two, is sleep walks though this film. I must give her some credit, at least she is better than the films terrible villains. The characters are lame, as are the actors playing them. They come off as laughable, not frightening or horrifying in anyway. The once cool designs of the Lycans have been replaced by rubber looking coyotes. Worst of all, there is not a single memorable action scene in the movie. It is just extremely boring to watch, considering all the gunfire going on.

Former director, now writer, Len Wiseman, tries to inject some emotion into the movie by creating a relationship between Beckinsale's character and a hybrid child created from her DNA. There is only so much you can do in the movie's short time span and given the amount the screen time these two have together, it doesn't work. It doesn't feel natural, only a cheap ploy to create some type of humanity in this action snooze fest.

Michael Sheen, who played a Lycon in the first three movies, wisely bowed out of this one. Beckinsale, I have no idea why she came back after walking away from the third one. My only guess is she got a pretty good amount of cash to reprise her role. The film does establish something; it is like its main character: empty, soul less and dead on arrival.

10 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Same Old Predictable Story Line

Author: hidareitsme from Washington
5 February 2012

I can't believe how many times this same story will be told. It's like watching a cowboy beat a dead horse over and over again. At least change the stick that the cowboy is using, some creativity would be much welcomed in these movies that are coming out.

I'm starting to believe that their is only one or two people really writing and directing these movies. The creators that are so called creating these movies must have a set play book that they all use without variance. Boring, and too predictable.

My advice is not to waste your money on this dead horse movie, or the next ten sorry sequels to follow. Wait for something with some original and creative thinking involved with the movie.

Movies like these are just brain dead and sad.

18 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

Underworld - more like Underpants!!!

Author: dunctyler from United Kingdom
21 January 2012

This is a genuinely poor film - I now know why it wasn't released to the critics before going out on general release! It should have gone straight to DVD.

I can't believe the people that have scored this above 5 on this site. It is a really lame effort and everyone involved should hang their head in shame. The storyline could have been so much more - instead it is predictable (what there is of it!) and seems to be more of an advert for 3d rather than a effort at making a decent movie.

Oh, and who is KB married to.......ah yes, Len Wiseman!! Think this whole genre has scraped a new level - probably time for Ken to move onto pastures new. This Underworld hasn't 'awoken' - it's in a terminal slumber!!! Save your money and watch something else!

50 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

Thanks a lot

Author: Fmy Fmy from Turkey
15 February 2012

Really thanks a lot for the makers of this movie. Couldn't imagine more to ruin the reputation of a good trilogy. I think, even these modern video games' in game videos are far better than this movie.

There was no "oh what comes next?" question in my head. Just watched meaningless fights. You were getting excited while watching the fights in former series. There is no need to talk about characters who toss cars around like toys and can't even break the wall. Selene's and the werewolves final fight was really stupid. Selene who did unbelievable things just waited in the corner of the room like a cat. The big bad wolf was just tossing Selene around.

Even if I would consider this movie as not a sequel, it still would be an under average scored one.

Maybe it would be harsh but I would consider Underworld: Awakening in the same category of Twilight Saga for being a bad vampire&werewolf movie.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Another stab at rescuing a good idea, poorly implemented.

Author: edwardcking2001 from London, England
3 December 2013

The underworld series has a lot going for it....as STORIES.

The sad fact is that they put a malnourished female in a rubber suit and hoped that this would somehow overcome the most problematic issue with the underworld franchise: Kate Beckinsale simply cannot act.

Now, granted, I like the female form as much as the next person....but unlike some, I don't see it as a replacement for talent. Give me a fugly girl with amazing talent (or at the very least, simply does her job well) and I will pick her over a pretty moron EVERY TIME!

The fact that my wife is very sexy is coincidence; I was attracted to her brain first! But this single issue has absolutely RUINED the underworld saga. As a good example: compare the characters Lucian and Selene in the first Underworld: Michael sheen of course plays Lucian and he is absolutely outstanding in it. Kate Beckinsale on the other hand is so wooden that you really just want to see her naked for the sake of getting SOME entertainment value out of what you pay to see the movie; she really is that bad.

This movie is no exception. She fell into a formula requiring little or no effort on her part and leaving us with a character that may as well have been a bit part.

Despite valiant efforts by the other actors, unfortunately Beckinsale makes this a non-starter and it is therefore utterly deserving of the 1 star rating.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

I Thought Perhaps This was a Joke

Author: ambercatgoddess-484-733898 from Plymouth UK
22 February 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have faithfully watched all of the movies in this series. Up until this movie I had been pretty happy with everything involved. The characters were done well. Very well in fact and the creation of the creatures was also equally well done. The stories made sense and I could quite easily put myself into the movies and be content.

Then I watched this. I hesitate to call it a movie as it honestly does little justice to the word and implication *movie*. I sat in shock through the first twenty minutes looking at my husband and asking him. *Is this a joke?* he just looked back and shook his head. But I decided to watch the whole movie to be sure.

Here you have a two distinct cultures of secretive beings. Yet we are to believe that human beings could so easily infiltrate their defenses, safe houses, hideouts etc? We are to believe that they are outsmarted by humans? Seriously? I did not buy this at all.

This was such a pile of trash that I like to believe that underworld ended at the third film.That is where I will chose to believe that it ended and try to erase this from my mind.

The storyline of this movie is complete and utter crap. The people that produced it should issues an apology to everyone. They should also issue a refund of the tickets. Perhaps other people hold to different standards but this was not worth the watch in any way at all.

To think they spent $70,000,000 ,making this ?? What a complete waste of money. Please do not make another one.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Dreadful

Author: Toby Macdonnell from United Kingdom
28 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Shockingly poor script with no imaginative dialogue! Poor CGI for 2012 and absolutely nothing original or at all interesting about this film! Thoroughly predictable, limited plot. It was basically Kate Beckinsale randomly emptying a seemingly limitless amount of ammo into werewolves that had varying degrees of morbidity. The so-called "super werewolf" did nothing more than bat Selene around, when clearly all he needed to do was snap her neck. Best scene in the film? A good shot of Kate Beckinsale's arse after throwing a grenade down an air vent. Worst scene? Pretty much the rest of it! In all honestly this film doesn't deserve 10 lines of bad review!

Hollywood! Please stop wasting money on such rubbish!

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing..

Author: Andrew . from Brazil
17 April 2012

I like movies about vampires and werewolves. But I cannot enjoy this franchise of "underworld". The vampires are boring. Even the wolves are boring. I expect so much from this franchise and it keeps failing me. I wanted to see scary werewolves, mean and blood-thirsty vampires, real beasts.. Unfortunately I see a movie with a tendency to tell the story from a point of view of the vampires. "Noble" vampires.. and half of the movie is wasted with " scary faces" as if they could showcase the real "beasts" they are.. All in all is just boring.. The "monsters" in this movie do not surprise anyone. They are terribly common and weak.. Poor portraits of what imagination could provide. Everything revolves around the character of Kate Beckinsale ( pretty worn out in my opinion ) and there are no characters you can really think: "This one is a real bad ass".. In a vampire and werewolf movie this is such a downer..

9 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

A nausea-inducing experience

Author: fxbgrd from United Kingdom
29 January 2012

It pains me to give any Underworld film such a low rating (especially that I gave the last one, Rise of the Lycans (2009), a 10 out of 10) but I couldn't help feeling entirely disappointed last night as I walked out of the cinema.

Before I go into why I thought the film was such a waste of my money and time, allow me to highlight some positive aspects of the film. Kate Beckingsale's performance as Selene was superb. And beautifully choreographed fight scenes were truly spectacular. Also, it must be said that there were some good ideas in the storyline - it's just a shame that they were not adequately developed. That said, I have little else to add by way of praising it, despite my best efforts to be a generous critic of the film, given that I am a loyal fan of the Underworld films.

First of all, the 3D format. There were moments in the cinema theatre where I genuinely thought I'd be sick and would have to leave the theatre mid way through watching the film. But I was so determined to convince myself that this film would be superb, so I persevered. As I went on desperately trying to enjoy the film, I found myself thinking: 'Oh, and now it looks as if Selene's pistol is exiting the screen'; 'Here they've tried to make it look as if the Lycan is jumping out of the screen to attack me, but not entirely convincingly'; 'Oh look! A shard of exploding glass flying out of the screen right at me!' All of this 3D stuff did little to "add" to my cinema experience; in fact, it "detracted" much from it. My audio visual senses were so overwhelmed that I struggled not to be sick and to try hard to focus on what's going on in the film. Additionally, the 3D seemed to actually be quite distracting when one's trying to figure out what's going on in the fight scenes, but just keeps getting distracted by debris flying out of the screen and losing focus. So now the mind has to work double hard to get a grip and regain visual focus - 'Where was I, again?' I kept trying hard to pull myself back into the film. So much for "adding to my film-watching experience"! It in fact left me mentally drained, nauseous, confused, my senses overwhelmed, and - most importantly - it seemed a very poor excuse for a bad/bland story line, which brings me to my next point.

I don't want to add spoilers so I'll refrain from going into detail, but suffice to say that I can write the whole story of Underworld Awakening on the back of a cigarette packet without much loss to content. This is due to the fact that not much happens in the story, really - plenty of action, and mind-bending, nausea-inducing 3D, yes; but don't expect much else. The story line in Underworld Awakening - contrary to the sophisticated one in Rise of the Lycans - is truly yawn-inspiring. Every story has a beginning, middle and end. The story in this film finished somewhere around the middle by the time the credits rolled. Needless to say, it was such an anti-climax.

And now, onto the characters. Not only is Selene the only character from the other Underworld films and the rest all new (if done tastefully, this needn't be anything negative in and of itself) but the sidekick characters we so flat and two dimensional that it left me wondering why the film-makers hadn't spent half the time and energy writing rich, 3D characters than focusing on 3D visual effects. Not only were the characters - other than Selene's - so flat and rigid that they failed to draw you in, but some of the acting was truly awful. There were also times where their lines were so obviously bad that I had to feel bad for the actors playing these roles. At other times however, I kept wondering why an actor had a frozen expression with no emotions on display when the lines demanded the opposite - the actors and their lines didn't seem to be in sync for much of the film, making their performances poor and the script utterly amateurish. Again, the characters, lines and acting in Underworld Awakening stand in the very opposite (bad) end of the quality spectrum when compared with the well performed and well-written characters of Rise of the Lycan.

All I can say is that I lament the time and money I spent going to the cinema watching Underworld Awakening 3D. Not only has it put me off watching any 3D film, but it left me angry thinking how could a superb film such as Rise of the Lycans be followed by this!

Godawful

Author: bob_bear from Germany
14 October 2012
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First off, let me make it clear that I have no problem with people taking a pop at Tele-evangelists or the dolts who are conned by them. They are ripe for satire and justifiably so. But this film does nobody a service.

If you ever needed confirmation that Pierce Brosnan couldn't act his way out of a paper bag then look no further. He is truly, truly terrible. His accent fluctuates between the Queen's English, Australian and Sarf London with no rhyme or reason. In the ill-fitting role of Charismatic Church Leader, he comes across as so insincere, so fake that not even the most rabid creationist would buy it. He is, in a word, awful.

But not just Mr Brosnon, no. Everybody is unsympathetic. Gregg Kinnear acts like he dropped one tablet too many somewhere along the line and I didn't give a toss about his plight. There was no one to care about here and no lucid ambition in the storytelling.

Synopsis: Tele-evangelist tries to frame bird-brain follower and fails. The end.

What was the point?!

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Good idea, competent plotting, poor direction, miscast leads. Misfire on most cylinders.

Author: BOUF from Australia
10 November 2012

I hate to state the obvious but Pierce Brosnan isn't funny. He may be very talented at all kinds of other genres, but in this film he seems to constantly choose the non-funny way of playing every scene . Jennifer Connelly ditto, but she probably knows she's not funny. Greg Kinnear is wont to be superficial, but when he is well directed he can be amusing. Here he has very little to work with, character-wise, and is irritatingly dull. There are so many sequences in this film that could be funny, but aren't, due to a combination of casting and direction. It's a film full of unrealised potential. Marisa Tomei, actually seems to have an idea of who her character is, and in her lamentably scant appearances is convincing and winning. She wrung a few laughs out of me, because she is almost director-proof. Ciaran Hinds, similarly, almost works. I did keep watching because the plotting is well wrought. In other words: I wanted to see what would happen next. BUT Comedy is just about the toughest gig to pull off. It needs an experienced comedy director and leads who are funny. Stop wasting money!

Black comedy without the comedy

Author: SnoopyStyle
6 February 2014

Carl Vanderveer (Greg Kinnear) used to be a Deadhead, and now is a follower of a charismatic church leader Dan Day (Pierce Brosnan). After a debate with atheist Peter Blaylock (Ed Harris), he invites Dan and Carl back home to pitch his idea of joining up to co-author a book. However, Dan accidentally shoots Peter and tries to frame it as a suicide. Then Dan tries to frame Carl as the shooter.

This is a black comedy without the comedy. Greg Kinnear may not be a good comedic lead if George Ratliff is aiming for funny. He is constantly taking shots at fundamental Christians, but it never really sticks. As a satire, this is a struggle to find any humor. Everybody is trying desperately to be outrageous especially Jennifer Connelly, but they do it without a clue of how to make it funny.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Bomb that had potential

Author: vincentlynch-moonoi from United States
23 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I didn't really know anything about this film when I sat down to watch it. And it started off well, with an over-the-top evangelist (Pierce Brosnan) debating an atheist (Ed Harris). I settled back in my chair and listened to their short debate and thought the film showed promise. Then it alternatingly got a little foolish or a little serious, and frankly, it was when segments were more serious that the film shined. But then another comedy/satire scene would come on, and it would all fall apart. When I read about the film and realized what a flop it had been I questioned whether I wanted to finish watching it. I did, but...

So, in the first part of the movie the evangelist accidentally shoots the atheist in the head with a Civil War pistol...first, but not the last bit of silliness. It mostly went downhill from there.

The sad thing is that this film had a decent cast. I remember Pierce Brosnan from way back in 1981 in the miniseries "Manions of America", and I thought that there is an actor to watch. I've since been more disappointed than impressed, although every once in a while he has managed an impressive performance...this is not one of them, although the role of a powerful leader of a mega-church certainly held promise. Greg Kinnear has often impressed me, although considering his beginnings on "Talk Soup", that surprised me. Again, this was not one of his performances -- as an ex-Deadhead and member of the mega-church -- that impressed me. I'm not familiar with Jennifer Connelly, and also not impressed in terms of this performance. I often enjoy performances of Marisa Tomei, and I feel she is an underrated actress. This casting of her was abominable...as a pot-smoking campus security guard. Ed Harris is not usually one of my favorites, although I concede he's a fine actor. And here I really enjoyed him; too bad he had so little screen time as the atheist. Jim Gaffigan as a worker in the mega-church...please Satan, deliver me from any more of his screen work. Ciarán Hinds...now, here is a character actor I only recently discovered, and he's always impressed me...as he does here as the father-in-law of Kinnear. Yul Vazquez as a Mexican crime lord...well, okay.

Bottom line -- this film might have had a chance as a straight drama. But as a comedy/satire it was a disaster.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Turned out to be rather nice actually...

Author: Paul Magne Haakonsen from Denmark
26 August 2013

How you enjoy (or lack thereof), I suppose, is determined by your view on religion in a way.

The story in "Salvation Boulevard" is about Carl (played by Greg Kinnear) who witnesses the accidental shooting of author and non-believer Peter Blaylock (played by Ed Harris) by the hand of pastor Dan Day (played by Pierce Brosnan). The pastor tries to cover up the accident by making it look like a suicide, and when Carl becomes a liability, the pastor frames Carl for the incident and goes to great lengths to see him removed from the equation.

Actually the story was quite good, it was nicely told and had just the right amount of comedy to it without becoming too much. The laughs that were here in the movie were really nicely earned and well placed. Director George Ratliff managed to put together a rather nicely told movie here.

However, what really carried the movie was the performances put on by the people on the cast list; the actors and actresses really did nice jobs with their characters. And these characters were really nicely detailed, nicely fleshed out and portrayed in manners that made them come off as characters the audience can relate to. I initially sat down to watch this movie because I enjoy the work of Jennifer Connelly, although her role in this movie was only a supporting one.

If you are looking for comedies that will cause you to laugh until tear trickle down your cheeks, then "Salvation Boulevard" might not be the best of choices. But, however, if you enjoy a light-hearted drama that is spiced up with some comedy and great acting performances, then by all means, sit down and watch "Salvation Boulevard".

Passé un très mauvais moment en regardant ce film vraiment déprimant

*

*

Dull

Author: madge5913 from United States
25 May 2012
 

I have never written a review before but compelled to do so today - Thank goodness we got to watch this one for free. For those who loved it, bravo - you picked it apart and enjoyed the nuances of the plot and took it all to heart. But the movie is advertized as a romantic drama...there is absolutely no romance, very little build-up between the characters, except physical release. I didn't feel that there was much acting...the dialog was weak (what there was of it) and extremely hard to hear. The music was LOUD and the dialog was SO quiet...We turned up the volume as high as we could and could barely hear it - then the music BLARED at us. We moved to a second TV/DVD player and experienced the same thing - I always hate when movies do this. I get that the movie is about loss and learning to deal with it and trying to move on...but it is SO slow. It just drags along, and we kept waiting for the tension to build and it never did. We were both glad that we only wasted 90 minutes on this film.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

BAD And BORING Movie

Author: johnlathrop
20 June 2013

This movie is a bore. Who wants to watch such a sad movie? The people systematically lose their senses and there is hardly any effort to find a cure. We as a people are better than this. We don't give up. I did like some of the actors, but the story line was terrible. What else can I say about this movie? Hmmmm… Nothing at all about this movie makes it worth seeing. The fact that I'm trying to fill this up with ten lines is proof how much I do not like this movie. I never realized that IMDb reviews had a minimum length which would tend to cause those not liking a movie to be so determined to meet the minimum length and the result would be reviews skewed to a more positive level.

20 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

Why

Author: Klaas de Vos
19 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why ? That's the only thing I got out of this movie.

I've never had the urge to write a review about a movie, but seeing it getting such high votes I had to write this.

I just don't get it. The director had so many opportunities to give a blimp of hope at the end of the movie, but didn't.

So you spend 1.5 hours looking at people who's world is collapsing and then the movie is over. I just wonder what the, a-star, actors thought when they were asked for this film. I'm sure they asked: what is the story about ? And the the director would say: well we start with people loosing their smell, then their hearing and then they go deaf and blind and then THE END. Geez, that sounds like a great movie, please pick me !

Or is the fact that the director is English and therefore sophisticated and me as an American actor am just not smart enough to understand the deeper meaning of the film ? Whatever the reason they decided to join this movie, it was the wrong reason. They should have better used that time to spend with their loved ones in the real world instead of sending a non-hope film to the world.

Why people rate this movie high and claim it is about hope ?

It's not ! It's a depressing, ugly, movie.

14 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

wast of time

Author: stevefitchie from United Kingdom
19 February 2012

This is a terrible movie......Actually got to see this movie in the cinema for free and wanted to get up and walk out. Never in my life have i ever thought of walking out of a movie...Stuck it out hoping it would suddenly evolve into something half decent....Sadly it didn't. How Ewan Mcgregor and Eva Green got themselves involved in this project i just cant understand. i am a great fan of science fiction/fantasy/apocalyptic movie types ,even if there is a love theme running through the script, but this was just a complete waste of time and money.I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone and i know personally i will never sit down to watch it again.I even heard other cinema goers on the night i seen it verbally abusing it as they left... thumbs down on this one people....

3 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Worst film ever

Author: Pro Film Review from United Kingdom
18 November 2012

Yes nicely made with filming and cast all that but absolutely awful film With all the rest no logic no sense and disturbing , the writer must have tried so hard not to shoot himself making this make believe end of the world but seemingly wannabe we can do better even if we lost something original concept. Concept is dreadful and there is no moral of this story. Just very bad if you hate life go watch it. If you want to see her boob go see the film Yes nicely made with filming and cast all that but absolutely awful film With all the rest no logic no sense and disturbing , the writer must have tried so hard not to shoot himself making this make believe end of the world but seemingly wannabe we can do better even if we lost something original concept. Concept is dreadful and there is no moral of this story. Just very bad if you hate life go watch it. If you want to see her boob go see the film

36 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

Perfect Sense? Perfect Mince, more like!

Author: paulfcockburn from United Kingdom
17 June 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There's always a risk calling your film something like 'Perfect Sense'; because, sooner or later, someone's going to point at the Emperor's New Clothes and go: "Perfect mince, more like!" Especially in Glasgow.

Let's just say there's nothing perfect about this film; it's unintentionally funny; it utterly fails to make anything of its central location; it is embarrassingly pretentious; and it is horrendously scripted and acted. Except for a few small scenes, Ewan McGregor relies on his goofy smile to earn him audience sympathy, while Eva Green's one-note, we've-seen-it-all- before performance is just the wrong side of arrogance, like she feels she's superior to everyone else in the cast. I don't, for one minute, actually believe she's an epidemiologist.

The central conceit of the film is, of course, absolutely ridiculous -- an inexplicable epidemic is gradually depriving humanity of its senses, starting with smell and taste, then going straight for hearing and sight. (What happened to touch, one wonders?) This isn't, in itself, a problem, except that any suspension of disbelief is undermined by the film choosing to push this medical nonsense to the fore, rather than hide it behind some believable characterisation, recognisable plot or even some energetic hand-waving. Instead, we're left with a snail's-paced, condescending, sledge-hammer meditation on how we've all lost touch with each other. Or something like that.

The worst thing about this film isn't all the talent and money that went into its production; it's the question of what has gone wrong with David Mackenzie? Young Adam and Hallam Foe were startling and innovative cinematic works. Now it would seem he's had a narrative lobotomy. And whoever told him it would a good idea to strap his camera to a bicycle really should be shot. They invented steady cam for a reason.

29 out of 78 people found the following review useful:

Drama? Romance? Nope. Thriller, maybe...

Author: ArizWldcat from United States
27 January 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the Sundance catalog, this was made to sound like a drama/romance. It was more like a psychological thriller; I'll admit up front, this is NOT the kind of movie I enjoy, so perhaps I am not the best person to review...however, here I go anyway. The story involves an epidemiologist (Eva Green) and a chef (Ewan McGregor) who, when we first meet them on screen, are both cold and distant. They do nothing in the film to change our image of them, and truly, I didn't see any chemistry between the two. Sure, there's a physical relationship, but apparently, they just get on each other's nerves and have sex.

Green's epidemiologist is apparently fighting a worldwide epidemic illness that causes people to lose their senses. First it's the sense smell, then taste...and then, well, you get the idea. Each episode of loss is preceded by emotional breakdowns (first grief, then anger, then more anger, then more anger...oh, and finally, a sense of peace...well thank goodness for that!) I know the director was going for horrific, but I found myself laughing when people started eating everything in sight. It was also quite repulsive to watch those scenes. I was thankful nausea didn't follow (at least on screen). Green's character apparently isn't very good at her job because she doesn't ever find out a single thing about the disease, just that everyone in the world is going to get it. Everyone's DOOMED.

Mercifully, the film was short. At the end, I supposed we were to come to the realization that the "perfect sense" is our sense of feeling/emotion. Yawn. McGregor performed well, as usual, but his performance did not make the movie worth seeing for me.

See also Rachel Gordon's review; she says what I was thinking but in a much better way than I did: http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/2011/perfect-sense/ (if the link is broken, it's at filmcritic.com)

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

a generously subsidized high school project

Author: Boris Todorov (boris_todorov@hotmail.com) from Seoul, South Korea
26 August 2012

A disturbingly boring movie on a subject of such uncompromising grandeur one wonders whether the idea came from a fourteen-, or from a fifteen-year old kid. Because first, it is usually at the age of 14/15 that authors try to reveal the ultimate light of truth to humankind (as this project does), and it is again at that age that the longing to feel each other's bodies (the "perfect sense" as we realize at the end of the show after complete sensory darkness obliterates everything else) is most pungent and dismissive of anything else human experience might have brought. Dull musical score, slow motion, redundant scenes, predictable script, banal conclusion: all too well for an art school project, yet making us watching it for the sake of Green and McGregor makes me feel cheated.

14 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Pathetic

Author: syanea
29 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It could have been a great movie, it certainly had some ingredients. The main plot could have been really interesting, but instead it decided to stick to the obscure side of it, skip the science or any sense. That's right it made no sense. Why oh why, would you end the movie Ike that, it had such potential and yet, it is ruined. It could have been a great movie, but instead it is depressing, obscure, unfinished, oh yeah and forget your sense of touch, that's not on his list for some reason... Really disturbing, really unfinished, safe your time for a good movie... I like the actors, but it still doesn't make up for a poor and unfinished storyline. No thank you, I would not recommend it to anyone.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

It didn't make perfect sense; in fact, it made no sense at all

Author: bob-790-196018 from United States
11 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have always been drawn to apocalyptic or end-of-the-world movies, but I did not find "Perfect Sense" meaningful or entertaining. For no particular reason, the entire population of the world loses its physical senses one by one, starting with smell and moving on ultimately to sight. We know it involves the entire population because there are smidgens of clips of people panicking in India, Africa, etc. Basically, however, the movie takes place in a few locations in Glasgow.

The scope of the film is even narrower than that, however, because the meat of the story is the relationship between two people, an epidemiologist and a chef, who discover each other, have lots of sex, have a falling out, and reconcile just as the last sense goes. They clutch each other as the movie fades to black and the voice-over tells us how precious love is, or words to that effect.

Though we are left to contemplate this vague message about love, instead I thought about the terror of finding oneself suddenly blind in a world where everyone else is going blind too. They say that in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, but in a world where there is not so much as a single one-eyed person, the terror is unimaginable and no one can survive. A very depressing ending to the movie, particularly since you come away with no explanation for why these terrible things have happened.

Another reviewer has mentioned that the dialog in the picture was often too muted to understand. I found that to be true throughout.

There's nothing original or imaginative about dreaming up an apocalypse that can neither be explained nor interpreted symbolically, so that our experience of the film has some meaning.

s 1 of 2 scheduled reboots

Author: nvjs from United States
27 June 2012

Johnson must be a fan of Uwe Boll or the last thing he watched before taking on this project, was of Boll's. This crap resulted in a "reboot" which wasn't much better, and Daredevil which is also up for an overhaul. Not a good batting average. The "plot" for this movie was lackluster at best. The acting by Wes Bentley was horrid and I believe it's 50/50 director and actor's fault.Bentley obvious wasn't concerned about his performance or watched his dailies to adjust his "method" or "approach". Even worse is the awful grating of Ghost Rider's "voice". Sounds like Ghost Rider has a carton a day habit. Then there's Eva Mendes trying to make the best out of a bad project along with Cage. But this movie is just inexcusable for looking like a 20 million dollar flick with a supposed 80+ million budget. I think Johnson spent it all on Cage's hairpiece.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

The critics are right

Author: pninson from Seattle, Washington
11 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The setup is OK (the "origin")but there's no follow-through. The movie is essentially plot less, and the villains are stick figures who are easily dispatched. Wes Bentley, burdened with some awful makeup and tricked up to look like a pasty-faced Elvis impersonator, is given little to do. He is never threatening and our hero (so to speak) has little trouble wrapping things up.

Ghost Rider tries to be funny, with some howlingly bad dialogue (I admit, I laughed most of the way through, which has to count for something), but it's never more than a caricature of itself. Even a comic book movie has to have something for the audience to identify with. Spider Man 2 was a strong picture largely because Alfred Molina's characterization of Doctor Octopus had a human dimension.

Yes, character and story matter even in "fun" pictures. There's little to enjoy here other than some visual effects, and that's not worth the price of a movie ticket. I was ready to leave an hour before it ended; it is that boring.

As for the adaptation, I'm not a purist, but there was nothing of what made the comic book exciting (at least in the first couple of years). Gary Friedrich and Mike Ploog, who created the character, put him in a situation in which he was struggling for redemption. There's no sense of any tension between good and evil in the movie; it's just Cage being doggedly Cage-ish and wisecracking his way through a limp, lifeless, by-the-numbers formula picture.

I'd rate this one at the bottom of the heap for the genre. I can forgive lapses in logic and corny dialogue, but just don't bore me. That's all I ask. Ghost Rider darned near put me to sleep.

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Heartless

Author: Cheese Hoven from United Kingdom
18 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

At various points during this movie, the trite villain Blackheart kills people in cold blood by pushing his icy fingers in their hearts. This frozen emptiness where the heart should be in a way sums up this dreadful adaptation. Blackheart murders many people in cold blood and we, the audience, are not supposed to feel anything about it. By far the worst instance of this is when (Ghost Rider) Johnny Blaze's best friend (and the one character in the whole film who is sympathetically drawn) is murdered in said fashion in front of GR. GR sheds no tears about him and he is never again even mentioned. His death and those of others has no other function but merely to show us the badness of Blackheart who would otherwise be a faintly comical white-faced Goth. This callousness extends elsewhere in the movie. At the start, Johnny Blaze's dad is killed by Mephistopheles after being on screen for what must be less than a minute in total and speaking about two sentences. Since we do not see the bond between father and son, the father's death, which is of cardinal importance to the storyline, is thus robbed of any emotional power beyond Johnny's melodramatic scream of "nooooooo"! Likewise perfunctory is the treatment of Johnny's girl, Roxanne, which in some ways is the most hilarious aspect of this unintentionally funny film. Having watched Johnny diligently carved "Johnny & Roxanne 4 ever" in a tree, she then informs him she has to leave him at her parents request. He objects and suggests they ride off together into the sunset. However, at the appointed time, and having become the devil's apprentice, he leaves her standing under the tree.

This frankly makes little sense, but worse is to come.

A year having passed but everyone having aged at least 20 years, she is now a TV reporter while Johnny is a stunt cyclist. An inept comedy sequence ensues with Johnny eventually getting a date. Alas, he finds himself turning to fire (Not surprising considering Nicholas Cage's wooden performance) and goes on his first Ghost ride, leaving her in the lurch yet again.

Roxanne turns up at his place the next day (somehow getting in-) and throws herself at him! He then reveals his is the emissary of Satan which has her leaving yet again.

An odd scene with Blaze being arrested and thus having to reluctantly fight prisoners is next. It is hilarious and I wonder if it is not some kind of tribute to a similar scene in the even more inept Death Wish 3 film?

Another ghost ride ensues with the usual clichés -swat teams, helicopters, etc. This is of course witnesses by Roxanne who realises at once that the flaming headed cyclist is actually her Johnny. Blackheart notices this and announces "now we know his weakness. Hmmmmm." a classic of movie badness.

I could go on. The script is so inept that you wonder if anyone actually read it. We are supposed to have a villain who has acquired a power so potent that it can literally bring about Hell on Earth yet Ghost Rider is able to defeat him ....

...by looking him in the eye!

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst comic-adaptions ever

Author: sisko42 from Germany
8 July 2009

Watched it last evening on DVD. There's not much to say about this catastrophe. But know this: Bad Screenplay(poor dialogs that hurt your ears), a lot of unfavorable camera-angles(my father would do a better job with his old super8-cam), real bad directing(a lot of scenes are unintentional funny), and on top of this the worst performance of Nicolas Cage to this date(most of the time his face looks like somebody smashed his brain out. You think a stone would trick him). Unfortunately this Extended Cut makes this film not better, but extends the pain to watch. Ghost Rider rides with ease in my personal Top 20 of the worst movies of all time. You've been warned!

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

One of the Worst Superhero Films To Date...

Author: fearfulofspiders from United States
5 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Right up there with the Fantastic Four movies, Daredevil, and The Hulk, Ghost Rider is easily one of the worst superhero films to date.

From cheesy dialogue to an uninteresting superhero and villain, this film just does nothing for the audience... nothing.

As a superhero, our title character is arguably the most dull and uninteresting of all the Marvel icons. Ghost Rider, as a concept and as a whole, is l-a-m-e.

Nick Cage's performance is once again in that depressed monotone voice of his, as he sleepwalks through this role. Eva Mendez is equally terrible, as well as the unknown people in the background -- and especially the "villain".

The script is weak, and the direction rivals that of a Paul W.S. Anderson work of crap.

The music is one I'd stomp on the floor repeatedly for its uninspired sound and nonsensical composition.

All in all, this is at the bottom of the barrel as far as action/superhero/and origin stories go. Definitely skip out on seeing Ghost Rider.

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Queasy Rider

Author: dunmore_ego from Los Angeles, California
1 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If there's another word for idiocy, I think that word is GHOST RIDER.

Sloppy editing, directionless direction and idiotic writing make this the number one feel-retarded movie of the year. And Nicolas Cage in eternal mourning-faced mode as the Ghost Rider doesn't help any. He is stunt biker, Johnny Blaze, employed by the devil (Peter Fonda, embarrassing himself) to stop the devil's son dominating the world. Oh yeh, and when he turns into Ghost Rider, his head turns into a flaming skull. For no reason other than it looks kinda cool.

Sam Elliott lends his balls-grit voice to the narration and appears as a supernatural gravedigger, but even that compounds the stupidity. His first lines narrate how every generation spawns a Ghost Rider, whose job is to collect souls sold to Satan. Okay, nice premise – now start confusing me… Seems the Wild West Ghost Rider (from the 1800s, I'm guessing) "outran the devil himself" because he didn't want to collect 1000 souls on one particularly meaty contract.

Where to start with the stupid questions, knowing there'll be stupid answers at the end of all of them? Is it within the Ghost Rider's capacity to discern how many souls the devil should be bagging? He's just an apprehender, a bounty hunter; it's like bequeathing that redneck moron Dog the Bounty Hunter or one of those Nazi cops from COPS jurisprudence and the ability to execute sentences on nothing but their own cognizance, when we all know they are merely apprehenders with zero powers or intelligence beyond clicking on cuffs.

So what about the Rules for Supernatural Beings? How fast can the devil run? And since the Ghost Rider is a supernatural being himself, how fast was HE actually running to outrun the devil? And was he galloping across desert plains, or in some other dimension? If in some other dimension, were they "running" physically - with feet touching the ground for traction, or in some invisible medium? Any answers from geekboys forthcoming?

Every single minute of GHOST RIDER raises more idiotic questions about supernatural rules. For example, the GHOST RIDER is a supernatural being, so when evil supernatural beings fight him (beings fashioned from earth, air, fire and water), why do they bother punching each other? They're not operating on the same rules we are in the physical plane – for cryin' out loud, when a truck runs into the Ghost Rider he is unharmed, so why does the being made of water even *think* that he could debilitate him by PUNCHING? Or hanging him by the neck with a chain?

Later, a supernatural being made of wind laughs when Ghost Rider tries to punch him, then he eats crow when the Rider whirls his whip around and somehow creates a vortex of fire that sucks the wind being into nothingness. Riiiiight…..

At one point, like some kind of superhero, Ghost Rider saves a girl from a pursesnatcher and then condemns the pursesnatcher to hell as if he had lied Amerika into a false Iraq war, causing the deaths of 100,000 people and consigning Amerika to a trillion-dollar debt which four generations would have to shoulder. It's the SUPERMAN conundrum: while he saves a cat in a tree, a million African children die for want of diverting a river to save their village. Get your priorities right, Bonehead!

Marvel really screwed the pooch with this D-Lister; Stan Lee didn't even bother making a cameo. The origin tale works gangbusters as a comicbook, but in this age of semi-realism in Marvel films (SPIDERMAN, X-MEN, PUNISHER), GHOST RIDER gasps for credibility with its insanely convoluted mythical storyline and rule-less landscape.

Frumpy Eva Mendez is Johnny Blaze's long-suffering romantic interest, Wes Bentley gives a pointless performance as the devil's son, and Donal Logue tries overacting to save the movie. Didn't work, but at least he's got some cheese for his demo reel.

I'm ashamed to call myself a Ghost Rider fan...

Author: Slevin Kelevra from United States
3 April 2014

The fear I have whenever I say "I'm a fan of Ghost Rider" stems from the thought that people who do not know the comics will think I'm a fan of these movies. This is one of the worst comic book movies of all time. Captain America with Reb Brown? No, bad but fun to watch. The Captain America movie from 1990? Close but... not the worst. The original Avengers movie from 1998? Easily 2nd place. No this Ghost Rider movie takes that title. Because we didn't expect those other movies to be any good. Ghost Rider on the other hand had every chance to be a good a movie. It's not hard to make a good Ghost Rider movie, your character is a flaming skull... that should be instant awesome but no this movie goes out of it's way to spit on the fans.

Before I tear this movie a new ***hole let me say what I like about it. The visuals were about the greatest part of the movie. They did capture Ghost Rider comics very well, because the concept art, props, characters and settings all came from the only department with people who actually work on comic books. Everyone else were a bunch of Hollywood snobs. So the Rider's bike, the Ghost Rider himself, the Phantom Rider (the original Ghost Rider that looked like a cowboy) and his demonic horse were all visually amazing.

That's it, even when they have something awesome they make sure to destroy it as fast as possible. I'll sum up the entire movie in one scene: The Ghost Rider and the Phantom Rider are about to head off to the final confrontation. The Phantom Rider says he's coming with Johnny Blaze and they take off together making one of the most visually awesome build ups to an ending. The Phantom Rider... A flaming skull under a cowboy hat riding atop a flaming demonic horse riding next to The Ghost Rider on his flaming demonic motorcycle. The level of awesome this is cannot be described... and what happens? Right before the battle they stop and the Phantom Rider says he can't go any further then just leaves?! That was his last transformation really? He couldn't wait till they got there then transform so he could actually help in the fight. They tease you into thinking a demonic cowboy with his signature flaming whip and hellfire revolver is going to team up with a demonic biker with his flaming chain... but no that scene would be too good for this movie. It would actually make the movie awesome, so they didn't want to do that. He just rides there and ****s off.

There's Ghost Rider in a nutshell. Visually building you up and then completely ruining it with stupidity. A massive disappointment, and I didn't even go into the fact that they completely destroyed the comic book lore and re-writing everything to fit their stupidity. If you say "Well the Phantom Rider only had a little more juice and he just wanted to ride there, they travel faster when they're transformed so if he didn't it would take forever" No no... no. Ghost Rider doesn't have juice, he's a demonic being under the control of the devil who breaks his control and thus serves under the body he is in, Johnny Blaze. There is no juice, power level, it's not a super power the Ghost Rider is a being. So the Ghost Rider can't be in two bodies at once, but I was willing to let that major screw up slide had they joined the two together in combat to team up. They did nothing, it was a trailer shot. You got tricked, they already had your money... screw you leave the movie early if you want we already got paid. And that is EXACTLY what they did, the proof is in the trailer for Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance. They trick you into thinking it's going to be a good movie leave you with nothing but pretty visuals.

Ghost Rider 2 Spirit of Vengeance turns out to be worse. The Ghost Rider with blue fire is a COMPLETELY different person, Johnny Blaze isn't the Ghost Rider with blue fire. He's the next Ghost Rider after Johnny Blaze and his name is Daniel. And they had a character named Danny to trick you even more. Spirit of Vengeance isn't the Ghost Rider either he's a villain in the comics. But according to the movie's story Johnny Blaze is still the Ghost Rider only now the Ghost Rider has blue fire cause he's the Spirit of Vengeance? That's like saying Superman is Lex Luthor, that's like taking The Joker and revealing it's been Batman all along! It's BULL**** They knew they were tricking you into thinking it was going to be a good movie, they knew we all thought Nicholas Cage was being replaced with a new Ghost Rider. I'm going to do the Rider justice and burn this decrepit movie and pee on it's ashes. Oh my god that reminded me Ghost Rider pees fire in the sequel.... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I HATE THESE MOVIES!

terrible.

Author: drkilljoy731
22 January 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was forced to see this and the behest of a family member. I didn't think it would be very good but didn't think my eyes would be sodomized that hard. The acting especially of the bad guys is as hammy as a Smithfield ham. The visuals were pretty good for the time looked nice. The plot points are horrific I mean when I found out the main demon was the devils son I nearly died from the cliché. Especially when it was disclosed by the actor finishing a statement with the word father. It was as cheesy and stupid as it sounded. I would continue to beat this movie down but i don't want to remember it anymore. It may be irrational but i absolutely hate this movie and wish i could give it no stars ,and have it end up on the bottom 100 list.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Mark Steven Johnson: Please Stop Making Movies

Author: mike-downing-1 from United States
26 April 2012

Until now, I thought Daredevil was the worst movie I had ever seen. Then I watched Ghost Rider. The connection: Mark Steven Johnson wrote both screenplays. I'm angry because this guy keeps taking these comic books and ruining them on the big screen (compare Sam Raimi and Mark Steven Johnson and you'll understand my point).

I'm a professional writer with a life-long passion for comic books, and I can tell you that, when done properly, comic books are written tightly. They should keep you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately, Ghost Rider is incredibly slow. It actually made me angry to see any semblance of good, tight writing ignored and replaced with stunts and special effects.

Ugh. Don't waste your time with this one. I hope Marvel and DC don't give this guy access to any other titles in the catalog.

Not a hit, so run...

Author: Tony Bush from United Kingdom
25 December 2012
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Loutish, unfunny and relatively tedious comedy thriller that is devoid of both comedy and thrills. You won't laugh, you won't smile and you probably will not ever be on the edge of your seat. It is relentlessly thick-eared, flat and monotone. The cast are tedious and plastic, lacking anything approaching personality and depth. The chases are bland, uninvolving and unspectacular and the plot is little more than a clichéd drone of cobbled together circumstances.

A dumb ex wheel-man in witness protection is supported by his dumb federal marshal and his dumb (though supposed to be intelligent) girlfriend. When dumb girlfriend gets a job as some sort of high-flying professor (yeah, I know, beggars belief) in LA dumb ex wheel-man decides to quit witness protection and drive her there in his tricked-out getaway car. Girlfriend's dumb ex-boyfriend rats dumb ex wheel-man out to his dumb ex partners in crime and they are on his tail to get revenge. Throw in a dumb gay traffic cop and his dumb female partner and have them all drive and cavort around on a dumb road trip to a dumb conclusion that includes a guest appearance by Beau Bridges as dumb ex wheel-man's dumb father and what you have ultimately is a movie that epitomises the concept of dumb.

Is there anything redeeming about it? Uh, no, not really. It's just...you've guessed it...dumb. Not a hit, so run.

17 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Sit and Shun "Hit and Run!"

Author: zardoz-13 from United States
26 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Dax Shepard and his fiancée Kristen Bell co-star in the witless romantic comedy "Hit and Run" that Shepard wrote and co-directed with his pal George Palmer. Palmer and Shepard helmed the video short "Reunited" (2010) as well as the spoof documentary "Brother's Justice." The style of comedy that they espouse mingles dry humor with slapstick. The garrulous characters never cease making asses of themselves. This half-baked buffoonery about a goofy getaway driver in the Witness Relocation Program who shacks up with a brainiac, drop-dead gorgeous, community college professor delivers more run than hit. Nothing about this low-brow, tread-burning, crime melodrama will make you either smile or flinch. The grossest scene resembles something that Sasha Baron Cohen might have removed from one of his offensive comedies. Our hero and heroine are on the run when they check into a motel. They find a sex orgy in their room with participants who are old, fat, and ugly. This tasteless scene qualifies as so gratuitous that the MPAA probably had no choice but to slap "Hit and Run" with an R-rating for nudity. Shepard and Palmer aren't content to show this unsightly scene once but twice for maximum impact. Meantime, you'll lose count of the number of times that the F-word is uttered. The violence remains relatively mild by today's standards. A felon takes a slug in the back with a splash of blood for realism. A man is shown mercilessly slugging another. An assailant smashes our hero's nose with a golf club. Nevertheless, despite their lame-brained humor and lackluster car chases, Shepard and Palmer have assembled a first-class, straight-faced cast that contributes a modicum of hilarity to the antics. Bradley Cooper, Tom Arnold, Kristin Chenoweth, Michael Rosenbaum, and David Koechner run circles around our leads. "Hit and Run" amounts to one long, drawn-out, vehicular chase with no memorable stunts. The biggest stunt involves a dune buggy hurtling "Dukes of Hazard" style over several parked cars. Nothing about the driving will turn your knuckles white and make you gasp, but the automobiles look ultra-cool.

"Hit and Run" opens in a backwater California town named Milton with a community college. Basically, our heroine Annie Bean (Kristen Bell of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall") learns that she is about to be fired from her job as a community college professor. Happily, Annie's potty-mouthed boss, Debby (Kristin Chenoweth of "You, Again"), alerts her about an opening at UCLA where she can land her dream job as the head of a conflict-resolution department. The major drawback for our ambitious heroine is when her tattooed boyfriend, Charlie Bronson (Dax Sheppard of "When In Rome"), divulges his membership in Witness Relocation. Charlie is pretty much condemned to live an eternity in the sleepy little town of Milton because his former partners-in-crime want to track him down and terminate him with extreme prejudice. Eventually, Charlie changes his mind about Witness Protection and pulls the tarp off his jacked-up 1967 Lincoln Continental with suicide doors to usher Annie in style to Los Angeles. Annie's green-eyed, ex-boyfriend, Gil (Michael Rosenbaum of TV's "Smallville"), gets wind of Charlie's real identity and sends a message via Facebook to Charlie's number one nemesis. As it turns out, and Annie discovers later, Charlie is really Yul Perrkins. Charlie's father Clint Perrkins (Beau Bridges of "Max Payne") named him after legendary actor Yul Brynner of "The Magnificent Seven." Charlie hated the name Yul so much that he changed it to Charles Bronson. Mind you, Yul wasn't thinking about movie superstar Charles Bronson of "Death Wish" fame, but the notorious British inmate Charles Bronson who is known as the most violent man in British prisons. Naturally, Annie is appalled by these revelations. What she really isn't prepared for the gun-toting trio that come calling on them as they are about to leave for L.A. Alex Dmitri (Bradley Cooper of "The A-Team" in dreadlocks) hates Charlie because Charlie's testimony put him behind bars long enough for a Phillipino prison to rape him. Now, Alex yearns to kill Charlie as much his accomplices Neve Tatum (Joy Bryant of "Spider-Man 2") and Allen (Ryan Hansen of "Friday the 13th"). Predictably, our hero has a savior, bungling U.S. Marshal Randy Anderson (Tom Arnold of "Exit Wounds") who doesn't know where the brakes are on his car. Worse, he has to dodge the bullet that his own gun spits out at him.

"Hit and Run" contains elements of both "True Romance" and "Smokey and the Bandit." The romance between Annie and Charlie and their flight from the desperate villains recalls the predicament that the hero and heroine in "True Romance" confronted. Bradley Cooper's arch villain resembles the bad guy that Christian Slater opposed in "True Romance." The use of a series of careening car chases is the "Smokey and the Bandit" touch. Unfortunately, this low octane, pursuit potboiler conjures up little tension and delivers few thrills. Meantime, the conversations struggle to capture the spontaneous, off-the-cuff Tarantino dialogue. Instead, they wind up sounding nothing less than loquacious. You should sit and shun "Hit and Run."

14 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Slow Painful Drag

Author: ajaymenon0 from India
4 September 2012

I tried hard to like this movie, cause I voluntarily took part in the arduous process of paying my money in hopes of this waste of celluloid to be a surprise good flick. But unfortunately, the movie drags and drags with sparse car chases. What fails here ?

1. Conversations to bore you to death:

Tarantino had the knack of putting in random conversations to build up to the scene which concludes a chapter in tightly packed script. Kevin Smith did that with his movies by riding along the movies with an engrossing topic of a conversation. This movie tries that. Fails miserably. Tries again...goes to over the top levels of face palm. Why? At some point it seemed like the actors were just asked to talk without a script. It was really painful.

2. Car Chase? Well thats it! :

There were probably two car chases in the movie which lacked every thing which a car chase should be. Plus the shaky cam thing is going way too far. Personally the whole car chases standards have been pushed way up by 'The French Connection' and 'Ronin'. Even 'Gone in 60 seconds' had some moments. This one fails to generate any sort of impact. There are no awe filled moments at all. It was worse than watching someone play a game of need for speed.

3. Whats with Tom Arnold?

Why was he even there in the movie? He was trying to be this fumbling idiot character. But he just grows more annoying by the minute. Some parts didn't even add up to anything. What the hell was with the bowling ball. Whats with him being gay on the app. What the hell was the point ?

4. Gay jokes:

The app to get hand jobs...the whole awkward discussion about being butt f**ked. Nothing...let me repeat...none of that was even the least bit funny.

Speaking of gay jokes though...the movie did kinda mentally sodomize me.

15 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Miss and Run-Away...

Author: forbes-glen from Ireland
1 September 2012

There is no doubt in my mind this movie was miss-titled, it should have been called miss and run away. You know how the rest of this review is going to go.

Unfortunately I probably should explain the movies "plot". I feel kind of wrong having to write it down. Dax Shepard plays Charlie, a guy who's in the witness protection programme. His girlfriend, played by Kirsten Bell has been offered a job opportunity in LA. The trouble is, whoever Charlie ratted out to the cops, are in LA. Wanting the relationship to last Charlie decides to drive his girlfriend to LA. His girlfriends ex, played by the unrecognizable Michael Rosenbaum, gets wind and being the jealous type, contacts his brother, a cop, and finds Charlies' name before he came into the witness protection programme (seemingly, it's that easy!). Her ex contacts Alex Dimitri, played by Bradley Cooper but with tinted glasses and dreadlocks, by Facebook and is set on getting revenge on Charlie, who ratted him out.

What ensues is a chase movie but with dialogue. The kind of dialogue, I assume the idea was to make the characters more intelligent and deeper than they seem, finding themselves in funny situations, like entering an elderly orgy by accident, or having a discussion about the cons of using the term "fags". For me the movie was trying to be a Tarantino movie, quirky characters having quirky conversations and ending up in quirky situations, but it all falls very flat. The first problem is none of the characters are particularly likable. Charlie is a bit of a dick and Kirsten Bells' Annie is just annoying; seriously, you'd risk your life driving to LA for her?

The dialogue is pretty pointless and unfunny. It's far from being as funny and clever as it thinks it is. And it jumps in between characters abruptly without the audience being able to get their bearings about what the hell is going on. Tom Arnold appears as Charlies' incompetent police protection. If I was an officer in the Witness Protection Programme I think I'd write a strongly worded letter to the director, who turns out to be the lead, Dax Shepard, who happens to be Kirsten Bells' boyfriend. And they produced! Really Kirsten Bell, you can do better because I was wondering what you were doing in this. The same can be said for Bradley Cooper, and how Beau Bridges and Jason Bateman got talked into cameos, I'll never know. Perhaps Kirsten Bell was asked to appear in Arrested Development and she was owed a favour.

I'm really not trying to be mean, as I like Cooper and Bell as actors, and they can produce so much more. But I really thought the movie, with a running time of 100 mins, was 100 mins too long. I was happy to walk out at any time. The cars were kind of cool, but that's the only thing I liked about the movie. And it's pretty obvious it was made on a budget, most of the action taking place in the desert, and there seemed to be a lack of extras.

I don't know why you would have any reason to watch this movie, maybe, just maybe, if you're hung over some Sunday and there is absolutely nothing to watch. Even then, I'd avoid it if I can.

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

HIT AND RUN sucked! Plain and simple, as that.

Author: Carycomic from Torrington, CT, USA
27 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

And, once again, the only reason I give such a box office mega-flop even one star is because IMDb requires it. Personally? I feel even that much is over-dignifying it!

During the first forty minutes, alone (after which, I unapologetically walked out), there were only two laughs provided. Both times, by Tom Arnold. And, not even his (quite often under-estimated) talent could save this one from totally boring me!

Add that to the fact that he and ex-Luthor Michael Rosenbaum were the only name actors recognizable to me, and you have a bigger turkey than Ashton Kutcher's DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR? and Tom Hanks' LADY KILLERS, put together.

So, take my advice, folks. Don't go see this at the movies. Don't rent it when it comes out on DVD. Don't even it down-load it from the Internet! Because, yes, it is undeniably _that bad_!!!

10 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Just plain BAD!

Author: timrrt from Amherst, NY
31 August 2012

This is the WORST movie ever made! The plot, the script, everything about this movie is just plain bad! The total lack of direction in this movie is astounding! This movie wants and tries to be many things but sadly it is just painful to watch. Scenes drag-on for what seems like forever.

Don't waste your time or money on this awful movie. The chase scenes are hum drum and boring! The acting is sub-par at best. 15 minutes into this movie I was ready to leave but I was at the drive-in and wanted to see the second feature more than this stinker.

I don't know who gave the go-ahead to make this movie but they really should have their head examined.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

More of a crash and burn

Author: Thomas Aitken from New Zealand
13 February 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film would have been more accurately titled if they'd called it 'The Dax Shepherd Show', because basically it's little more than a promotional vehicle for Dax Shepherd.

It felt like it wanted to be a Coen Brothers film, but couldn't quite pull it off, so instead, for most of its duration, this film plays out like an extended episode of a TV comedy drama.

The pacing is woeful in places. One of the car chase scenes, which should be one of the high points in any film, just aimlessly carries on for no apparent reason, and then comes to a rather dull ending.

It's hard to say why it didn't come off better, because all of the right ingredients were present, perhaps a more experienced scriptwriter and director could have pulled it off? It just felt like the film makers had no clear vision, just a series of concepts that they didn't know how to tie together as a cohesive whole.

10 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Hit and Run? Skip and Delete!

Author: the_real_smile from Netherlands
3 February 2013

This movie is about a man who's in a witness protection program and has this soft whiny girl that can get a job in LA, 4 hours from their current village. During the ride to LA they are being chased by the criminals he witnessed against.

All sounds very, very exciting, but oh boy, the movie just does not deliver and is a bore to watch. Every minute you think, "THE ACTION MUST START IN A MINUTE", but that never happens. About 98% of the screen time the man and the women are talking, boring talk I might say. The remaining 2% there are some unrealistic fights, car chases, sadly also very, very boring.

And it is such a shame, because the cast is top notch, acting is good, camera work etc., it just doesn't deliver and never, ever gets exciting.

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Just Run!

Author: m_antrim1 from United States
25 August 2012

Let me say at the outset that I am a Veronica Mars devotee and that the work by Dax I've seen thus far is above par, So, I'm not a hater by any means. I've also been a fan of Bradley Cooper since he emerged on the scene as the sap with a heart on 'Alias.'

This movie was horrible. It was billed by Dax and Kristen, as a car chase, testosterone-filled, etc., movie. Here's a clue from a car guy - a 'hot Lincoln??" Really??? Why not, I don't know, a hot ANYTHING ELSE??? Not only that, the execution of the car looked ridiculous.

Kristen - you are a great character actress. You're blowing it.

As for Tom Arnold's portrayal of a U.S. Marshall with the Witness Protection Program, well, stupid, lame, and unfunny is being kind. I just hope that none of you ever need the services of the U.S. Marshalls - they are actually a pretty competent agency and the Witness Protection Program is, by no means, a dumping program for idiots. I get the whole 'suspension of disbelief' thing when it comes to the arts, but this wasn't even close.

Bradley - The white guy as a dread-locked bad guy? Really?? I hope you made a lot of money, at least. Jeesh. And learn to shoot, for Christ's sake. Pulling the trigger a lot and missing everything you're shooting at isn't, well, funny, to a large segment of the population.

So, here's the final review. I'm in the theater bathroom taking care of business when a guy several urinals down exclaims for all to hear that was the biggest waste of money he's made this week, "And I waste a lot of money on a regular basis," he added.

4 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

don't waste your time

Author: shellster1 from Canada
25 August 2012

OK,i really had high hopes for this one. the trailer made it look so great. and hey, Bradley Cooper is in it, it has to be funny right? the first forty minutes of this movie were SO bad. really bad. nothing funny intertwined with bad acting and over use of the f word. such a weak story, that i felt there was not much to look forward to. as for the last half of the movie, i can't even tell you about because i walked out of the theatre...i wanted to get a complete refund for the twelve bucks i paid, but because i had gone to the late show, there was no staff at the ticket booth when i got out there. this movie is an example of why i would like to pay AFTER i see the show. hit and run is a total dud, i bet they wont even make their budget.