Not as good as critics say
351189
This Was not as good as it was supposed to be. It is difficult to read because it is in jargon. You can't figure out which character is which. Maybe I did not give it enough time. But I gave up on it after four chapters. I wanted to like it because I am fascinated with Bob Marley. But with so many great books out there I decided to move on.
1854624
I pride myself on being a movie connossieur. I like all genres, especially, horror, thrillers and sci-fi movies. I purchased this movie because of the editorial review that I read on both Amazon and on the DVD jacket itself. Despite the hype, it was not quite what I had expected. I enjoyed Terminator alot better than this movie. The plot and the special effects are much to be desired. Gratuitous sex? Yes. Entertainment value? Gets a 2 star rating from me. Definitely, not one of the better pictures I have seen.
4647228
This is a pretty good movie overall, however, I don't think it lives up to the hype built around it. It is a fun movie to watch especially for fans for the original series.
4284021
I think as a story it was not so bad. As a representation of a book, the other reviewers suggest it did a poor job. Perhaps trying to fit a book or two into a movie script is what makes for a disappointing movie.
The acting was pretty good. Aaliyah had a good cognizance of her body, and did a good job dancing through it all. Her diction was well done too, for a singer. Stuart Townsend seemed a little coquette-ish for my taste. He was trying to translate 'irresistible' and it turned into something cheesy. Also, portraying the singing rock star, he seemed oddly reserved. I think he was trying to not look ridiculous and tempering his body accordingly. If he'd watched some NIN or Korn videos or concerts he might have loosened his physical restraint during his performance a little. I mean, if he'd been singing he might have had to throw himself into it more.
The make up was quite good in most cases, especially for Akasha. The vampire design was pretty much oddly accentuated eye shadow, so not as great. The statuary could have been better.
Basically I was here for the music. Jonathan Davis' singing voice didn't quite match Townsend's speaking voice, but it would have been tricky to cast an actor to fit the way he sang.
1076798
Not nearly as bad as most reviewers said, but still pretty bad. Looks great and some amazing effects, but very slim in the sustance department. The story is non-existent. Watch it with a friend and have fun with the horrible dialogue and the stunning looks - of the effects and the cast.
4710388
I've just finished reading this book and I have to say I have rather mixed feelings about it.

(For what it's worth, I decided to chase it down here at the Brooklyn Public Library after I'd seen both versions of "Straw Dogs." I was simply curious to know something about a story that had gotten so much directorial/cinematic attention.)

My overall reaction? I think that Sam Pekinpah's original version (with Dustin Hoffman and Susan George) was better than Rod Lurie's version (with Alexander Skarsgrd and Kate Bosworth), and that both film versions were better than Gordon Williams's book.

Obviously, it takes a good story (or at least a well-written script) -- just for starters -- to make a good movie. And Gordon Williams's story is not without its virtues.

But I, for one, struggled continually with a little thing called 'pronominal reference' -- i. e., I just didn't know exactly who was the author of a particular action much of the time, and consequently had to go back and re-read -- sometimes, paragraphs at a time -- to figure it out. This, to my way of thinking, is not star-quality story-telling.

I also couldn't authenticate a lot of the dialect he uses for the principal antagonists in this story. It's a British vernacular I've not only never heard, but also can't imagine.

All of the above notwithstanding, the story is an entertaining one. I would simply suggest that you skip the book and see Sam Peckinpah's film version of "Straw Dogs."

RRB
07/22/13
2994698
I have seen a lot of people call this one of Jackie's best, but I must disagree. I thought it was ok, but the action was few and far between, and the showdown with Benny wasn't even that good. They have a MUCH better  fight in Dragons Forever. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it overall, but I  think there's so much better by Jackie out there. If you're new to his  films check out Drunken Master 1 and 2, Young Master, Dragons Forever,  Project A 1 and 2, and Rumble in the Bronx. Otherwise if you're a Jackie  fan I'm sure you've already seen this!
3066521
I have seen the lot of criticism of what some reviewers have posted here. The same pattern repeats. The storyline is incomplete, the cast is hollow, etc,etc. What did you expect exactly in 2 hours when a movie has to sell?

I must say this regular version seems to be edited out of sense into a puzzle where some pieces are missing.
If you are going to criticize this movie criticize the editing work to begin with.

I won't cast a complete vote until I see the extended cut but this movie has the potential to be a really good one.
1254184
I enjoyed this film but I did not feel it was as great as all the hype it has received.  The director uses flashbacks in a confusing manner starting with an adult Jamal being tortured in a Mumbai police station.  We are then treated to all kinds of flashbacks with an adult Jamal playing the India version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire and a very poor kid Jamal being abused by his bully brother Salim.  Salim locks Jamal in an outhouse when the local celebrity comes to visit their villiage.  The only way Jamal can get out is to fall in the cesspool beneath the outhouse.  A Jamal covered with feces is able to get an autograph from the star.

Jamal's misery is intensified as his brother sells his Jamal's autographed photo and then a bunch of rioters kill the boys' mother.  The two boys escape the rioters to be taken in by some criminals that are trafficing and exploiting young children.  The boys eventually escape but Salim twarts the escape of Jamal's female friend Latika.

The movie follows them as they grow up and Jamal is constantly searching for his friend Latika.  The movie shifts constantly between the present day torture in the police station, Jamal answering questions on the TV game show and the boys story growing up.

All through their life Salim is bad to Jamal and Jamal can never seem to find happiness without Latika.  I really liked most of the film but I found the constant flashbacks and time shifts to be annoying.  Also, the subtitles when needed were virtually impossible to read.  Jamal's game show experience did not seem believable except if the movie were to be labelled a fantasy.

I did like the Bollywood number that the director threw in to the end.  I liked the Paper Planes song that is played in part of the movie.

One of the better movies of 2008 but not the epic film that many make this movie out to be.
3028686
The technicolor made the movie very unique, along with the use of red lighting.
The first 20 minutes showed some defining scenes, but the movie loses my interest after that.
It doesn't quite live up to the hype from what I saw.
223313
When this set appeared in 2005, it was reviewed very positively in the magazines, and I couldn't believe it a few years later when I picked it up new at a very reasonable price . . . but listening to it was something of a disappointment.  Partly (maybe most importantly), I wasn't impressed by the sound -- but the interpretations didn't draw me in either, and usually Beethoven draws me in quite readily.  What bothered me about the sound was that the upper reaches of the piano sounded glassy or tinkly to an extent that I thought modern recording techniques had long ago overcome.  And I didn't think that the balance between piano and orchestra was consistent -- the loud runs in the left hand would sometimes swamp the orchestra, and that shouldn't happen.  It was as if neither the orchestra nor the piano was given a consistent focus by the engineers.  It also seemed to me that Goode's phrasing was often plain and uninteresting, tending to shortchange the drama of these works, although it's possible that my reservations about the consistency of the piano image might have been affecting the way I heard the phrasing.

As a spot check I compared the first movement of the Fourth concerto in this set with Kovacevich's account with Colin Davis from 1974 (30 years earlier than this).  In Kovacevich/Davis, the sound is good but not, say, in the Perahia/Haitink class, or even the Brendel/Haitink.  But both piano and orchestra were focused consistently in relation to each other in a good balance.  The orchestral sound was a little more homogenized than Fischer's more refined digital recording, but Davis conveyed a much clearer sense of purpose or direction, rhythmically more alive and setting up the relation to the piano as a kind of challenge, which Kovacevich was willing to meet.  Kovacevich's tone wasn't glassy at the top, and his phrasing had much more variety and life.  My memory is that the same is true of Brendel, Perahia, and Serkin (on CBS/Sony).  I wouldn't say that this Goode/Fischer recording is a disaster, but it didn't live up to the hype.  Santa Fe Listener gives it a fine, specific review that I recommend to prospective buyers.
1376100
Howey self-published "Wool" in installments and built up a following -- an accomplishment for which I give him all due credit -- then was vaulted to super-stardom when Ridley Scott sought the film rights.  That's the Holy Grail of writers everywhere, but it seems to have unleashed a flood of praise the novel itself doesn't deserve.

It's good, not great.  It has enormous plot and concept gaps, possibly things Mr. Howey plans to backfill in future installments but their absence is conspicuous here.  The characterization is sometimes shallow, the villain is borderline cartoonish, and the writing is (I hesitate to use the word, but no other fits) amateurish.  His description is consistently over-wordy.  Characters' internal monologues are just paragraphs of rhetorical questions.  The philosophy of the world he creates is kind of unsophisticated.  It's an interesting idea, rendered very simply.  I can understand why that makes it popular, but not hailed as a classic.

I don't want to bash the book.  I did enjoy it, but anything that gets so much hype invites deeper scrutiny.  Had I simply discovered this book rather than been drawn to it by so much buzz, I might feel less inclined to call out its shortcomings.  As it is, I can't help but notice them.  Sorry if that makes me a wet blanket for "Wool."

-- mm
2841172
This film is from the era of my youth and I am a film buff, but I only recently even heard of it.  I appreciate films that test the limits and break new ground, but I find the high positive ratings for this film hard to believe - Is there some cult of people so enlightened that they can see value in garbage like this?  I didn't find it as irritating as some films I've made myself sit through, but it was right up there.  Everything about it was disappointing.  I get that it was supposed to be satire, but it was something else to me - bad parody, maybe.  I guess De Niro was trying to act as if he could not act - If so, he succeeded.  I think I can see what the film was trying to do, but it could certainly have done a much better job of trying to do it.  If "getting it", as some reviewers seem to have done, is necessary to appreciating it, I didn't get it.  It's hard to assess what it cost to make, but a film student today could make a better version of it for next to nothing.
4569503
Saw over X-Mas on DVD. Couldn't believe it wasn't as good as I had heard. A bank robbing movie that has more Drama than bank robbing is almost doomed to fail, unless it's in the hands of a great Director. Sorry Ben, not there yet. Gone Baby Gone was a great ride, but I believe that had more to do with acting and WHO wrote it than Ben. The Town is worth a watch, but ask anyone what they liked about it and you'll get the, "not sure" answer a lot. Not a good sign about a film when you can't remember what you liked about it, especially when you just finished it. That 1st act is really long winded and boring Ben! In Ben I trust, maybe next time, or not?
2116234
There is some good in this movie and some potential, but it has major problem beyond the usual lack of production values caused by not having enough money.  Most importantly, it plays like Blaisdell has only seen Mafia movies.  It's not good enough that he knows how little he knows and make excuses for not knowing more (the old guy saying how did you think we talk?).  The right answer is this problem is to make movies about something you know more about, or, if Blaisdell knows more, be more honest about.
  The dialogue is hackneyed too.  This answer is the same to this problem.  If he has experienced a dying parent and betrayal, Blaisdell should work through this material more directly and honestly.  If not, it is probably better for him to stay closer to his own life experiences, at least to start with.
  The problem might have been that doing so would have meant no financial backing and no movie.
1474241
Overrated.  That is my one word for this album.  There are lots of people saying this album is very good, but I tend to disagree.  Which is just my opinion, but I was not impressed with this release.
536662
Maybe it is because of all the hype about what a great movie this is, but I didn't think it was very good. The story is way to complicated for a 2 hour movie, and it seemed like they had a list of 5 moments/events that they wanted to cover, all of which included some cliff hanger we-are-going-to-get-caught moment.

It is an amazing story in real life, but it just didn't translate into a good movie for me.