horrible-a fraction of a star
923977
I couldn't disagree more with the only other review of this abyssymal video.  I don't know what that person was thinking, and I blame them 'for every penny' i wasted on the this joke of a documentary.  For one thing, it's part of a series, so there was no info on the soundtrack or the production (which to some people  are essential).  There being only about six photographs of modigliani in evidence, the directors of this crudfest use them over and over in a million different ways.  This and the deadpan narration do anything but justice to such a great man.  He'd turn over in his grave if i gave it anything more than a sixteenth of a star.  Don't buy it.  It's a complete and total waste of time and money.
733094
What were they thinking when they made this?  You would think that with such an all-star cast that there would be no way that this movie could suck, but it does.  Why bother having everyone come back to do a sequel only to leave most of them out of the script?  Instead they showcase an unknown French actor (is he really French?) who does a dance routine which includes some break dancing, to elude a museum's laser security system.  Like that hasn't been done before.  I bet Catherine Zeta Jones gave him some pointers from her scene in "Entrapment".  Anyway, this movie was so bad and boring that my 12 year old son went up to bed instead of staying up later than his bedtime to finish watching.  I am so glad I borrowed this DVD from a friend because I would have been pissed if I shelled out 20 bucks for it.
3902555
I thought that someone trying to make a period film would do at least some reading about the period and/or the historical events. Boy, I was wrong. The creators' ignorance is amazing. I bet they did not even bother to speak to any person knowledgeable about the WW 2 or Red Army.  Most of the plot and relationships (except the snipers' scenes) is simply unbelievable, irritatingly irrational, and historically wrong to the extent of grotesque and farce.

  Sure, there is occasional decent acting and some special effects, though the effects are much less convincing than those in much older "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down." If you have seen those two great movies, you will not like this one. Avoid at all cost!
4361748
Someone else put it well:  "everything is forced and nothing is believable."
I loved Silence of the Lambs.  This one has a horrible storyline, worse than most science fiction, terrible acting, & as other reviews have noted, grossness beyond meaning or necessity.
The new Starling (Moore) was horrible;  she's colder, less sensitive, less emotional, less of everything that made the 1st Starling great.  To be fair, she has some merit, but, in the scope of a good movie, relatively little.
To quote another reviewer: "Julianne Moore didn't hold a candle to Jodie Foster in the role of Agent Starling."
The only saving grace in this movie, is Hannibal himself (the original Anthony Hopkins) & for his part, I give it 2 stars instead of only 1.
See other reviews (1-3*) for more on what makes this worse than the 1st one.
A better edited version of this film, with the original Starling would deserve a 4*.
 [keeping in such good parts, as H saving her life--a nice touch.]
I haven't read the book, but, from those that have, likely it would have been a better ending too.
2863286
Don't be fooled friends--this brutal series is nothing more than a cheap Liftime movie glossed up for Spike TV. It is full of amoral, poorly drawn characters whom we never care about. The closest thing Book One has to "protagonists" are two scions of rival rich families who learn nothing throughout the book, and grow organically not one iota (unless you count the woman bemoaning the fact that she never wrote checks to charities to help the homeless?!) Both of them have "Daddy" issues that help them "bond." The plot is implausible (the head of one of the rival families promotes the daughter of the other rival family as president of the world's largest hotel in Manhattan even though she has no work experience so he can "get even" with her father--"you can do this. I believe in you" is the "explanation"); the characters truly are one-dimensional and interchangeable; the writing is very average--no pithy lines or clever word choices to move the story along.
.
I have no idea why there are so many amoral characters in the book, unless its to serve as fodder for brutal killings. Even the "good girl" sister to the female scion is sleeping with a new guy on the first date after she found her fiance' cheating on her: no grief, no anger, no "man hating phase," just "let's get back in the saddle"--total male fantasy, and unrealistic. The only char of any interest is the middle age lawyer who's a good family man and friend by day, and a kinky S&M freak by night; clearly, he's a tortured soul but we are never allowed to understand his motivations, except for a brief Psy 101 blurb before he kills himself by jumping in front of a speeding subway (Anna Karenina anyone?) and we are told that "judgmental society did this to him." Yawn. Imagine all of the shallowest char from any soap opera all stuffed together in one book, and you pretty much have 5th Ave. It's Dallas without Bobby or Ms. Ellie; it's the Kardashians without Rob or Bruce; it's the evil step-sisters with no Cinderella.
.
Would I rec it? Only to NY's who might enjoy the "ambiance."
Would I buy it? NO WAY!
Would I reread it? No
1791108
Sucked so much I was very surprised. Got the CD and I could hardly make myself continue. Finally skipped 2 discs to be OVER WITH. Seriously one of the most annoying book/CD I've come across in my life. No one would ever have the dialogs they do -  literally every other sentence is a tired cliche. The narrator needs some serious acting lessons also - sounded like a 5th grader in her first speaking part. Couldn't not wait to finish, only got to the end since that was $20 down the drain. So hated this 'book'  - only got because of 4 & 5  star reviews. Who read this???
1375586
Watch out for all of the plant reviews from the filmmakers/their friends and families.

This movie is a painful slog with nothing occurring (beyond appalling acting) for the entire runtime. The only thing that could kinda-sorta pass for even "horror content" is an ten second off-camera bludgeoning.

Really, if not for some mild language, this would be PG, but even kids wouldn't want to watch it as NOTHING happens but expository dialogue and arguing between the lead couple. Oh, and yeah, occasionally a dude in a clown costume stands in some shots.
2825667
If you thought my headline was "artsy," then perhaps you should ignore my one-star rating (given only because zero stars is not an option), and RUN, don't walk, and rent this film. Or better yet, click the "Add to Shopping Cart" tab.

However, if you have a low tolerance for tear-your-eyes-out-monotony: Fair warning. There are scenes in "Elephant" that will leave you blind. These scenes begin shortly after the opening credits and continue for approximately 80 minutes.

I had some hope when it started out: Sounds from a playground accompanied a time-lapse shot of clouds moving past. Then we see a scene where an obviously-drunk driver is attempting --poorly-- to navigate a Mercedes up a tree-lined street. The passenger, a high-school kid, demands that his drunk dad pull over: HE'LL drive the remainder of the way to school.

We get to school. There are about 9 people milling around. The school consists of multiple buildings sprawled on a lush campus that appears to be the size of Delaware. There are perhaps 17,000 classrooms. Most are empty. The few kids we see are staggeringly annoying.

Then the movie's director takes us on the first of many, many, oh-my-god-WAY-too-many Steadicam shots, as we follow oh-so-closely behind some student as he--or she---or they---walk from one end of the campus to the other, passing through 853 buildings on the way.

Then we get to meet some new annoying people. And the blond kid (the one with the drunk dad), leaves...just a half hour after he arrives. He goes outside and briefly plays with a border collie.

****ASIDE: I remember MY High School Days... they ALWAYS kept a fresh supply of border collies, labrador retrievers and beagles on campus, just in case we got the urge to duck out of class and play with a dog.  END ASIDE****

Yeah. Right. Anyway, by the last half hour, I was HOPING someone would get shot.

Did it mean that this was just a routine day, and that you can't predict or prevent such senseless and murderous acts? Maybe. But maybe it would have been a better movie if we actually were drawn in enough to care about the victims. I didn't care. They were cardboard cutouts.  The shooters were essentially enjoying target practice. As one of them said to the other shortly before the bloodshed began: "most importantly: have fun!"

The reality is that you CAN predict who the shooters might be. In "Elephant," we see a couple of "quiet, brooding" kids  ...and one of them has food thrown on him in the cafeteria. SHOOTER. There's also a girl. A  homely, talks-to-no one, uncomfortable-in-her-own-skin loner. *NOT* a shooter. (Here's a clue. She's a girl... girls aren't shooters.)

So I guess the laughable irony here is that this artsy-fartsy movie that is so raved about by people who would likely be APPALLED by real-life profiling, is actually an argument *for* profiling... because the perps sure fit "the profile" as it is often assumed to be.

- Jonathan Sabin
29727
I tried mightily hard, but found it impossible to finish this egregious example of a BAD book (got as far as 68 percent before admitting defeat). I feel it had to have been written by someone who never paid attention in class when grammar, spelling, sentence structure, capitalization rules, etc., were taught. The plot is absurd; the characters are so one-dimensional as to be transparent (and unbelievable, to boot); the dialogue atrocious; and what could have been interesting was boring. There is nothing erotic about it at all...it's simply inane. Perhaps the book could be helped by employing a good editor, someone who is experienced at writing fiction (or intelligently writing anything at all, for that matter). However, I fear I am being naive if I think that will happen. Save your money -- save your reading time -- don't buy this book.
1546877
I was given this movie as a birthday gift and was very excited to watch it.  From the award hype plus the description of the film, it seemed like it might be one of those movies which goes beyond the screen and actually touches the audience.
It doesn't.  Instead, it was one of those movies that was so bad that you feel as if you have lost that 1 hr and 43 minutes of your life.  How bad is it?  The acting was unmoving and stiff - though I can't really blame the actors, as the script offers nothing at all to work with.  Very limited dialogue combined with poorly developed, unsympathetic characters and a frustrating lack of coherent direction makes this movie drag unlike any other film I have ever experienced.
I kept fighting the urge to shut it off, thinking that at some point SOMETHING vaguely interesting or entertaining would happen, but it continued to drag on and on, aimlessly, mindlessly...
Then, mercifully, it ended.  My wife picked up the DVD and threw it in the trash without a word to me about it.
This is ABSOLUTELY an instance of Hollywood hyping a movie and the general public flocking to it and pretending to like it because they think it is supposed to be good.  PLEASE save yourself the disappointment and don't waste your time.
831752
This is the first film I've ever given a one-star rating on here. I always try to find some good in a movie, some redeeming quality that makes me like it, but it felt like no matter what happened in this movie, it just made me angrier and more bored.

Let me break it down for you like this: Burt and Vicky, in this film, are a married couple on the brink of utter marital destruction; the character Vicky is the most insufferable shrew one could imagine. Whereas Linda Hamilton's character in the 1984 original was playful, friendly and much more easily able to relate to, this Vicky spends the first 40-45 minutes doing nothing but yelling at her husband, blaming him and insulting him when he didn't even cause a need for her to be upset. Burt is honestly the only character I can relate to in the movie; he's good-natured, patient, strong-willed and is still able to emote like a regular human being (as opposed to his wife who basically does nothing but spew animosity throughout). This isn't a Children of the Corn remake!!! This is "How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days: Hee-Haw Edition"!!!

The evil children in this movie are also very poorly done, especially in comparison to those of the original. The kids in this film aren't very bright and don't do a half-convincing job that they're evil; honestly I just felt like the little suckers needed a good spanking to set them straight. Also, I'm aware that one isn't supposed to like the villain in a horror film, but even as the bad guys, I just wanted to go up to the children and say "I don't like you." That's right, even the villains in this horror film aren't on par with a decently-done villain role. The character of Isaac was just an annoying little shrimp, whereas in the original he was twisted and menacing, and FAR more believable. This film's Malachai also has nowhere near as much finesse as Courtney Gains in the original movie; Malachai here just kinda has no personality and is pretty forgettable as far as being the bad guy that does the dirty work.

What really bothers me about the film, though, is that despite how insufferable the first 45 minutes or so were, halfway through, this movie has the utter nerve to pick up the pace. I wasn't expecting the film to be very exciting, but about 50 minutes in the kids start to attack, Burt fights back in an attempt to rescue Vicky, and all the creepy cult material kicks into play. It's bad enough that half the film wastes our time on pointless bickering, but to turn itself into an almost-decent excuse for a low-budget made-for-television remake of a horror classic just bothered me. It's the equivalence of hearing a musical artist you don't like do a legitimately good cover of a song you do like.

All in all, this was one of the poorest horror movie remakes I've ever seen. The ONLY reason I would suggest that anyone watch it is they, like me, want to complete the Children of the Corn film series. Otherwise, stay FAR away from this garbage. This is just one of those films that shouldn't have been made. In all honesty though, I do think there are some remakes of the 2000's that are legitimately good, such as The Last House on the Left, Maniac and Mother's Day, so give those films a chance before you subject yourself to the torture that is this movie. Thanks for the time, and peace.
739411
I'll spare you some wasted time... seriously.  Yeah, this movie is that bad.  I'd rather be bludgeoned unconscious with dried ears of corn than watch this film again.  (I live in Iowa, so this is an option!)  I had a few unintentional laughs, especially during the child killing spree the main protagonist went on during his escape attempt.  This film definitely has the highest body count of children killed in any horror film I've seen.  Between that and the "sex scene" in the film, I'm still shivering.  But anyway...  I digress.

"Children of the Corn," in case you actually are living in a cornfield, is a remake of a prior film of the same name, both of which are based on a Steven King story.  (I can still remember one of the creepy lines from the original film, although I haven't seen it in years: "He wants you too, Malachi. He wants you, too.") The plot is quite interesting for a horror film: it's set in a small Nebraska town and revolves around a religious cult composed of children that worship a being that lives in the corn fields.  A husband and wife encounter the kids, and the events that follow make up the rest of the story.  I'll not go into it in more detail, as other reviews have done it in already.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't mind so much that Hollywood is hell-bent on making endless remakes, but I wish they would at least make a better remake.  This film is in no way better than its predecessor.  The acting is atrocious - not that they were given very good dialogue.  The lines were forced, and the actors are stiff and unbelievable.  The special effects are laughable and, if you can believe it, worse than the 1984 film.  So much for progress.  I think that I read that the SyFy (formerly known as Sci-fi) channel backed the making of this film or something to that effect.  I've gotten to the point where if I see Sci-fi channel on a DVD, I run.... I turn around and flee for my life. This movie should have been no different, but I only found this out post-viewing.  If the idea of this film is interesting to you, by all means, go watch the original film.  It's far superior.  You've been warned! :)
1695402
I recall that a critic called "Proof Of Life" a modern day "Casablanca." I really hope that critic has had his publishing rights taken away for a good long time. To compare this poorly made movie to one of the greatest of all time is an insult.
After having seen this snoozefest, I truly believe that the whole "triangle love thing" around the set was created just to generate buzz for this movie that even the studio knew was completely lame. What happened with this movie is that someone signed Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe to the deal and said "this movie will make itself," but found out that movies need a story and character developement to make them successful. So, what the viewing audience got was a thrown together sloppy romance movie advertised as an action thriller. I can't recall the last time I wanted something massive to blow up at the end of a movie and take out the main characters. Not even an Adam Sandler movie makes me want the main characters to be finished off by terrorists. That's really bad.
The worst part of the film: Meg Ryan's husband has been kidnapped for 200-some odd days, which they announce with subtitles. At that point of the movie, it really, truly feels like you've been watching it for 200-some odd days.
Avoid this movie like a plague.
565686
Okay.  There is so much to dislike about this movie that I could go on and on.

Short version: Don't waste your money until its free on Amazon Prime.

Reg version: Actors, plot, plot holes, stereotypes, predictable all of them sucked.  The story's premise was interesting and could have been written/produced much better.  Really it was like watching a straight to dvd/vhs low budget movie.  No it wasn't even that good, at least then, sometimes, it can be funny but this movie blew.

AVOID!!!!! Believe me, I prevented myself from watching it.  I was skeptical but then I was bored and said "what the heck, may be it'll be decent"  no it wasn't.  I would have been better off twiddling my thumbs for an 1 and a half.
4660276
The only bright moment in this wreak is the casting of Alan Rickman as Marvin. The rest of the casting is just awful, this was an un-needed remake, the BBC series is perfect and needs no changes what so ever. Avoid this like a Pan Galactic gargle Blaster unless you love torture or are unfamiliar with teh BBC TV series.
They lost me with Mos def as Ford and Zaphod's head? UNDER HIS CHIN!!?? DAFUQ!!??
There are not enough terrible words in the dictionary to accurately describe the horror of this movie. When it does follow the script it hangs like a turd when it goes off book (and god does it go off book) it leaves you wondering how Adams could have ever been behind this slaughter of his work
This doesn't deserve one star in fact it owes us 5 stars
2526476
I hated almost everything about this book- the plot is both utterly preposterous (the ancient law that it revolves around would immediately fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights, just for starters) and really, horribly dark. (See below for an example that's a bit of a spoiler for part way through the book). The writing is often dull, vague and overlong. The story is told from the alternating viewpoints of Nila and Jethro. Nila, the victim, is really too dumb to live, and I found her totally unsympathetic. Jethro, the villain/anti-hero/captor is a moral vacuum, and the rest of the characters he is surrounded by are, if anything, worse. This is book one of a series, and it may all end happily, but I have no intention of reading any more to find out.

Little spoiler coming:

The low point of what I found a totally horrible book is probably where the Nila is locked in non-removable collar and made to clearly understand, first that in due course she will be beheaded in order to remove it, and second that her mother, who she thought had abandonded her as a child, had already worn the exact same collar and suffered the same fate.
538446
Here's the really short review: It's 2 hours of your life you'll never get back. Pretty much what they did was just repackage "Transformers" and release it again. So if you liked that mindless film . . . then you're a 3 year old on a sugar high and will watch anything with lots of flashing colors and loud noises.

In a nut shell, this is 2 hours of mindless CGI action sequences.  Then the "acting" bolts the computer generated sequences together. And that acting? Yeah, that was just dreadful. It was like scenes cut out of a daytime melodrama.

Were I watching this by myself, I would have turned it off half way through and found something else to do.

So here's how I made it to the end of this train-wreck:  Before watching it, my friends and I got on you-tube and found the video of Christian Bale freaking out on Peter Griffin from family guy. The whole way through the movie we were blurting out lines from that sketch.  "Do you want me to rip your [...] lights down?!?" response: "Those are Christmas lights; I put them up so everyone would be happy."

So we'd all start laughing and try to forget how terrible this flick was.