Reviews by doudouce55

Hoffman and Hawke play 2 brothers. Because they need money, they plan a robbery, that goes wrong... very wrong.

Hoffman and Hawke's performances are quite good, so is Marisa Tomei's and the other supportive actors'.
The script isn't that original, you can predict what will happen, and it's really too bad, because there were many possibilities, and unfortunately the scriptwriters didn't choose an original ending.

All in all, I can't really say I "enjoyed" this film, nor would I recommend it to anyone.

The idea of mutants and humans is great. And the film is obviously at a specific public that will enjoy such movies and soundtrack.
It's a fun trilogy - but as with most trilogies, the quality goes downhill.
The first X-Men was really enjoyable, while the next two were mediocre in quality; it shows even in the actors' performances.
Patrick Stewart, in this third installment of X-Men, particularly looks as if he were computer generated, it's that pathetic and bad.

In any case, it's fun, action-filled, and it's got a good cast. The movie is worth watching just for that.

The idea of mutants and humans is great.

This film is obviously at a specific public that will enjoy such movies and soundtrack.
It's a fun trilogy - but as with most trilogies, the quality goes downhill.

The first X-Men was really enjoyable, while the next two were mediocre in quality; it shows even in the actors' performances.

In any case, it's fun, action-filled, and it's got a good cast. The movie is worth watching just for that.

The idea of mutants and humans is great.

This film is obviously at a specific public that will enjoy such movies and soundtrack.
It's a fun trilogy - but as with most trilogies, the quality goes downhill.
The first X-Men was really enjoyable, while the next two were mediocre in quality; it shows even in the actors' performances.

In any case, it's fun, action-filled, and it's got a good cast. The movie is worth watching just for that.

I can't believe the movie got such bad ratings. Books are books, movies are movies, these are adaptations for the big screen. People still enjoyed Harry Potter's books and movies despite the fact that they differed slightly.
Now, I admit I haven't read the Northern Lights series, so I'm really reviewing the Golden Compass movie.

As a movie, it's an enjoyable one for the entire family. In fact, we all sat together to watch it and looked forward to seeing it. Even though some of the CGI isn't particularly well done (I'm thinking of the bears and the wolves particularly), the rest was pretty amazing.
I loved the concept of the inner daemons and how it was shown in the movie.
The acting is superb, especially that of Dakota Blue Richards. I never will say that teenagers can't act anymore; they obviously can, with the right director. It's too bad Daniel Craig didn't have a bigger role, he's excellent as Lyra's "uncle".

Watch with the family. Everyone should enjoy this film for its magical story.

Romance is barely present in this movie as poker takes over 80% of the movie. Aficionados of poker should enjoy this, as it present many aspects of playing the game.
As for the romance, it's pathetically predictable.
The acting is so-so, the directing is okay, there's nothing really worth mentioning.
It's just a clean movie without any violence or guns.
Enjoyable.

While it certainly looked interesting, the story unfortunately uses a lot of words to say nothing new.

I'm voting 2/10 because of Redford's direction of Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise; I found their characters very believable and found the casting perfect. Cruise as the senator looks like a smart a$$ (pardon the expression) and Streep is perfect as the journalist.

And the final 2/10 is for Philippe Rousselot's cinematography work.

Not as interesting as it could be.
Watch only if you must.

Cloverfield. New name for Central Park after some weird disaster happens. Not well explained in the film.

That said, the actors were lame. Lamer than I've ever seen in any movies - and I've watched a whole lot of them. They were lousier than B-movie actors, if that is possible.

The direction... was pathetic. Lousy. The camera was going all over the place, making it impossible to understand or figure out anything.

When you do get to see the "beast", you can tell it's very (emphasis here!) badly done. Not credible.

The dialog between the characters is unbelievably childish. No, let me correct this. Not even children would speak that way. I felt as if the script had been written by morons.

To avoid at all cost.

(Just because there was a huge promotional campaign about the movie, does not mean it's any good! This movie is just another "Godzilla in NYC". Useless.)

The story is a romantic emotional one, taking place during the 1930s.

The film director has played the emotional card rather well, and I must say the sets, the decors and costumes are marvelous.

The actors were well cast, and is especially obvious through Briony.

I say "almost perfect" because Keira Knightley just doesn't appear to act properly for the time period. All other actors are quite decent, and seem well directed. But Keira...

Superb cinematography. The images are quite stunning.

Clearly one of the best of 2007.

The plot is simple, but reveals pretty much what is going to happen. As I don't want to spoil the movie for others, it's enough to say that 1 out of 700 people that undergo surgery find him/herself awake during the procedure, but unable to call for help.
If I divulge anything else, the script itself becomes obvious, so because of that, I found there were no surprises, no twists.

The acting sucks! Only Lena Olin is worth watching. Hayden Christensen and Jessica Alba are mind-blowingly bad. And Terrence Howard is possibly worse.

I found the premise very interesting, but it was, in my opinion, badly scripted - there are several plot holes.

Interesting to watch for the story, but no other reason really.