*

*

Bloody terrible !

Author: janus-20 from United Kingdom
30 June 2011
 

I'm of a forgiving nature, especially when it comes to sci-fi, special effects driven, blockbuster movies. I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, i even enjoyed the last Indy movie, i gave G.I Joe a decent review....G.I Joe, yeah, that G.I Joe.I cant go easy on this film, because Warner Bros deserve this, they are currently at the bottom of a deep pit when it comes to what is arguably the most popular current genre at the summer box office, super hero movies.

Marvel are wiping the floor with them, Superman had muted return, yes the Batman films are superb, yes Warners/DC turn out fantastic animated movies. But this Green Latern movie was going to show they can do more than just Batman well, it was going to be, hopefully a step towards a Justice League movie, one day, a less well known DC superhero, introduced to the non geek public, to open the floodgates to the larger DC universe than just Superman and Batman.

Well with all that riding on it, if this is the best they can do, then don't bother. This was one whopping mess of a film, Batman and Robin made more sense and yes i really have considered that statement, its nearly two weeks since i saw the movie, so this is a considered opinion, not a knee jerk one in the heat of the moment.

The characters were characterless, they were'nt funny, engaging, sympathetic, there was no emotional resonance in their situations. eg When Hal returns to Earth, after his initial visit to Oa, the scenes just drag where we are urged to feel his sense of dissonance with himself at not excepting the challenge he has been presented with.

I felt nothing, no sympathy, no empathy, nothing, it was all intercut at this stage with the origin of the Hector Hammond character. The scenes of Hal moping, are set against the scenes with us finding out that Hammond, already a creepy, sullen character before his head swells, doesn't get on with Dad, who himself is grease ball politician.

Remember Spider-Man 2 where Alfred Molina's Doc Ock had a pathos to his story which created a sense of sympathy for him and how that made for such a layered and involving villain, none of that here thank you very much.

The entire "i hate you dad" routine is old, old hat, but something fresh or dramatic could have been made of it, but instead the "i'm sensitive and dad's overbearing" tentpole is hammered into the ground, aided by awful dialogue and choppy scene structure.

The editing (amazing considering it was Stuart Baird) in these middle scenes was staccato in tone and numbing, it earned no sympathy for either character and therefore sabotaged any hope of an emotional pay off at the end of the film.

Superman's first appearance on Earth in the Donner version had you cheering, as Superman saves our feisty, likable damsel in distress Lois Lane, from a nasty helicopter crash, in front of a diverse social cross section of the good people of Metropolis.

Green Lantern's first appearance on Earth leaves you cold, as he saves an already established grease ball politician, from a nasty helicopter crash, in front of a gathering of over-achievers and posh-knobs who frankly you couldn't give a tinkers cuss about.

My abiding memory of the entire Hammond sub-plot is Peter Sarsgaard holding his head in his hands and moaning, which is ironic as i joined him in this action at numerous points.Most unforgivable of all even the action scenes were flat and lifeless and when considering what Hal's character can do with his ring, thats just not acceptable.

On the up side, Oa was very impressive, there are some good effects and Ryan Reynolds and Mark Strong do their best to carry it off, but they are let down by other badly handled elements.Mum always said: "If you've got nothing good to say, say nothing at all!", and mum's usually right, but in this case it cost me £15, so sorry Mum, i'm speaking my Brains !!

Author: Sam Fenn from United Kingdom
2 July 2011

This film was terrible. I could not believe they've picked Ryan Reynolds to play Green Lantern, he belongs in rom-coms. And that is what he almost turned this into, the comedy played far too big a part in this. What little faith I had in Reynolds as playing this role was shattered very quickly, he simply is not made for serious movies. Though this film isn't exactly serious, it isn't exactly a comedy either.

Mainly though, the story line was completely flawed. The whole thing just seemed like bits of 'filler' taken from other films and clumped together. Nothing was properly explained, like, why didn't the evil guy have a body? Why was he telekinetic if he didn't have a stupid ring? Why is fear yellow? Whenever they mentioned the yellow power of fear I felt like I was watching kids play with action figures making up a stupid story off the top of their heads. And the fact that all Green Lantern needed to do was say the 'vow' then become super powerful and cunning to kill this thing? Being a superhero movie I was hoping for more Earthly heroics. It was just ridiculous.

The whole immortal thing was stupid as well. Seemed again like they just couldn't come up with an idea, so they just thought 'ah whatever, a load of unoriginal aliens sat in really high seats at the top of a really high building who have infinite knowledge but then get proved wrong. That sound okay?'. There was just not enough detail to any aspect of this film.

There was genuinely nothing I enjoyed about this film, being a teenager lets me sort of enjoy a film if there's good fighting or action in it, even if I know the film is awful. Like 300. But this, simply offered me nothing. Absolutely awful. Save your money.

Author: Sunny Kanagi from United States
20 June 2011

This is one of the worst superhero movie I've ever seen...

I had enough of the bad-a$$ attitude of the hero, the sad love story between the hero and his lover, experiencing the awesomeness after getting the power... haven't we all seen this in Spiderman or Superman??

The villain was shown like an idiot who is defeated by our hero in what was like a 2 minute climax(when all the experienced and smart Green Lanterns of the Universe fail to) And these Green Lanterns arrive after the hero defeats the villain, just like the Police in any Hollywood movie.The Special Effects was so stupid and childish, even a 3 year old would mock this movie.

Acting wise Peter Sarsgaard was good. Blake Lively was pretty. Ryan Reynolds carried one expression on his face in the entire movie, he almost made Twilight actors look Oscar worthy. Tim Robins was wasted in the movie. The other Green Lanterns were hardly present.

If you want to save yourself from anger and frustration, then please avoid this movie. The critics were right to mock this movie..this movie maybe for hardcore comic fans.. Rest all watch Kung Fu Panda 2 or Hangover 2 again....

Author: magnusoi from Norway
31 October 2011

Ryan Reynolds as an all-American superhero could've worked if it wasn't for the terrible script and useless attempts to charm the audience with goofy humor and stereotype lines. If you're really into the comics world, you might give this movie a chance... otherwise, STAY CLEAR! It's not worth spending 150 minutes of your time on such utter crap. The acting is not the worst, but the storyline and all the cliché makes it hard to watch. You'll find yourself waiting for the end, or wanting to fall asleep. It might just make "the worst movie of the year". A total disappointment for any superhero-movie-lover, and especially for those who don't even love this genre.

Author: loufalce from United States
16 June 2011

This is the 4th. superhero movie this year {Green Hornet, X Men, Thor,so far-not including Captain America and the worst. Total dud misfires from the first frame. A cocky test pilot-whose father was killed in an aircraft crash somehow gets to be a guardian of the universe after a strange green light shines on him. Next thing you know, he has to defend the world from bad evildoers who are much more interesting than the title character. Ryan Reynolds is fairly likable but he seems more appropriate in a show like "Glee" rather than in the title role.

Although he tries his one dimensional character really shows no depth, even in the scenes with his lover. The CGI effects are standard issue, and you've probably seen them a million times before. The trouble with this movie is that its just sooooo ordinary. There is absolutely nothing in it to lift it above a less than mediocre level, and the story line can be somewhat hard to follow. Before my review gets pulled due to "abuse", heed my advice and avoid the multiplex showing this disaster. Yes, I know its supposed to be based on a comic book, but even comic books can sometimes show some character development, intelligence, and try to portray their stories in a more realistic and believable way.

Unfortunately, this film does not. It will just get lost in the shuffle of superhero overkill and fade from the scene after it predictably makes a fortune on its first weekend. It will be on DVD by summer's end. If you must see it, wait until then. Not worth your time or money, but don't be too surprised if the producers try to "franchise" it and milk it for all its worth. A sad fact in todays Hollywood. The fans claim that the critics killed this film , but thats only partially true. It committed suicide just being made.However, this movie could have been much, much worse-it could have had Jennifer Aniston in it.If that was the case, I would have given it a zero star rating!

Author: Ajay Dongaonkar from United Kingdom
23 June 2011

this film is the most unthoughtful dreary and horrific piece of illogical nonsense, nothing makes sense , it looks like something they are trying to bribe you with .... we know its crap so we will stick lots of these special effects that look awful to win you over..... well you didn't ..it was terrible, the only people that seem to like this are comic book fans who always start with i read this comic 20 years ago - IRRELEVANCE ! just because there is a comic book about the green lantern doesn't make the film any better or save it in any way ... its a disaster zone no where near a 6 whoever gave it that are dreaming it isn't worth a single mark ! Director should be hanging himself for this film.... did the people involve actually sit in a premier and say wow yeaa that was great ! fools

Author: commander-cody-30-45711
20 June 2011

OK to start with, i am a big comic fan and Ryan Reynolds is one of my all time favorite actors. So i thought i would love this film. But it sucked big time. There was so much wrong with it i just don't know where to start. The CGI in it was not very well done. The bad guys where awful. The story just dragged on. It felt like it was 4 hours long and i was even thinking of walking out. I feel done that i payed to see this. How can they make a movie this bad when X-Men First Class was well First Class. Please save your money and wait for the DVD. That way after you have watched it, you can use it as a drinks coaster.

Author: airman_1 from Canada
31 March 2012

Not hard to figure out that this movie probably took a bath at the box office. Poor story line and the expected stupidity from an "average Joe" finding out he has super powers. I know its all based off of a comic book superhero, but I found this movie to be too "cartoony". Which is very unfortunate, considering they could have really knocked it out of the park. And at the end...they left it open for a sequel with how Synestro came to be....Sorry guys, I highly doubt there will be a sequel. I seriously question whether this movie even made enough money to cover the cost of the actors in it. Clearly, anyone that watches this movie will be able to tell that the actors in it have been out of work for some time. My advice to Ryan Reynolds...if they do make a sequel...pass on the part. This part made him look like a goof!

Author: brianseaman from Canada
15 October 2011

I watched this last night on "pay per view;" or rather I should say, stopped watching this, at 30 minutes into it, actually. This is one of those films where I am in agreement with critics who trashed it. Ryan Reynolds was "acting" (and I use that term very loosely here)as if he had ingested a few Valium pills. He sleep walked through his scenes, delivering his lines as if he didn't care.

There was no sense of dramatic timing and I found Reynolds' character's transformation into the Green Lantern to be devoid of any semblance of wonder and fun. I couldn't help but compare his bland discovery of his super powers (i.e. enhanced strength and the ability to fly) with Toby McGuire's acting in Spiderman, where he discovers his super powers with a mixture of awe, joy, confusion and even awkwardness. If I am going to watch a badly made movie, at least let it be something so wretchedly bad that watching it gives me nasty, visceral pleasure in jeering at its badness; i.e. something like Battlefield Earth or Show Girls.

Green Lantern, on the other hand, is not one of those "it's so bad, it's good" in a nasty kind of way films. I can't believe this thing grossed over $200 million at the box office. It just shows the power of mass marketing, I guess, in our dumbed down, media saturated society.

Author: disha shah from United States
17 June 2011

this movie has to be the worst of the comic book stories presented in a movie form. Ryan Reynolds is a great actor and I am bit baffled as to why he would even consider doing a film as such, He went from acting with A -list star like Sandra Bullock to non competent actress like Blake who? lively? she was not at all lively, sorry this actress cannot act, she doesn't posses the star like quality like scarlet Johansson, Sandra bullock has, Blake lively is another reason why this movie shocked me, an actress that will beg and go out of her way to get a role that's not up to her level which eventually fail and that was the only thing she has ever convinced me thus far. Bad actress who loves all the wrong attention. the only thing good about this movie is the color green. hopefully no sequel to this movie. Terrible actress with an OK genre made the movie extremely dissatisfying...

*

*

Boring & Completely Unimagined

Author: keithgate from United States
30 March 2004
 

I was dragged to this movie on a couples night out and the only other option in our one-screen theater in our little town was Starsky&Hutch, which only topped this movie because of the likable actors of Stiller and Wilson. Those that continue to sing the acting acclaim of someone like Johnny Depp are in my opinion either infatuated with him as the opposite sex or just simply uninformed about what "good acting" really looks like. Although I hadn't known ahead of time that this was from a Stephen King book, I had my interest peaked when I saw the opening credits.

It did not take long however to wonder why Stephen would let something like this movie end up bearing his name in anyway. I assume the book was better because it would not have had the distraction of watching Johnny Depp. I had leaned over to my wife after the first visit of John Shooter and told her that I wouldn't be surprised if his character didn't really exist. I had kept watching, waiting for the movie to get interesting, but unfortunately they must have run out of time in the movie to squeeze any of the interesting parts in. The movie was so completely predictable and borrowed from so many other good, original movies that I left thinking the producers owed money to lots of other producers of the movies they stole from.

Now before anyone chalks up my comments to someone that just doesn't like Johnny Depp, you would not be COMPLETELY wrong, but I did not dislike Pirates and actually kind of liked him in Sleepy Hollow and did enjoy him in Astronauts Wife...the movie was just BLAH. The only redeaming quality was the shooting of the scenes where he was talking to himself, seeing how far film making has come to be able to put the same person believeably in a scene is pretty neat.

Author: Randall Phillip (monstermonkeyhead@yahoo.com) from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
6 February 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Anyone who cannot not guess who the killer is in the first thirty seconds of this movie must ride the special bus. The guy is freaking talking to himself! Who else could it be? I can't believe I wasted my time on this movie. I watched thinking, "No, him being the killer is just so stupid, it can't be true. Maybe there's some clever twist." Nope. I actually laughed out loud at the idiotic "shock" ending. Johnny Depp, after talking to himself, sees his wife's car pull up. Then all of a sudden his house is magically a mess and the word "shooter" is carved into everything- oh, except for one spot where Johnny Depp is standing where it says "shoot her." Dumb, dumb, dumb. I can hardly believe such garbage got made- especially with such good actors.

Author: ptb-8 from Australia
20 April 2004

I have been groaning at the easily pleased comments here in the IMDb page about what constitutes a good thriller.......please, folks, surely so many of you must have seen a good film before, because this isn't one. Is this a spoiler? is it possible to spoil this film? I know that American Psycho, Identity, Fight Club and all those psycho others are in their respective heads so I guess it's Depp's turn. I believe he wanted to buy a holiday house so the $5m or so he was paid for this bumpkin bonkers fest would do nicely.

Michael Caine seems to make bad films for the same reason....and so seemingly does Geoffrey Rush...how else can anyone rationally explain why big name actors make silly little films like this ...I am assuming they have seen a nice house somewhere and want a quick easy way to buy it without spending the savings. How silly is John Turturro in this...like some bad Bugs Bunny cartoon character. I'll put as he would say it: "Yow stowle mah money".

Author: drgibson from USA
9 February 2005

Avoid this film. It's a nadir for talented actors Depp, Bello, and the rest. Stephen King's thoughtful tale of pressure and madness has a downbeat but appropriate ending. The film has taken that and turned into a sadistic, unbelievable slasher-trash movie. At times the climax is so bad it delves into gory camp. It's easy to understand why this loser tanked at the box office. Also, the plot twists and turns which worked in the novella are delivered in a ham-handed manner that strains the credulity of the viewer. The only positive for this flop is John Tuturro's creepy John Shooter, but he's not in the film long enough to matter.

Author: lisanorkus from Marietta, GA
13 March 2004

Ok, I need to say first of all, Johnny Depp was porteyed the role well. There wasn't any poor acting. There was however a lack of a cohearant thought followed through. Just when there was a well thought out plott starting to happen it was like the screenwriter got tired and just ended it, mid-thought. I like when movies seem to be going in one direction but then end up somewhere else. But there needs to be some flow between the two. This was not the case here. It jumped from one thing to the next and the two weren't tied together. I know how hard it is to write but I also know how easy it is to decide that I don't like how it is going so I will change it and just leave it as is without any segway. Perhaps this was a case of, "there are no poor actors, just bad material for them to work with."

Author: stephanlimanmorocco from United States
15 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have to give this a 1! The Director, David Koepp, is the creator of a show entitled "Hack" How apropos. Mr. Koepp, you are not smarter than the audience. We are not morons. If you are this misanthropic, please pursue something in the non-service field! The concept of the writer creating demons THAT ARE REALLY HIM is the lamest cheesiest hackneyed idea that HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH. It is not "CLEVER". It is not WOW THAT IS SO TRIPPY. It is LAME AND LAZY.

Ever hear of Fight Club? Angel Heart? Fight Club was a stupid idea also - the ending being "oh it's all one person!" but at least that had a good first half. Then to mis-direct a great actor like John Turturro into playing a Southern-accented "bad guy" oooh spooky! makes it even worse. Wait, let me guess, is he playing the "mysterious stranger". Ooh, how mysterious. How stupid do you think audiences are? Actually judging by how high this movie is rated, you may get another movie made, Mr. Koepp. Please next time, imagine someone in your audience has a brain.

Author: heynow1732 from United States
6 February 2005

This movie is slow, unrealistic and most of all BORING !!! This has to be one of the 10 WORST movies I've ever seen in my life. Johnny Depp's character is so unlikeable, that after just 30 minutes I had grown tired of it. There are no sympathetic characters in this movie. With the exception of the Sheriff, all the characters are cold, and downright nasty. In addition, I was offended by the fact that the writers of the movie went out of their way to hide the fact that part of the movie is set in what is supposed to be an area of the Bronx known as Riverdale. They would not even acknowledge that Riverdale, NY is policed by the NYPD. Instead the detective from Riverdale, identifies himself as a member of the Riverdale police department... No such thing. I guess we couldn't be allowed to think that Johnny Depp could ever live in the Bronx. And what was with his weird accent??? This movie is a must NOT see !!!

Author: driker22 from Southampton, NJ
5 July 2004

A writer/director at his worst! Good actors gone awry. Those are the real secrets of "The Secret Window" After reading the script, with its ridiculous plot turns, Johnny Depp must have decided this was the one to just mug his way through -- and he did. The excellent Charles Dutton, Tim Hutton, Len Cariou (someone find better parts for this Broadway legend) couldn't produce a beliveable character among them. I think we know who to blame.

I promise not to tell the "secret" of this movie. Oh, heck, yes I will. It's perfectly awful! IMDB tells me I have to produce ten lines of text. That's easy: "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful! "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful! "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful! "The Secret Window" is perfectly awful!

*

*

I Loathed This Movie

Author: PseudoFritz from sf
16 July 2009
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's not uncommon for me to disagree with the critical and/or popular consensus concerning a given movie, but usually if I dislike a movie that other people admire I can at least recognize what they see in it. But for the life of me I can't read or hear anybody praising this movie as "romantic" or "sensitive" or "touching" without shouting "WHAT THE F*$% IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?" "Two Lovers" is hollow, false, manipulative trash. It trades on the (utterly FALSE) stereotype that depressed, uncommunicative, inert people are "deep" and "tormented" rather than "undermedicated."

Leonard is "artistic" simply because he uses black and white film in his camera? Please. His humiliating neglect of Sandra somehow leads to her saying "You're so kind to me"? You're f%$&*%$ kidding me. Michelle is damaged enough that yeah, she might get herself mixed up with a trainwreck like Leonard. Maybe the filmmakers intended to show us that Sandra was ALSO emotionally crippled, thus explaining why she turns all of his abuse and neglect into "he loves me!" (like Krazy Kat getting hit in the head with Ignatz's bricks, which she receives as kisses), but I missed it.

If Leonard's parents are so blind that they can't see that their son is a basket case, are Sandra's parents also so indifferent to the hell that their daughter will end up enduring, if she marries this man? When Sandra's father asks Leonard point blank "Are you a f#$%-up?", I wanted to shout at the screen "YES HE IS! You know that too, or else you wouldn't be asking!"The only way I could possibly consider this movie to be a success on any level is if I were told that the filmmakers INTENDED us to see Leonard as a monster, and that the audience is INTENDED to view the uncomprehending ignorance of this fact by everyone around him with revulsion.

Author: Leonard Kniffel from United States
5 February 2014

There is absolutely no one to root for in this film, not even the girl who is supposedly in love with suicidal Leonard. You have to wonder what in the world is wrong with her to put up with the treatment that results from the senseless pickle her boyfriend has gotten himself into. It's frustrating to watch a film in which depression, stupidity, and ignorance are treated with so little insight. I walked away from the movie thinking that all the characters deserved a swift kick in the pants. Pathetic people behaving badly does not an artful film make. And there is not a funny or witty line uttered. Oh, there was one moment of sense in the film, although I am sure we were supposed to snicker cynically when the good girlfriend says she likes movies and Leonard asks her to name one; she says, "The Sound of Music." Too bad she didn't go watch it instead of taking up with loser Leonard.

Author: taxfinder from United States
12 February 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was so shallow and so predictable that half way thru I hoped Leanard would jump off the bridge again and finally succeed. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? He doesn't deserve the GOOD girl. He doesn't care about her and he spends so much of his time following the psycho around that you don't care what happens to either of them by the end. The only people I really felt for were his father and mother because he treated them with such disrespect. How immature, grow-up and take some responsibility for yourself. This is Typical Hollywood CRAP where the "ONLY ONE FOR ME" disses you so 2 minutes later you find your next TRUE love. There was so much wrong with this movie that if I started writing about it now Joaquin Phoenix would be old enough for REAL retirement before I would finish. Thank God this is his LAST Film.

Author: buzzbruin from United States
21 February 2009

If Juoaquin Phoenix wants to change to a rapper, it would probably be better for his career. This movie is easily the worst of the year, if not the decade. In a performance that is part Brando, partly incoherent gestures and mumbling throughout Phoenix is terrible. He shows no emotion other than a hang-dog personality and total depression. There is zero humor in the film. It was so boring I wanted to cry myself. His performance should be required watching in all film schools, as a sterling example of bad, bad acting. I urge you not to see or rent this film. Life is too precious to waste two hours on this monumental flop.

My wife and I despise G, Paltrow as an actress and especially her character.. She was herself, and I never for one minute believed she was a real live character. The music was no good either. As for Gray, he should be ashamed for himself, for such a bad effort. As for the plot I reveal no details because it was so illogical and full of giant loopholes that it worth mentioning if only to persuade you as another reason how bad this film was and is. A real stinker!!

Author: carped from Toronto, Canada
12 March 2009

It's one of the most thinly written movies I've seen recently. OK, we get it from the very start that Phoenix's character is depressed and tries to commit suicide. Then for the whole duration of the movie he's trying to act normal, trying to choose between one hot brunette, that's he doesn't love (but doesn't mind banging), and one hot blonde, he's mad about. We never know what are the reasons for his condition, and we don't know anything interesting about him or his two lovers. For the film that tries to be serious psychological drama it's pretty shallow and underwritten. And allusions to Dostoevsky that are dropped by the film-makers and picked up here on the Board are just an attempt to bring some weight and cultural baggage to otherwise vaporous script.

Author: PeterWMC from Canada
5 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The primary male character, Leonard, played by Joaquin Phoenix is uninteresting and portrayed as a complete loser. That two intelligent, attractive women would show the slightest interest in such a hopeless loser is just unbelievable. Are we really meant to believe that these two women would fall head over heels for a grown man who is an idle assistant in his family's dry cleaning business and lives at home? Both at work and at his parent's home he behaves like a spoilt child. When I got to the scene here he is a car with three women on their way for a night out and I watched and listened to interminable singing and juvenile behaviour, I decided enough. If this film had more depth later on, then I wasn't prepared to watch the tedium to get there. What were these fine actors doing in something this bad? This film is tedious, unconvincing garbage.

Author: willmurphy6663 from United Kingdom
29 October 2010

I chose this movie because of its rating and good reviews. However, in the end I had to skip through it as it was so tortuous. Difficult to watch and difficult to understand why Jaochim is doing what he is doing. It wasn't funny and I don't feel it had the deep meaning that other reviews have alluded to.It could have been a lovely film - great acting but just a terrible story line. Apart from being lost, I cannot really understand the central character's behaviour.User reviews saying this is the film of the year or a deep artistic experience are just way of the mark for me.

Author: sjb_can from Canada
22 July 2009

I have been a die-hard Joachin fan since first seeing him in Clay Pigeons and I was disappointed to hear he had retired from acting. After this performance, I'm glad about his decision because it was clear he had no interest in performing. There was something off about him throughout the film. Drugs? Booze? Illness? I don't know, but something was way wrong. His timing was off; he had marbles in his mouth, there was no evidence of the intensity he's famous for...I could barely watch this train wreck.

As for Gwyneth, she did as much with the character as she could. I agree with other comments about Isabella--she was superb. But then she could add class to a Jello commercial. There was more than a fair amount of overacting by all the male characters and, with the Isabella exception, the female characters were flat. Both fathers and Gwyneth's married boyfriend played like caricatures. How did this movie achieve such high IMDb ratings?

Author: Framescourer from London, UK
7 October 2009

An alternative title - The Three Women. That's the two lovers of the title plus the wonderfully understated role of Leonard's mother. Isabella Rosselini is a minor miracle playing her with the optimum mix of unfettered neurosis, love and ahead-of-the-curve understanding that immediately reconfigures the worth of the naive love that Leonard and the other two women have for one another.

If James Gray were able to work this in more, i.e. without the regulation marginalising of the role to simply offset the swing-and-roundabout romances, it might have been a fascinating film. Instead it ends up as a rather mono-dimensional record of Leonard's hapless management of an improbably fortuitous glut of attention and where that fits on his personal oy-vey-line of woe. The film opens with an abject suicide attempt, for goodness' sake; it is too much to overcome in the rest of a very sombre 100 mins. 3/10

Author: Robert Keronen from Vancouver, Canada
11 December 2009

With a silly storyline, two usually excellent actors sleep-walking through their roles, and an odd set of parents skulking through their home observing every move their psychotic son makes, this film seems written directed by someone who has no practical idea about how men and women flirt and seduce each other. I am growing weary of having dreariness, bleakness, and social awkwardness equated with depth and genius. Moreover, the happy parts didn't make me happy, the sad parts were dull, and the rest of it could have been better. Isabella Rossellini was great though, and cinematography was all right, Brighton Beach looking as grim as expected, so I'll give it a 3.

Bon  çui là j'lai bien cherché *

*

About as much fun as passing a kidney stone

Author: mikerichards from Milton Keynes, Bucks, UK
28 November 2001
 

The veterans of the most terrible experiences are not boastful people, when asked about their recollections they might nod their head, swallow a gulp and say 'I don't want to talk about it.'Please understand when I say 'I don't want to talk about it.''Soldier' is quite possibly the worst movie in history, it sets new depths for bad plotting, excruciating acting and dreadful direction. Words alone cannot describe just how bad it is.Although NYYYYYYERRRGH! comes pretty close.

Whichever way you look at it (and I advise you not to look at it at all) this movie is capable of inflicting lasting psychological damage on the unprepared. If you want to be prepared for it try chloroform during the opening credits.This is a buttock-clenchingly terrible film. 'Soldier''s name should be mentioned in hushed tones whenever more than two movie fans are gathered together. It should serve as a reminder that even if 'Rocky IV' was loud, horribly fascistic and unwatchable; it was never *THIS* loud, horribly fascistic and unwatchable.
It is rumoured that if you play 'Soldier' backwards you get a good movie. This is not true, you just get an unfathomably bad movie - in reverse.

Do not watch this movie.

Do not be tempted to rent this movie.

Certainly do not buy this movie.

Even if its buy one - get one free.

Do not watch if you are a big fan of Kurt Russell.

*Especially* if you are a big fan of Kurt Russell.

Just one final question.

'Who do I sue first?'

Author: adamz-2 from USA
26 October 1998

This movie can't make up its mind. It's billed as an action flick, tries to get deep and sensitive... It's just plain stupid! I can't even begin to say how awful it is. I think Attack of the Killer Tomatoes had a better storyline! Your money would be better spent on buying a bottle of booze for an alcoholic. If you see this movie don't say I didn't warn you!

Author: anonymous from Los Angeles
30 May 1999

This movie sucked in the worst way possible. It borrows parts from other sci-fi movies and rearranges it in the most atrocious way. Granted, there were some good effects, but effects alone don't make a movie. The plot could've been plucked from some episode of one of the numerous sci-fi shows on TV. Come to think of it, Soldier should have been a made-for-TV movie. It sure as hell looked like one.

Avoid this stinker at all cost.

Author: Cervaise from Planet Earth
26 October 1998

Anderson is the director of "Soldier." His previous films include "Event Horizon" and "Mortal Kombat." Based on those, and now especially on the incompetent, amateurish mess that is "Soldier," it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the first idea how to tell a story, or even how to make a good movie.

He wastes an interesting premise, from screenwriter David Webb Peoples (the writer of "Blade Runner" and "Unforgiven," the latter an Oscar-winner). He wastes a surprisingly effective performance by Kurt Russell, who does a remarkable job showing the human feeling awakening beneath the stoic, near-robotic surface of the trained-from-birth title character. (What he's doing in this turkey, we'll never know.) He wastes the talents of a highly experiences artistic and technical crew, all of whom of have done much better work in previous films.

He wastes them by making an inept and frequently even laughable grade-Z action snoozer. The plotting is clumsy, the subtext obvious -- and I don't know when I've seen a movie so clearly expensive that looks so cheap. Visually, it's like an ultra-low-budget made-for-cable flick, something on the level of a late-80's Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle you might see on Showtime at 3am. This cheap look is difficult to reconcile with the fact that they obviously spent gobs of money on the thing, but somehow Anderson pulls it off.

A big, stupid, post-Apocalyptic action movie is one of the easiest genres to pull off. "Waterworld" was bad, but at least it was marginally watchable. "Soldier" is absolutely awful, and Paul Anderson demonstrates he can't even do a brainless testosterone movie. Catch it when it shows up on MST3K in a couple of years, but for now, avoid, avoid, avoid.

Author: Dan Wright (a1dan@gateway.net) from Okmulgee, Ok
22 January 1999

All I can say is why did I spend six bucks to see this. The final scene induced nightmare visions of Ripley holding Newt in Aliens. Oh and by the way can you say MATTE PAINTINGS children why sure you can! Oh wait no you can't there is no dialogue in this movie.

Author: Drambuie from Halifax, NS
1 November 1998

Incredibly disappointing.

Some of the reviews, I read before going to the cinema compared Soldier to Blade Runner and Terminator. The only thing they really have in common is that they are set in the future and have emotionless heros. Soldier was filled with gratuitous violence, something I don't usually have a problem with when it has a purpose in the plot, but in this instance it was quite unnecessary.It was so bad that I walked out of the theatre half way through the movie, just as Kurt is about to defend the colony from the evil soldiers.
 

Author: MovieAddict2014 from UK
24 July 2006

I'm not a Paul W.S. Anderson basher - that is, I think he's a generally poor director but I don't devote my life to criticizing him endlessly on Internet message boards - and I think he's at least handled the visual aspects of most of his movies quite well (hate it or not, "AvP" - which I didn't care for - was atmospherically in-touch with the other movies, and "Event Horizon" felt like an "Alien" sequel itself).But really. This movie is absolutely terrible. It's easily Paul's worst movie, which is saying quite a lot. I'm even a decent fan of Kurt Russell so for me to say his performance sucks beyond belief here would be like a Jim Carrey fan admitting Carrey is too over the top in his earlier comedies - it's not going to happen.

The movie basically rips off every futuristic/apocalyptic action movie you can think of, including "Alien," "Blade Runner," "The Terminator" and of course Kurt's "Escape from New York." The problem is there's no substance here.The direction is slipshod and lazy - the action scenes are boring and none of the characters stand out at all. The hero is a dull, emotionless waste of space who has one facial expression preserved throughout the movie: The Kurt Russell "Cold Stare." (tm) You'll know what I mean if you've seen a Kurt Russell movie before.

Anyway, if you're a Paul basher then you'll hate this. If you're not a Paul basher you'll still hate it. I don't have a problem with simplistic action movies - but at least make them ENTERTAINING! I was dead bored watching this.

Author: anonymous from Australia
11 June 1999

Soldier is a gruesome story of a soldier who has been replaced by people who have been designed and shaped into being top class soldiers. The violence in this movie is horrific. There is so much violence in fact that the main character Kurt Russell has only about 5 words to say in the whole movie. I'm sure the script writer had a point to this story when writing it but it didn't transfer onto paper. Actually I would think that the script would be about a page long and the screenplay 1000 pages long. There's really nothing to it. After an hour of watching Soldier I was very very very restless and was contemplating quitting the movie, but I stayed and just became even more restless. My advice to the people who are thinking of watching Soldier, DON'T!!!!

Author: cooper-41 (cooper@fazekas.hu) from Hungary
27 August 2000

This movie is so terrible, there's no one I can recommend it to. Kurt Russel is staring into nowhere for about the half of the movie, the script has no original dialogs or events.

I counted: Russel says 10 sentences in this tragic work. Mostly things like "Yes, sir!".

I gave it a 1 out of 10

Author: Martini-17 from Gothenburg, Sweden
28 June 1999

This movie stinks!

I thought i had seen some bad movies, but this one tops my list. Everything about this movie is bad from the acting to the sets. On the paper it all seems like a good Sci-Fi movie, but belive me it's only on the paper. We have all seen it before: The single hero who gets rejected and takes revenge. Kurt Russell must have been in desperate need for money.

*

CE QUE JE SAIS D'ELLE D'UN SIMPLE REGARD
LA TAUPE
ANNA KARENINE (avec Keyra Knightley)
CORONADO (2003)
FATAL GAMES -1991 (Wynona R/C;Slater)
TETE BRULEE (1996)
EVOLUTION (Duchovny -2001)
THE DUCHESS (Keyra Knightley & Ralph Fiennes)
MR BROOKS (Kevin Costner)
WANDA NEVADA (Peter Fonda & Brooke Shields)
LA MAISON DES OTAGES(Mickey Rourke)
ANGEL HEART
THE OFFENCE (Sean Connery)
30°COULEUR(2012)
CONTREBANDE
R'N'ROLL CIRCUS