Love The Rock! But not this film.
930369
I love the Rock, but this was definitely not his best work.
1814305
The sweeping landscapes of Iceland are amazing. That is the only positive thing I can say other than I adore Gerard Butler. The pacing lags horribly. The dialog is stilted and feels unnatural. The makeup effects for Grindle are laughable, clunky and unbelievable. Pretty much a failure of interpreting the excitement of a legend that has been told for over a millennia. J.R.R. Tolkien studied this story his entire career because it is that full of excitement, meaning and symbolism. This movie is not worth the money even if it's free! This movie is so bad, you should probably just watch your blank TV screen for 2 hours instead. It will be so much more interesting.  Unless of course, you just want to see beautiful scenery of Iceland and an authentic Viking boat on the fjord, even then surely there is something easier to watch to meet that desire.
3780496
I missed the point... characters felt like pawns of a gratuitous and pointless universe.
"faith is believing in something beyond yourself, like hope or love"... really?
that's a pretty weak philosophy to hang a film on!...
and to be repeated twice!
722722
Why was this movie even made?  I can pick up a newspaper and find a dozen BETTER stories worth making a movie about.  The plot dragged on and on with three dopey characters who are largely unlikable.  In fact, other than The Rock's portrayal of a dumb nice guy, everybody else's performance is a chore to watch.  The Rock's character was the only source of comedy and tension.  But, be warned, there is VERY little of both in this stink-hole of a film.

This is a pain to watch and you gain nothing.  Yes, the actors are talented; but the film is a boring mess.

One other trivial point: in a movie that praises people with perfect bodies, how is it that even the strippers are ugly?

AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
835248
If this movie wasn't so dumb, it would have been quite entertaining. The action scenes are so improbable it insults the intelligence of the viewer. The so-called dramatic scenes are laughable. The plot of the movie is a unique twist on the original novel by Verne, but misses the mark entirely by hiding a classic story behind bad acting and special effects. Hollywood ought to realize that moviegoers are more intelligent nowadays. We know that this sort of scenario is virtually impossible, but at least try to explain a more intelligent answer to how it could be done. (We know that a free fall thousand of feet down does not lead to a nice gentle landing on a waterslide much less an ability to have a nice calm conversation on the way down!) At least then it would provide some entertainment value instead of a the huge letdown that this movie is.
4395769
The problem with this film is I read the book.  I was disappointed simply because `Be Cool' is an obvious showcase for the musical talent.  The overly long dance sequence with John Travolta and Uma Thurman is a prime example.  Somewhere the bulk of the story was lost--and there are some very--very good characters appearing in the film that would've been more intersing if somebody would've said, "HEY, don't forget the book!"  But being true to the original source is not Hollywood's strong suit.  "Be Cool" provides some popular music, some known faces, but without John Travolta, the movie would never have been made.

A few laughs are provided.  A couple ironic scenes show up, but there's too little to sustain a full-length feature.  Basically, the project is a disservice to everyone involved.  Some of the characters are so thin--face it--poor Christina Milian as Linda Moon, is reduced to being a voice that sways when she sings--a clich.  The Rock does the best he can but again, `He's a gay bodyguard;' he's the  brunt of insulting jokes offered up by a Raji, his boss [Vince Vaughn], who, in the book, is far more sinister--but in the film he's an idiot.

Of course Chili is Chili. Travolta does a very nice job, and Chili's obviously the smartest guy in the room.  Uma Thruman's performance is, well, not funny--not serious, not intense--not much-- at best, she made me shrug.  I do like what Harvey Keitel did with Nick Carr, but there's just not enough, and all the negatives reflect completely on the director.  Enough said there.

My advice, watch `Get Shorty'again, or read `Be Cool.'
4671683
I feel the best way to review this film is to immediately address the well known (and valid) criticisms so that those offended by said content can stop reading and move on to a better film. The rape scenes, three total, against a man, a woman and a young girl were not necessary in either their length or graphic style. If you are offended by seeing rape(s) in film, skip this movie. The courtroom scenes were poorly done in so many ways, even from a novice standpoint, that the legal guffaws extraordinaire might shun some viewers. But if you made it through Til's perpetual annunciation problems up to that point, then maybe these two hours will not seem so painfully long.

We have a story of an ad corporation family hierarchy filled with liars, cheats and dysfunctional douche bags. Til plays the unbelievable front man who is marrying into the firm, but manages to bed whatever comes his way on the side. Before this story develops though we are treated to an opening scene gang rape of a teen girl who is then mysteriously saved by Michael Clarke Duncan's "General" character. MCD has four minutes of screen time throughout the entire film so skip this if you saw his name and wanted to watch for his parts. Then the story spirals further into blackmail, "intrigue", "suspense" and a variety of other buzzwords. Eric Roberts enters the film much later as a defense lawyer and unwittingly he became the comic relief, loved his part.

Quality wise, the film stock looked excellent and Til obviously sunk some serious money into the sets, design, cars and overall production. There are no special features on the DVD so there cannot be any extra stars, but usually Til's films do, so I was disappointed. The universal agreement seems to be that audiences outside the US loved this film and most cared little for it domestically. The story became unbelievable in so many areas that I have to fall into the latter group. You might get some entertainment out of this, even if you are not a Til fan, but all of the negatives make this a skipper.
742944
Don't get me wrong, I adore Rocky Horror. But it was made as a "serious" musical and was so bad it became a cult classic. This movie is worse. There are actually scenes when the actors are in the van and the SCRIPT telling them what to do (turn on key, etc.) is in plain sight, taped to the steering wheel. The plane they use to fly to New York changes models ... It's an old-fashioned tail dragger when first seen, then magically becomes a Cessna. And I just love how military helicopters, the afore-mentioned Cessna and a squadron of military jets can all fly at the exact same speed!! Many scenes are recycled over and over again. There are incomprehensible cuts in location, time of day, weather, and the roads shift from highways to Alpine hairpins without warning. I think they ran out of money. Or brain cells. I watched this with my kids, ages 7 and 10, and when a cop got blasted into oblivion while talking mindlessly in the middle of complete chaos with large ice cubes raining down on top of her, we simply could not stop laughing.  It was so bad we actually had a great time laughing. So I suppose it wasn't a complete waste.
1193045
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!  I don't understand why so many people think this is a good film.  The film that I saw was a very poor sequel to Ironman, which is in no way, shape or form as good as The Dark Knight.  The first ten minutes was cut so tight that the performances felt like they were derived from a trailer.  The original had heart that balanced Tony Stark's narcissistic personality and his scenes with Pepper were cute and amusing to watch.  The scene where his arc generator needs to be replaced is hilarious because it is a life threatening situation but Tony doesn't seem phased at all.  In the sequel, there are very few redeeming scenes, and they seem to have wasted all the budget on extravagant locations and the Stark Expo.

The single scene that was somewhat moving is when Tony discovers the message from his father Howard.  And Mickey Rourke's Vanco character could've had a great tie-in to the main plot if he held the key to saving Tony's life.  Instead, he just becomes a de facto villain and we have the "Roger Roger" bots that obviously are not going to cause any problems apart from a few bullet holes here and there.  Jeff Bridges was a much better villain than Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke put together.  The scene where he gets drunk and gets in a fight with War Machine is quite moronic and juvenile.  And the Avengers cameos are taking away the integrity of the individual films.  Incorporating them after the credits would be fine, but leave the actual films alone Marvel, for christsakes!  Ironman 2 is simply bigger and dumber.
3728693
Did not enjoy this movie. Love the first movie with the Rock (Dwayne Johnson). This third movie wasn't a good follow up. The story line, the characters just didn't reflect the first movie at all in my opinion.
2713439
The best way to judge a movie in a series of movies is to ask, "if this movie came out by itself would I still like it?"  In this case, definitely not.  This installment is NOT better than 5.  It's a movie that is as "tired" as the character himself.  It's not a part of the series, of which I speak about Rocky I-IV.  If I were to buy the series this one and V would definitely be left out.

What was wrong with this movie is not the plot but the deliverance.  I felt no threat to Rocky like I did with Apollo, Mr. T, and Drago.  To me this movie was selling products; HBO, Tarver, etc.  It didn't have that same charm as the movies did.  You really couldn't root for Rocky because there was nothing for him to win or lose.  The main fight was an exhibition fight.  He didn't win any money, nor did he win a title.  Yes you could say he did it for himself, but, so what.  I was hoping he would've fought a fight that would bring him back on top, monitarily and he would be able to better his life.  I know it wasn't about the money, but the way it ended, just wasn't fulfilling.

If you are a hardcore fan, you will like this movie.  If you enjoy the Rocky movies for what they were, you may be disappointed.

I recommend you NOT watch this movie and remember Rocky Balboa for who he was.  Rocky I through IV.
113016
My husband and I chose to watch this movie to rid ourselves of the Sunday evening doldrums. We thought this would be a light-hearted choice and really wanted to like this movie!
  a) We like spy movies and spoofs. There are lots of references for the aficionados.
  b) Who doesn't love Mr. Darcy, aka Colin Firth?
  c) The cast includes a female spy and hard core villainess with a physical disability and prosthetic legs. And these women are not merely love interests or sex symbols but have arcs of their own.
  d) There are well filmed fighting scenes without distracting cutaways.
  e) The special effects used for the exploding head sequence were cool.
  f) Puppies!!!
  g) And, of course, there are sweet gadgets.

You may wonder then why we rated the movie so poorly. It seems from the list above that there are plenty of reasons to like it, right? Well, once the editorializing started, it couldn't be stopped.
  a) The pass code Eggsy was supposed to remember, associated with the talisman given to him by Harry Hart/Galahad, was NOT understandable. (By the way, it's "Oxfords, not brogues.")
  b) The persons of color were cast as a megalomaniac and his henchwoman (i.e., Valentine and Gazelle).
  c) Samuel L. Jackson's lisp was inconsistent.
  d) It is hard to believe that Harry's gentlemanly character would say, "One does not pop one's cherry in dressing room two."

But it is in the second half of the film that things turn especially offensive and vulgar...
  e) The church scene, in which the Southern preacher spews hatred towards minority groups, was especially hard to watch in the wake of the mass shooting in Charleston.
  f) Princess Tilde of Sweden unexepectedly offers Eggsy a sex reward if he rescues her. (What?!) Why degrade a female head of state to a sex object?
  g) After Eggsy saves the world, he grabs a bottle of champagne and two glasses and runs into Princess Tilde's cell so they can "do it in the *******."  (Screen shot of a female bottom.)  This really ruins Eggsy's transformation into a gentleman knight. "Manners maketh man." If the audience is to believe Eggsy is capable of becoming the virtuous and pure Galahad, then we would not expect him to ask for and accept a reward for saving someone and doing the right thing.

All this to say, don't waste your Sunday evening and $4.99 on this movie!  Note: the movie is rated R; don't let your kids watch it.
2682635
I actually took a survey comparing Lucy to the Rock's Hercules before each of them came out. If given the chance, I would go back and change my answers to the survey and Lucy better qualifications. This movie was better than either Hercules movies in my opinion.
3647711
I am a fan of The Rock so I had to get it. The plot was good. I have it at 3 stars because some of the scenes were just SOO unbelievably far fetched that it was borderline comical. All in all it was a decent, not "good", far from "Great" movie.
359901
I didn't know much about the movie, seen some previews of it and I was anxious to see it. After seeing it I was very disappointed and I was tempted to even stop the movie and trash it. Acting is pretty good,  storyboard is a new version of kelly's heroes, the way they shot the movie  and cut it is really terrible. It's very annoying.
2301674
First off, I want to state that I have seen other reviews for this movie elsewhere - and many people like it.  I suppose that, no matter how bad a movie is, there will always be someone who likes it.  I just am not of that ilk.

I love superhero movies, and I like some musicals - but this is the first combination I have ever seen of both. The humor was "far beyond that of mortal man" (it sucked).  It could have been possible to make a pretty good movie using the premise of a dishonored old drunk of an ex-superhero - but this one missed the mark entirely.

If you are a fan of Rocky Horror Picture Show - you MIGHT like this.  If you are a completest and want to get to know Captain Invincible - and you can get it REAL CHEAP - go for it.  That which doesn't kill you . . . . and all that.
849474
Too many Rock fans seem to be prejudiced by their loyalty to the Rock in their reviews.  Don't get me wrong I love the Rock, but after reading Mankind's book first, Rock's book was pretty awdul in comparison.
1)  He  did not write the thing, instead he got a freelance writer to "put his  thoughts into writing".  Folks-This is just not enjoyable to read,  half of the time he is in his Rock character, the other half as Dwayne  Johnson.
2)  This book is way to short with way to many photos.  After  reading it I went back and judged that if you took out the pics and made  the spacing and font the same size as Mick Foley's book you would have a 50  page autpbiography.  Now I know that Dwayne Johnson is young, but I can  write an autobiography longer than 50 pages, and my life has been  boring!
3) The beauty of Mankind's book was that it was about other  wrestler's as well.  The Rock's book is a joke by comparision.  Wait for  the paperback to save the $, and then you'll agree with me on this.
After  Mankind's book met with success, the WWF will be pushing other books.  I  just hope that fans can be better judges before they write reviews that  lead to people wasting $20 on jibberish.