Une "comédie" new style de VERY BAD THINGS le talent en moins...Pénible

*

*

Genuinely one of the worst movies ever

Author: usmhot from Dublin, Ireland
1 December 2013
 

I use IMDb a lot for reviews and ratings as much as for info about the movies. In fact for years I've been using it as a non-member. It took this unbelievably awful movie to make me sign in and write my first review ever. There is nothing redeemable about this rubbish. The characters are awful, the acting horrendous, the directing abysmal, the plot ridiculous. This is supposed to be a modern, funky British slapstick with a good dollop of Australian blunt humour, but what it turns out to be is a pathetic, amateurish, cringe-worthy waste of film. Whatever you do, never watch this movie. Every copy needs to be wiped and all records of it expunged.

20 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Awful

Author: toni-229 from Australia
30 January 2012

Having been a major fan of Priscilla and of Death at a Funeral I had some high hopes (justified I think) so this film A Few Best Men was a total surprise. Not a good one unfortunately. Acting was ordinary or below par for most parts. The bride was especially forgettable. Gags not funny, I am afraid I did not laugh once. It seemed to be trying so hard to be another Death at a funeral - to use a wedding was lacking imagination. So bad I actually felt compelled to write my first ever review!

Apart from the Blue Mountain views there is little to recommend the film.

Overdone, not a shred of originality, dull, too long, I am not sure what else to say to fill the required 10 lines of review. You guys are great talents, please don't let this film be all you can deliver to us.

This film ended up being predictable, boring and disappointing. Very Disappointing

16 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

A few actors? A few good jokes? A few good anything? No.

Author: nickapopolis87 (nmrenwick@gmail.com) from Melbourne, Australia
3 February 2012

We should be ashamed of our film industry for turning out dreck like this. Poorly written, poorly acted, exploitative and just cringe-worthy. Every stereotype about Australia, men, women, gay and lesbians, the rich, the poor and everyone else was abused in this 'comedy'. I must put a disclaimer in that I walked out of this cinematic abortion after only 30 minutes. I have never done that. My hatred was compounded by the laughter from the everyone else in the cinema. Clearly this is a lowest common denominator movie and the clientèle had chosen wisely. I don't know why I am complaining, I knew it would be this bad. The ads made that clear, but there was nothing else showing that my friend and I hadn't seen. Oh I am mad! I am furious that this movie has made 2.5 million in its first week, yet J. Edgar, a truly masterful film, doesn't crack the top 10.

8 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

See in desperation only, or just don't

Author: bassrourke from Australia
26 January 2012

Two redeeming features of this vulgar, racist and awkward mess are the beautiful locations around the Blue mountains of New South Wales and national treasure Olivia Newton-John in a very different role. Don't be fooled though as the Xanadu & Grease superstar is simply having fun and we're invited. The stupid movie is not an Australian Hangover that the trailers may suggest, more a bad trip of a different kind. Xavier Samuel is a world away from his Twilight persona as a backpacker returning to London only to inform his idiotic mates he's proposed to Mia, an Aussie girl from a straight laced political family. So it's down under they go to drink themselves into oblivion. A wedding disaster movie with no decorum and even as a genre picture this does not make one laugh, rather cringe and look for the exit door. Not even the lovely Rebel Wilson, who can just appear and be funny is on screen enough to make me give this an extra star. Unless seeing a sheep being violated, twice is amusing to you, do not bother wasting your money on this rubbish.

9 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

A Bad Example of Humour for the Masses.

Author: chrisliz57 from Australia
4 December 2011

I hate it when a promo for a film depicts it as hilarious when there is hardly a trace of original humour to be seen.

This film is a "dog". It tries to capture the essence of 4 Weddings and a Funeral using many of the charismatic qualities that Death at a Funeral displayed so well and Failed.

Olivier Newton John really does look exceptional for a near 70 Year Old but surely here agent could allow her to finish her acting career on a high. Like Xanadu she has turned up in a "fizzer"; and she doesn't even do what she does best, sing, in this one.

Actually, perhaps I'm not qualified to discuss this film; I looked at my watch 50 minutes after the opening titles and with a relieved sigh from my wife decided it's inane dialogue and "try hard" slapstick humour was taking too much of my time. I left.

If you would be happy outlaying $$$ to see this co Australian & British product then try it for yourself. Don't say I didn't warn you !!

17 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Just don't!

Author: demigod_2000 from Australia
8 February 2012

This film isn't worth watching it for free. The characters were bland, especially the four main guys who apart from some small gimmicky characterization were practically written the same. The few secondary cast members suffered even greater.

The jokes led no where. It was almost like watching a 2 hour sketch show with mediocre jokes. Things like having one of the mains look like Hitler, or getting stuck wearing a a bondage mask etc., were built up and then given a one minute pay off and then forgotten about for the rest of the film. It felt like the filmmakers were constantly stuffing some set of events in my face and saying, "See... hilarious, right?"

To make things worse, the entire film seemed like a love letter to Australia, as if to squeeze every piece of Australian nostalgia and cultural icons they could.

Olivia Newton-John's character was the only one to have any form of comedy to actually have a pay off and carry through. I'm actually left wondering why any of the profile actors in this film would have taken the job apart from a pay check.

Australian Film Industry; one step forward, three steps back.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A Few too Many Fools and a pale pink lady.

Author: richy1024 from United Kingdom
25 September 2012

British comedy does have its pros and cons. Comedy is characteristically used in British gangster movies to lighten the tone or provide an exchange between the characters to express some form of development. On other occasions we are fed with movies such as A Few Best Men, films that are moderately droll in areas but as an entire piece suffer from shoddy acting styles, poor value film making or commonly pitiable story telling. There also seems to be a few conspicuous technological blips where the words inelegantly do not match the movements of the orifice and the waves of sound are that drab, its pitch could have been recorded in a basement. The modern generation of filmmaking sees a vertical lack of comedy due to fact that filmmakers are duplicating what we've seen before or indisputably writers are finding it rather problematic to construct a comedy that we can all cackle at. Much of the hilarity can be rather humdrum as we can see how one circumstance merges into another.

Although the film feels hectic in places and wittingly hires three lead men to cause havoc on stage whilst the groom endeavours to keep his wedding in an orderly trend before his love-at-first sight wife and her senator father turn their backs on him, the film does lack a distinct amount of energy. The on-screen foursome have inadequately attempted to emulate The Hangover campaign with uncivilized comedy including snooping around and interfering with sheep, exhaling cocaine from a politician's counter and a best man's speech that is accompanied by sheer clumsiness as well as being rather unproductive in its tone.

Gone are the days of Kris Marshall carrying the torch for the ghastly television series My Family and Olivia Newton-John's classy performances at her peak, if any remark one would not have reflected the Grease's magnetism of the 'Pink Ladies' leading lady would have steered her towards such haggardness with a posture so puny in front of the camera that all she can rely on is a few bottles of the happy fluid to cart her through the entire tribulation. Did no one care to inform Dean Craig that writing drivel such as Death at a Funeral should not merit another monotonous and defenceless piece including four indolent and infantile shindig poopers? One minuet facet that may give spectators motivation to watch this film is if you find a little stimulus from seeing a fine old marriage cluttered in disarray regardless of how drab the sequence of events are.

6 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

waste of time if you want smart laughs

Author: peterfaure from Vancouver
20 March 2012

Well, I'll keep this review short and sweet

like many recent Australian and British movies, "A few best men" uses a pretty typical low-brow recipe from the British Isles:

stupid people spend the whole movie getting totally drunk, do even stupider things because of it, and they think it's actually funny or cool...

a recent movie about kids going to some place in Spain to get drunk in the sun (why they even bother traveling beats me), pretty much followed the same recipe.

if that's your idea of humor, great, but personally I think it's boring, meaningless, and something only an alcoholic could sympathize with or actually find funny (the hangover had the original twist of the guys reconstructing what they had done, and already felt tired and boring in the second, this one, and many recent British movies, don't even bother adding twists, drunk and stupid seems to be funny enough)

conclusion: if you enjoy humor that requires a minimum of brain cells, avoid it like the plague

*

*

complete waste of time

Author: mark fraunhofer from New York, United States
6 June 2012
 

Normally any self respecting actor asks "Why?", not one of the actors in this complete waste of time asked this question once. They took the money and did what they were told, busy trying to look good while at it. This is a perfect example of a production that is about nothing but burning money. Starting with the writing, full of holes and completely unrealistic dialogue, but then good actors could fix that, these guys were in it only to get paid and made no effort whatsoever to raise the value of the production, so many times they just stood there waiting for the "Cut!". No one in this film believes in their character, it's all staged, shallow, unbelievable and stiff. I have many questions after watching this, all of them begin with "Why?" none of them is answered within. It's not enough to put things together by throwing money and names at it, this thing has no vision and doesn't create anything that would resemble a reality to submerse yourself in. Why would you waste your time watching this?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

The dumbest script ever...an offense to our intelligence

Author: adelinne_p from Romania
6 February 2012

'nuff said in my summary! Although,I'd like to add something:Richard Gere-what were you thinking when you signed on to do this mess of a movie??? Stupid movie for people who were born yesterday and had never seen a Hollywood movie!I felt as if I were retarded watching this awful s...of a movie! Conclusion: please,don't waste your time and intelligence by watching this...1 hour and 38 minutes it can seem as 20 hours and 30 f... minutes!

I always had an admiration for Gere as an actor...just last night I saw 'Primal Fear' and was drawn into his performance...only to watch this mess the next day. I actually had confidence in this famous name,knowing about his past work.

Failed to hold our attention

Author: grandmastersik from Finland
27 July 2014

I watched this with a family member the other night and she was bored after 10 minutes. I figured that the pace would pick up and with the screenwriters' previous credits, had much higher hopes for it, but come the 30 minute mark, I was incredibly bored too.

Making a decent spy film, to me, seems to hinge on one - or a combination of - three things: great action, intelligent suspense and/or dramatic characters. The problem with this film is that the characters (or actors - take your pick) didn't bring us into their world and the action was clearly held back to play on the suspense, which, unfortunately, was pretty much void.

We're expected to believe that with all of today's crime scene nous and technology, nobody can tell the difference between a wire and knife cut, as the film's resident expert, Topher Grace, tells of how the killer doesn't cut from left-to-right, but upwards, and the reveal of Gere's real identity so early in seemed to make watching the remainder kind of pointless.

Maybe I missed something? Perhaps this big reveal was part of a mega twist near the end? Unfortunately, with 6 film channels to choose from, something this dull won't see two people in a room together reach the conclusion, and where I may go back later (having recorded it) to see if the film got any better, flicking over to the news on another station did prove vastly superior viewing.

36 out of 51 people found the following review useful:

This plot hole sums up the whole film.

Author: matt-lamellama from United Kingdom
17 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Plot holes The logic by which Agent Geary "proves" that Shepherdson (Richard Gere) is Cassius is flawed. The "proof" is that Gere is in every crime scene photo, thus proving "Cassius comes back to the crime scene". But as Gere was in fact posing as investigating CIA agent, supposedly chasing Cassius, it was not only normal, but essential for him to go to all the crime scenes of Cassius' murders. "

This film is dumb. It has the budget and the actors but it can't make up for the dumb script. The actors performances were disappointing, probably because they couldn't bring themselves to believe and immerse themselves in such a lame plot.

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Slow, clichéd, predictable, poorly executed

Author: Roger Foss from Norway
20 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Boy, how Richard Gere's career has dived since the days of American Gigolo and Internal Affairs. Yes, occasionally he shows up in a fairly good movie like Hachiko or Unfaithful, but then the superior performances are from other actors (Diane Lane, in that particular case).

This movie really shows the one-dimensional acting Gere does when given a poorly written script. Why he even bothers is mystifying.

Anyway, the movie is about Paul Sheperdson, a retired CIA agent played by Richard Gere, that once hunted down and killed 6 assassins of a group of 7. This was back in the 80s. He never got the last guy, and suddenly chose to retire.

Now 20 years later, he's asked to help track down the one who got away by working with a rookie FBI agent.

**Minor Spoiler alert** Early on, the film dispenses with mystery by revealing that Gere the retired CIA agent really is the escaped assassin himself. With that out of the way, the rest of the movie is about the rookie FBI agent getting closer and closer to finding out who the assassin is, and about Gere the assassin / CIA agent killing a few people here and there. **End Spoiler**

Of course, there is another twist towards the end. I won't say, but it feels contrived. Besides, by the time it comes you've long given up connecting to the characters, so who cares?

Problems: The major problems with this movie are: the script is poor, with gaping holes and poorly developed characters. There is absolutely no chance in hell you will ever care for any of the characters. The story is dull - you've seen it a thousand times before, and sometimes a thousand times better. The ex-spy / assassin theme doesn't resonate with anything on anybody's mind in our world, so nobody cares what happens in the movie at any point.

Direction: The film contains a few flashbacks to the 80s, where we get to see Richard Gere play Paul Sheperdson as a young agent. Except they FORGOT to make him look younger! For sure, Gere the actor looks incredible for his age (63, he's born in 1949) with his gray, full hair. But you wouldn't expect the CIA operative he plays to have the same hair color 20 years ago, would you?

The action sequences are not very exciting. Gere wielding his The acting is very bad. Topher Grace as the (supposedly brilliant) rookie FBI Agent is seriously miscast, while Richard Gere needs to ditch the action genre. Martin Sheen is there, and does an OK job I guess. No other characters will make any impression on you.

Conclusion: It doesn't suck completely, it just isn't worth your while and there are more exciting things to do.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A Very Disappointing Movie

Author: edshullivan from Canada Toronto Ontario
26 August 2013

I do enjoy a good action film with a CIA plot, however this film was filled with far too many disappointing performances. Most noticeably was the irritating musical score which I am sure was intended to keep us in suspense. Rather than keep me in suspense, I found the music's constant rise in volume the movies failed attempt to try and keep the audiences' interest from waning. Unfortunately it didn't work.

I am a big fan of Richard Gere's body of work and again I was very disappointed in his performance. "Richard, what were you thinking?"

Now let's talk about the plot. There is a Russian assassin known to the CIA by the name "Cassius". Two CIA agents the retired Paul Shepherdson (Richard Gere) who is un-retired by his former boss Tom Highland, (Martin Sheen), and a rookie CIA agent who has never been in the field Ben Geary (Topher Grace). Cassius is suspected to be dead, but when a U.S. senator is murdered the CIA believes the murder was committed by the phantom Russian assassin Cassius as evidenced by his trademark murder style of slashing the neck.

Ben Geary the rookie CIA agent wrote his thesis on Cassius and explains to his veteran partner Shepherdson that he knows everything there is to know about Cassius and the murder trademark of the senator's slashed throat is the work of Cassius, thus the two agents are assigned to find Cassius and eliminate him. Well.... this sounds like a reasonable plot to work with and one would think the next 90 minutes of action and suspense should be interesting. Unfortunately, not.

I watched the movie with my wife and we both kept looking at each other and questioning the sequence of events and the plausibility of a veteran CIA agent as Shepherdson (Gere) being such a terrible shot with a gun that he cannot shoot to kill a Russian spy who is only 15 to 20 feet in front of him. Also, for a rookie CIA agent Geary (Topher Grace) who wrote his thesis on the Russian spy Cassius, and is supposedly a genius on Cassius's Modus Operandi why he couldn't spot his new partner Shepherdson, in historical pictures of previous murder scenes in not one, not two, not three. but NUMEROUS murder scenes that the CIA investigated previously but were unsolved? Please!!!!

It is just one of those movies that you expect the story line and actors to be a lot more believable, and the musical score not to be the driver trying to entice a sense of urgency and endangerment.

This is not a movie with any value and I would compare it to the feeling you get with buying a knock off product of a name brand product. You get what you pay for, and I am sure Topher Grace's salary in his next feature film will be commensurate with his (lack of) box office draw for The Double. Save your money folks.

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A Red Dragon Double

Author: thesar-2 from United States
26 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, at least The Double fulfilled my need for wanting to watch an international spy/suspense/thriller last night. Too bad it wasn't really that good of a one.

It's one of those movies that screams: "Wait for it…wait for it…waaaaait….BAM! There's our surprise! Not satisfied? We're gonna throw in another shocker…wait for it…" Mercifully, the most obvious revelation is revealed 20 minutes in, because nothing tips my chair like knowing what's coming in the first five minutes (like this movie) and having to wade through almost two hours of "twists/turns" to get to what we knew all along.

Believe it or not, this wasn't a direct to video release. Someone had enough faith in this film to release it to theatres in 2011, albeit limited, and someone further believed in it enough to market it hard on DVD. But, here's the problem: it's trying hard to be similar to Red Dragon. Only, that's not a movie I would like to imitate.

Let's see if the synopsis sounds vaguely familiar: Yet another EX-CIA agent – why is it always "This is my last job before retirement" or "You know I quit, I can't go back, I won't go back, well okay, here I come"? – is called back into the line of duty once a Senator gets killed with the same MO as a previously-thought-dead Soviet Super-Assassin Spy. Yet another pairing has to take place between that Ex-CIA agent and a yet another younger book-smart unwanted partner. Together, the yet another good-cop/bad-cop pair track the assassin known as "Cassius" when he could be closer than they think.

In all seriousness, it wasn't a downright terrible film. It was well shot, the acting wasn't great, but not atrocious and if you leave your brain at the door and forget about the 30+ movies this mimics, you might have a good time.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Ridiculous.

Author: tpaladino from United States
8 February 2012

I knew in the first ten minutes that this was a bad movie, bit I tried hard to make it through the end. I was unsuccessful.

It tries to be a cool spy flick, but completely fails on nearly every level. It's just done wrong. The dialog is hackneyed and unrealistic, as are the situations that the characters are put into. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief at any point long enough to get into the story.

Topher Grace is terrible in this. He's simply not believable as an FBI agent, even one that's a snotty know-it-all with a masters degree. Richard Gere and Martin Sheen tried their best to work with the material given, but to no avail.

Shame too, because other than Topher Grace, there's a solid cast and a half-decent premise. It's completely let down however by sub-par writing and consistently poor directorial choices.

Not worth watching, even on Netflix. There are plenty of WAY more interesting films in this genre to waste time with this turkey.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Sorry Richard but you're not convincing anyone

Author: newton_kerry from United Kingdom
26 July 2013

I was hoping for much more from this film Richard Greer usually plays his parts well but I think he isn't cut out as a grizzled retired CIA agents, he just lacks conviction. His character was straight out of any old movie with the same role except he was very bland and almost one dimensional.

His only saving grace was that he appears to have a soft side for his side kick Geary which later becomes clear the reason why.

The plot lacks pace especially cutting back and forth with flash backs that don't make sense, and to be honest I didn't think added anything to the telling of the story in fact I felt spoilt it to the point I predicted the ending with the exception of one twist.

The ending is surprising but doesn't really explain Geary's theory about Cassius. There are a lot of holes in the plot and the identity of Cassius is revealed early on, the question then is do you carry on to find out why he does what he does, or turn it off. I opted to carry on watching but only halfheartedly.

Shame I like Richard Greer but not convinced he's cut out play this particular role.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

More like a high school production

Author: Ted Gottis from United States
29 April 2012

I am a Richard Gere fan and have high hopes for Topher Grace, but this film did neither of them justice.

The movie has a promising premise. Cold War Soviet spy on the move. Soon, however the staged scenarios and attempts at surprise fall so short they become comical. I had to laugh when Martin Sheen is buying coffee and is standing conspicuously to the left as if, yes, Richard Gere pops in the space on the right to a "startled" Martin Sheen. The whole movie was done the same way. You knew what was going to happen before it happened.

Without continuing to bash this film, I would ask Hollywood to give their viewers a little credit. Make the plot and sequence surprises actual surprises, not ones that are contrived and unbelievable. Remember, we want to believe.

*

*

The True Nature of Sacrifice

Author: Ali_Catterall from London, England
1 September 2006
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Prior to this release, Neil LaBute had this to say about the 1973 original: "It's surprising how many people say it's their favorite soundtrack. I'm like, come on! You may not like the new one, but if that's your favorite soundtrack, I don't know if I *want* you to like my film."

Neil, a word. You might want to sit down for this too; as Lord Summerisle says, shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees bent. See, Neil, the thing about the original, is that Paul Giovanni's soundtrack is one of the most celebrated things about it. The filmmakers themselves consider it a virtual musical. Along with Richard and Danny Thompson, and Bert Jansch, it practically kick-started the 1970s Folk New Wave. To undermine it is akin to imagining Jaws without John Williams. Or The Buddy Holly Story without Buddy Holly. The result's one of the most breathtakingly arrogant, pointless remake of a British cult classic since Sly Stallone's Get Carter.

The original had apparently left Nicolas Cage "disturbed for about two weeks." So disturbed, during that fortnight's window, that he pitched the idea of re-imagining one of the most nuanced films about inter-faith struggle ever devised to a writer-director previously known for his wholly unsubtle depictions of male chauvinism. It's like some parlor game: what would you get if Sam Peckinpah took on Bambi? Or Gaspar "Irreversible" Noe remade Love, Actually?(Actually, I'd quite like to see that). Unfortunately, someone took this parlor game seriously: All LaBute's succeeded in doing is ripping out the original's guts while saddling it with his own gormless Sex War preoccupations.

After failing to rescue a little girl and her mum from a fatal car crash, Cage's highway patrolman spirals into a medicated torpor. Then he receives a letter from ex-fiancée Willow Woodward (this one trades on name-homages for kudos), now living on the private island community of Summersisle – that extra 's' stands for 'superfluous' – and wants Edward to help locate missing daughter Rowan.

Summersisle, it transpires, is a female-dominated joint, conceived as a haven for oppressed womenfolk and refugees from the Salem witch trials. Here, the matriarchs observe the Olde ways, and the few males are near-mute breed-mules. It's like Lilith Fair on a grand scale. Summersisle's main export is honey – a symbolic and literal headache for Edward, as he's allergic to bees. "Beekeepers!" cries Edward. "They seem to be everywhere on this island!" Well, that's probably because Summersisle's main export is honey.

While making his investigations, Edward overhears of an oncoming Mayday ritual called "the time of death and rebirth". He discovers the previous year's crop failed; nearly dies from bee stings; and eventually comes to the conclusion (a conclusion which admittedly couldn't be more obvious if the locals had tattooed a timetable of events on the back of his hands) that Rowan will be burnt alive in a pagan rite to ensure a bountiful harvest. He also meets the Queen Bee of the hive, Sister Summersisle (Burstyn), who has her own plans for him involving the eponymous Wicker Man: "The drone must die."

First, the good news: any concerns Cage would be airlifted from the Wicker Man's flaming jaws at the last minute by a fleet of black CIA helicopters can be laid to rest: he toast. That's about it for the good news. "This is a story whose chapters were carefully written" intones Burstyn with sublime irony. Though retaining the basic cat-and-mouse premise (and credits typography), what's left subjects the original to a scorched-earth policy.

Crucial to Shaffer's original screenplay was that his Christian copper, in accordance with ritual, came to the island of his own free will – and most importantly, was a virgin; the perfect sacrifice. In reducing matters to a sexual, as opposed to a religious power-struggle, LaBute presents the flimsiest of qualifiers for a harvest sacrifice. By the time Cage has worked out he was the bait, you honestly couldn't care less.

And Cage is one of the very worst things in this; a lumbering, drawling donkey – an arsewit whose tongue seems just slightly too big for his mouth. "Goddamit" he moans after he hallucinates a drowned Rowan, with all the mental torment of a man who's set his morning alarm clock half-an-hour too early. One hopes it's his character's frequent reliance on pills that has reduced him to this state – alternately fatigued, then full of preppy, overbearing vim. If so, it's a fine portrayal of an undistinguished IQ addled with anti-depressants. If not…it doesn't bear thinking about. As Willow, the saucer-eyed Beahan is similarly dreadful, presenting her lines as if in competition with Cage for the…most…half-hearted…delivery. While Burstyn entirely lacks the mercurial menace to convince. Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf?

Every element that made the original great – the lovingly detailed depictions of folk customs, the ingenious score, the dialogue (Lord Summerisle's majestic "You did it beautifully!" has been replaced with the rather less attractive "You did it excellently!" Whoah, dude!) – have been substituted for a meandering battle-of-the-sexes thriller with occasional crash-bang wallop. Namely, walloping women; this is a LaBute flick, after all. Cage's Sister Beech bashing is just one of the more embarrassing episodes; impotent little men will be hooting with glee at how them uppity hippie chicks finally got what was comin' to 'em, hyuk hyuk.

The closing coda sees the whole rotten mess collapsing under the weight of genre cliché: in a bar, two guys run into a couple of Summersisle maidens on shore leave, flirty-fishing for fresh martyrs. At the moment of their successful pick-up, you half expect the women to turn round and give an exaggerated wink and a thumbs up to the camera.

One more thing: keen credit watchers may have noticed that films sporting an unusually high producer count (anything up to 10) tend to be Not Much Cop. The Wicker Man has 18 producers in total.

469 out of 640 people found the following review useful:

The Worst Movie I've EVER Seen

Author: bshopdan from PA
1 September 2006

This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.

From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.

"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.

I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.

433 out of 613 people found the following review useful:

The biggest waste of 2 hours of my life...

Author: himebishojo from United States
1 September 2006

The Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.

The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.

I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.

At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.

I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.

Grrrr!

358 out of 497 people found the following review useful:

Time that you will never get back.

Author: (mathesonmoore) from Canada
31 August 2006

Unfortunately, this movie does no credit whatsoever to the original. Nicholas Cage, fairly wooden as far as actors go, imbues the screen with a range of skill from, non-plussed to over the top. The supporting cast is no better.

The plot stays much the same as the original in terms of scene progression but is far worse. Not enough detail is given to allow the audience to by into what is being sold. It turns out it's just a bill of poor goods. Disbelief cannot be suspended, nor can a befit of a doubt be given. The only saving aspect of this film is that it is highly visual, as the medium requires, and whomever scouted the location should be commended.

There was much laughter in the audience and multiple boos, literally, at the end.

Disappointed! Wait for the original to come on television, pour a whiskey and enjoy.

294 out of 406 people found the following review useful:

Definitely pass on this movie

Author: xiaoyuboo from United States
1 September 2006

I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.

I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me.

Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.

Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.

253 out of 371 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst films I've ever seen

Author: kitty harvey from United Kingdom
1 September 2006

This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.

There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.

201 out of 268 people found the following review useful:

Appalling

Author: simon-champion from United Kingdom
1 September 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.

165 out of 238 people found the following review useful:

one of the years worst movies

Author: drummerofgash from United States
2 September 2006

what ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!

Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.

Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD.

119 out of 157 people found the following review useful:

Awful, barely coherent, vague rehash of an all-time classic

Author: the_unutterable from United Kingdom
1 September 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.

The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.

I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).

93 out of 133 people found the following review useful:

Neil Labute should have his member slathered in honey and laced with bees (Spolier Alert)....

Author: blakndn from United States
2 September 2006

Everyone else who has commented negatively about this film have done excellent analysis as to why this film is so bloody awful. I wasn't going to comment, but the film just bugs me so much, and the writer/director in particular. So I must toss in my hat to join the naysayers.

I saw the original "Wicker Man" and really loved the cornucopia of music, sensuality, paganism in a modern world, and the clash of theological beliefs. This said, I am not part of the crowd that thinks remakes of great movies shouldn't be done. For example, I liked the original 1950's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", but equally enjoyed the 1978 remake. Both films can stand on their own. Another example is "The Thing". The original, as campy as it looks compared to today's standards, has a lot to be proud of in the 1982 remake with Kurt Russell (my all time favorite horror movie). So that small minority of people who like "The Wicker Man" re-make can not accuse me of dissing this piece of crap just because it's a re-make.

This film solidified for me Neil LaBute's sexism and misogynistic tendencies. It also made me wonder how executives, wanting to make a serious thriller, would green light a product that is so anti-female. There are too many scenes of Cage hitting women just because he's frustrated with them thwarting his investigation of a missing girl. would he react like this off the island in other cases where suspects aren't forthcoming? The original created a society in which men and women are equal participants in a Goddess based religion. The threat to the main character came from everyone, male and female. There was no sexual hierarchy.

The metaphor of bees, drones etc was a bit heavy handed and convenient ("The drone must die!"), especially when Cage's character has bee allergies. I kept wondering why the men on the island didn't fight back and use mere physicality to stop these women from treating them like grunts. These were not women with special supernatural powers, and half of them seemed to be pregnant, the other half old and fat, and the rest girls and thin blonde waifs, so if the men really wanted to escape they could do what most men do when they hate women. Physically dominate them. There didn't seem to be any guns or weapons beyond cutting tools to hold them if they were unhappy. But if they were content being drones, why make them unable to speak? They could be used as a threat to Cage because they will defend the community. They are drones because Neil LaBute seems to believe that a society ran by women would leave men castrated. (That movie was made already. "The Stepford Wives" anyone?) Classic symptoms from men who are afraid of what may happen if women got their sh*t together and were truly equal citizens.

The problem with the man-hating female society is that it makes uninteresting movie viewing and creates unintentional humor when Cage starts knocking women out. I belief LaBute should've left the society an egalitarian one, kept the sexuality and uninhibited lasciviousness, and pushed buttons of discomfort in regards to the children on that island. No one likes pedophiles or children to be sexually exploited. So how would a cop react if he saw lewd acts performed by adults with children around? There would be a logical mental leap that these children are abused, thus, an urgency created to save the missing child and get help for all the children. LaBute has said he created the fiancé and daughter story thread to give Cage's character an incentive to search. I don't think you need that. Any child abused will make an adult react to save them. The irony of course would be that the child Cage "saves" ultimately brings him death.

The dialogue was contrived and campy. The whole third act was hilarious. The audience I saw it with guffawed (and later booed at the end). I just thought the movie started off wrong when the letter arrived written in the fancy handwriting and all the flashbacks cutting into to show how wounded Cage is. We don't need that. Just show him arriving on the island for an investigation of a missing child. Most of us in America have seen "Law & Order" and other cop procedurals. We come into the movie as if we are Cage's partner solving a mystery.

So much potential...wasted. Neil LaBute, stick to talking head pictures for people who enjoy your male angst-ridden plays and flicks of that sort. Stay with your own company of men. Leave the thrillers for people who understand thrillers. Here is your jar of honey. I'll watch that.

Me suis franchement barbé durant ce film...

*

*

Negative portrayal of both NYC teachers and inner-city students

Author: amygrrl77 from United States
25 August 2006
 

As a NYC public school teacher and a black woman, I know not where to begin with the faults of this film. It is yet another portrayal of the great white emancipator who sacrifices himself to teach the poor colored children of the inner city. He disregards the civil rights curriculum provided him by a black principal in favor of his own agenda. In each of the teaching scenes, he is presented as the fountain of knowledge, giving the children all they need to know about the world. He discusses change with them, nay, revolution, but the students themselves are never depicted as empowered. With exception to Shareeka Epps, who is probably changed for the worse, the children are pawns in his power play to "change the world."

This brings me to the relationship between Gosling and Epps. She has but one positive black adult in her life (her, of course, overworked and underpaid single-parent mother) and yet she is most affected by a junkie, white male teacher, who adopts a "black-cent" and coaches girls' basketball. She, in essence, becomes his mammy, caring for him and nursing him even after he calls her -- a 13-yr. old -- a "bitch" and grinds on her during a school dance. The "mammy" itself makes an appearance in her drug-dealer, pseudo-big brother's home and its significance is never explained to her, perhaps because the writers themselves don't understand it. Or maybe they do, and "Half-Nelson" is their ode to it.

All in all, this film perpetuates the theory that liberal white teachers are doing children of color favors by "sacrificing their ideals" (as stated in the "Story" section of the official website) to teach in inner-city schools. It is riddled with inaccuracies about teaching in NYC, i.e. his being alone in a school; teachers are NEVER left alone in schools, particularly after school events. It also perpetuates the theory that inner-city children are surrounded by exclusively negative influences, from family members to neighbors, and are waiting for someone to step in and rescue them from themselves.

Critics who believe this film is inspirational need to examine themselves and what they really think about their relationships with and responsibilities to blacks.

17 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

i walked out, and i was not alone.

Author: richardcharlesandrews from United Kingdom
26 April 2007

All the hype surrounding this film has yet again come from the USA. All the 10/10 reviews on this site are from Americans. What is wrong with you people? How could ANYONE find this entertainment? America, STOP! making these dreadful, pointless, boring, pretentious films. There must be one American person who thought this film was a joke? I honestly thought it was a pi**-take? In fact Iam pretty sure it was. The characters were pathetic and the relationships totally unrealistic. Are we to believe a junkie could hold a job down as a teacher. Awful camera work (no its not cool and was not cool 5 years ago). Acting? What acting? Give me a break.

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Much ado about nothing

Author: catsklgd1 from United States
22 August 2008

I don't know what these other people are smoking (inside joke), but clearly they are not thinking straight. This movie drags on and on and on and on and....

The dialogue is sparse, and rather poorly conceived. The bright light is the little black girl who delivers a truly gritty performance. Gosling is totally wasted, and appears perplexed throughout the film. I just don't get what all the fuss is about this movie.

Much ado about nothing. I'm sick to death of films that preach to their audience about the effects of the Vietnam war, Republican politics, etc. Weak people fail, and the central character in this film is just that...weak.

A really boring film...

Author: ICanNeverThinkOfAGoodUsername from United Kingdom
18 September 2014

This film looks interesting and it seems like it will be good. In reality it's an extremely boring film. There is no character development... You barely find anything out about the characters. As someone else mentioned what you know at the start is literally what you know at the end.

I wouldn't recommend this film because there is nothing to it. You gain nothing from watching this film. I expected something to happen but nothing did...

It's a long film which drags on and nothing happens. You would expect to see some sort of development - not with this film.

5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Pointless downer

Author: greenskate from United States
30 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Pointless.

If you liked Ironweed, Leaving Las Vegas, Candy, and Trainspotting, you'll love this pointless downer.

The lesson of this movie seems to be that it's all hopeless. Drug addiction will prevail and drug running will out.

If you're hoping that everything will turn out alright or something at least will improve, give this one a miss. This is one of those movies you get to the end of and feel like you're left hanging. "And the point of that wasssssssssss?"

It's just a downer.

37 out of 59 people found the following review useful:

half nelson needs t o be reexamined

Author: DjohnsonC-3 from United States
26 August 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have been reading many reviews about this film for weeks so I was anxious to see it. I was hoping for something new.

There seems to be a very prominent but hard to overlook attraction by young, talented, new white filmmakers taking up the subjects of urban black and Latino lives as fodder for either liberal expression, societal outrage or possible fetishism. From "Maria Full of Grace", "GirlsTown", "Everyday People" (HBO), "Quinceanera" now "Half Nelson", we have story lines looking at underprivileged black and Latino folk through a prism that seems to be very similar. In these stories there is a little sadness, some anthropological observation, a fair amount of non judgmental characterizations and realism but as independent and daring as these films claimed to be, they are no better than watching "Dangerous Minds", a studio film of a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad at you. Most black filmmakers seem to be preoccupied these days with the three p's-Tyler Perry, Tyrese and taking the money so it's hard to complain when other filmmakers find the stories of black and Latino culture such a rich place to be.

So here comes "Half Nelson" as the latest in this stream. I really wanted to like this one but it falls into the same unfortunate traps as the others. I'm watching this film and seeing the absent of any black adult with any speaking part with a positive image for this young girl to benefit from. Ryan Gosling is a gifted and natural artist and Epps is quite good and real but the choices the writer and director make are choices that show where they are coming from. Dan brings in the light because the lives of the kids in his class are in the dark. With Epps' mom working so much are we to believe Epps is not loved? Hard to know. Her father is not around but apparently without a voice or point of view and dogged by her mother. Her brother is in prison but he doesn't seem to be evolved enough to realize that he must do differently when he gets out. And then there's Mackie's character, a good guy but he's selling product in the community. The man's a businessman but not quite the positive role model you'd like to have any kid look up to.

The polyglot nature of our world gives us all configurations of relationships in how people find family, opportunity and friendship but I never found what Dan is going through in his addiction particularly profound or revealing. Sure he's high half the time, sure he's aimless and passionate like a lot of aimless and educated young white and black folk who don't know what to do and how to affect change in this world but when you make a movie and lay your hero in a world he knows little about, give the world a little more credit. Switch the situation around. take out the drugs and go back thirty years and you have "To Sir with Love". The only difference, Poitier's character had a chip on his shoulder not a monkey on his back and the kids he was dealing with and Lulu's character particularly didn't want to take that chip off, she wanted to learn from him. I don't know what this 13 year old learns from Dan. Maybe she's learned how to take care of a guy who needs someone to take care of him, which really sets her up for an unfortunate job title in her future. We don't know what she dreams about for her future. We have no idea. She sure has not learned much about the civil rights movement in what is shown in the film. He is trying to impress on the kids to expand their minds in a semi Socratic educational style but these kids are sponges and a point of view from a teacher is not actually teaching. I want to know the filmmaker's point in making this film. I'm really curious. That's my two cents.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

One to avoid

Author: georg-60 from United Kingdom
5 December 2011

Half Nelson is about a history teacher in an inner city NY school who is somehow ever so cool because he really engages children and all the other teachers are so hopeless that it can be no surprise that these kids are so disinterested in everything. If only we had more teachers like that. How does he do it ? Well, he makes history really interesting by talking about change, and big ideas clashing, and other hackneyed soundbites all the time but they never seem to learn any facts or events because this would be way too boring. He is also so cool that he has to walk around all day with a really bemused look on his face, you know, this look of the only sane person in a sea of fools. You also need to understand that when he is not heroically helping children, he is a drug addict and gets up to all sorts of things that are usually considered as not good for you. You will wonder how he can sustain this habit and his teaching at the same time, but I guess that this is actually the only part of the film that makes some sense because his lessons never look as if he has done any preparation for them, but that he rather makes them up as he goes along - lots of phoneyism and no substance. Now, he also gets to meet this really street wise black girl who really takes care of him although he offers her nothing much in return and there is no obvious explanation why she seems to like this idiot who is not even particularly nice to her. According to some other reviews of this film, they somehow seem to help each other but this is strange because nothing in their lives is going anywhere. If you like that sort of thing and films without plot, dialog, likable characters or anything of interest to speak of, then this film is for you, otherwise best to avoid.

6 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Pointless

Author: djdiabolikal from United States
19 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was completely pointless. It had no moral, no climax, no resolution, no anything. It was well acted, and I found myself interested in what would happen to the characters, only nothing does. They are really no different then they are at the start. All the classroom scenes are the same, it's like he takes 5 classes to make a simple point. Opposites, and how they push against each other to create change, is the supposed metaphor for this picture, except there is no pushing tension, and as far as I can tell nothing changes. I take that back the only thing that changes is that the teacher is unable to effect the girls life in a profound enough manner as to prevent her from becoming a drug dealer, oh wait he DIDN'T change her life. I think this movie is somehow meant to disturb us, like it's so hard to come to grips with the idea that all drug addicts aren't all black, and from the ghetto and broken homes. This movie is suppose to open you eyes to the truth that middle class white people can end up on drugs. WOW I never knew that was possible. The teacher and the girl had a good dynamic, but again there is now real suspense or tension to their relationship, there are slight hints that maybe people think the relationship is wrong, but nothing comes of it or the relationship. Every time you think something is going to get serious and the climax will come, the plot manages to just keep going in this straight boring line. I was like OK, here go when he confronted the drug dealer about the girl, but then the drug dealer, who is clearly a nice guy, offers him a drink. Probably the worst thing to me about this movie is how it seems to have a very liberal view on drugs. There is only one scene where the drugs he takes seems to have a negative impact on his life, when he goes to the other teachers house and almost rapes her, other than that the worst that happens is he talks about brainy topics to the dumb sluts he picks up at the bar. Then after all the non-suspense the movie just ends out of nowhere, probably the worst end to a movie I have ever seen. I only give this movie 2 stars because like I said, I do think the acting was pretty good.

4 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

watch out for the hand-held camera!

Author: jonnyss from United States
30 October 2006

after reading the reviews, i was eager to see this film, so i was quite disappointed when i had to walk out. after 45 minutes, mostly spent looking at my knees and peeking up occasionally, the nausea and headache became too great.

i understand that only about 30% of film-goers get seasick from hand-held cameras, but, hey, i suppose the other 70% will get a different impression of the film. some movies use a hand-held camera to follow a running character or to show the view out of a moving car. this film uses a shaky camera to watch a man sitting on a couch.

in addition the audio was rather difficult to understand in places, so when i was looking at my knees, i could not understand all the dialogue. sorry! i hear it's a good film if you're able to watch it.

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Biggest Let Down of the Year

Author: Hint523 from USA
16 May 2007

Like The New World last year, this movie was the biggest let down of the year. Here's why:

First of all, the premise was intriguing, and I wanted to see this movie really badly. While watching it, I kept saying that it would get better soon, that the premise was still building. But as the clock ticked, nothing was happening. It's about a guy who's a teacher that snorts as well, and what he does. However, he just hangs around, and doesn't do anything. At the end a bit of a resolution happens, but it isn't really anything. While Shareeka Epps, the young actress in the film, looks like she has potential, she is given few lines and all she does is WATCH her teacher get worse and ask him to stop futilely.

Finally it ended and I knew I didn't enjoy. Then it took me a second: what is the title about? Nobody is named Nelson, nobody gets put in a Half Nelson, and it seems off. People claim it is a metaphor for the character's situation, which in my opinion makes no sense because all his problems are self inflicted. That doesn't make sense.

Skip this one, it's a let down, and a movie that didn't need to be made.

*

*

Cinema 101: How *Not* To Make a Screwball Comedy

Author: TJ McCarthy from United States
28 April 2009
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.

The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.

I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.

If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.

Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.

Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Longest 2 hours of my life

Author: Corinna_Bella from Australia
6 May 2009

I was surprised to see the very generous rating on IMDb. This honestly is the worst film i have watched in my entire life. It was so slow and lifeless that i actually started making up other stories in my head to help make the time pass faster.

Im not a high maintenance film watcher - ill happily sit through the most basic Rom com to an espionage film with constant twists and turns, to ... well you get the picture. My tastes are well rounded and easy to please.

Renee looked like she had just sucked on a lemon in every scene. Her accent was terrible and acting worse. Im a huge fan of Bridget Jones and its tongue in cheek humour and her good portrait of the character so had some expectations (not particularly high) of how this movie would be. It didn't even deliver on those moderate expectations.

If you have nothing to do this afternoon i suggest you save your $10 and watch paint dry or something equally more exciting than sitting through this film

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Give this a wide berth

Author: paul (micewillplay) from Wales UK
10 June 2009

This movie is absolutely awful. I suffered over an hour of this brain numbing rubbish thinking to myself it will get better. well guess what..it didn't!!! Even if you see this free of charge don't take it! It's like water torture. The acting is... well what acting is all I can say. I have given it one out of ten out of pure sympathy. Is it me or is George Clooney completely overrated, admittedly he has made one or two good movies but on a whole. I bought this movie as I like sports movies especially ones with a decent storyline, so you can imagine how disappointing it was to find out what a mistake I had made. I have seen the scathing reviews for Radio (Cuba Gooding Jr)but that looks like an academy winner compared to Leatherheads.

11 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Painfully Tedious

Author: mcjohnnyb from United States
5 April 2008

Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.

This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.

Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.

The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Just a waste of time, a major disappointment

Author: mikebesant from United Kingdom
15 April 2008

I went to the cinema with high expectations of seeing something a little different from the normal fare. An old fashioned screwball comedy with a stellar cast. What a major disappointment. What a waste of talent. This movie was just tedious. nothing interesting happened. The cast really looked like that they were working hard to make something of the non-plot and comedic script which forgot the comedy. This was a real shame. On the plus side the movie looked great with atmospheric colours and the crowd scenes looked sensational. It also benefited from an excellent soundtrack. But I did not care for any of the characters. Clearly when this was being pitched there was a contrived effort to intertwine several stories creating tension and humour with the potential for love conquering all. At the end of the day, this was a mess. Without wishing to sound like some professional "out of new ideas", they should have spent some more time and money on the script and a little less on the impressive, but ultimately wasted, special effects. Go spend Your money on something else.

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

I didn't like it at all...

Author: FireFL5 from United States
13 April 2008

Normally I so enjoy the actors in this movie...could not believe how bad it was. What a disappointment!The comedy was so slapstick and the story line so predictable....not to mention the acting just wasn't that good. Two of the three stars played their "typical" roles ...while the others were respectable performances. The historical time was well referenced...that is the most positive thing I can say about this film. We almost walked out it was so boring. I didn't hear any positive comments at the end from anyone else in the audience either. We were almost out the door when the "wedding" scene came up on the screen. I am afraid many will not see it as they will be in a hurry to get out the door. Like I said...we were very disappointed in the film...and to be honest....George C....since he was the director and star. I know he would understand since he played quarterback in a lot of the film...they get the glory if you win and the negatives if you lose. I am afraid he lost with this film!

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Dreadful from start to finish

Author: robertallenandersonjr from United States
22 April 2008

Leatherheads was a very boring movie from the very beginning. I had a hard time staying in the theatre for the whole movie. This is a movie where you mostly hate it or love it and I strongly didn't like it. I thought the acting was very good and they were fun to watch for older people. I guess I mostly didn't like it because I am younger. It was just way to slow moving and never picked up. The messages were saying its okay to cheat and lie. George Clooney was just a cheater the whole movie when he played football and never changed. The whole movie had like about three laughs. The laughs they did have were small. I mostly didn't like how it took place in the 1920's. It was very real and shows you how football really started. The romance was very confusing and pretty boring. Everyone in this movie was very selfish and wanted everything for themselves. The story was pretty much not even about football. It revolved around war and other stuff. One more thing is that the whole movie was all sarcasm. So if you like sarcasm you will probably like this movie. Overall this movie was very boring and a waste of money.

9 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

I sat there like a stone ...

Author: DSStarsiak from United States
11 April 2008

I thought this movie was going to be good. It absolutely wasn't, despite the Oscar-winning lead actors. I may have laughed once, and I never heard anybody else in the theater laughing. Renee Zellweger's pancake make-up was very unbecoming. Everybody seems to be trying so hard in this movie, running around in imitation of slapstick but not pulling it off. I think perhaps the movie must've sounded good in development, but something got lost in translation. Were the roaring 20's really like this? I think not. Everything seems a tad artificial. Randy Newman's score was annoying. The film is in sepia tones, just like every other movie that takes place in the 20's or 30's. There's just not that much originality here.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

George belongs behind the camera

Author: govendsa from South Africa
26 December 2008

I thought I give this movie a try for no apparent reason other than the video store didn't have any nice movies left. I'm not a fan of George Clooney or Rene Zellweger but I decided to give it a shot and now would like a refund. I tried sitting through the first 15 minutes but was so bored that I opted to do housework instead and I hate housework. There's no chemistry between any of the cast. George is looking his age, what almost in his fifties and so is Rene. She doesn't look all that good. I think this movie would have being better if George played a talent scout instead of one of the players. He just didn't fit the role. Rene was miscast. John was about okay. As usual there's absolutely NO chemistry between Clooney and the leading lady. The man should really consider staying behind the camera and maybe even getting some lessons on directing but he should really quit acting and leave it to the fresh and upcoming actors like Chace Crawford, Shia Labeouf and start acting his age and stop wishing that he was in the league of his other co-stars like Pitt, Damon etc.

7 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Leatherheads-Reel Geezers

Author: hfgirl from United States
6 April 2008

Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs