Reviews

Nothing Really Wrong with the flick. Good acting all around. Great set. Intersting (if overdone) camera and visual effects. The story seemed plausible enough and the emotions were realistic. But there just wasn't enough of something to make it worth recommending. I hate to pan this movie because it did many things well, and I often think movies fail when they try to "overstuff" the plot. But this film just seems a bit thin. If you are up for a simple suspense film, then by all means pay the 8 bucks and enjoy. But if you are looking for a psychological thriller, look elsewheres.

Solid 7 out of 10

One of the most uplifing, hopeful and fulfilling documentaries I've seen in quite some time. Also one of the most depressing and frightening films I've seen. Explains the entire palestine/israel problem at its most basic, most pure level, children. Outstanding work.

This film suffers from the fact that so many have already read the book and look to pick apart every scene that doesn't synch up. I read the book and I think it helps to watch the movie if you are at least familiar with the themes of the book, but I still think the film stands alone in its genre, somewhere behind Stranglelove, MASH and Full Metal Jacket (all movies influenced by the book). A lot of the acting comes out cartoonish, but I think they were cartoons in the book as well. That was a theme of the book and the film; the artificiality of people playing roles in war. I thought Voight was excellent as Milo and Perkins played a perfectly reserved Chaplin. This was Arkin's film, and I though he carried it off. I also found the Snowden flash backs as an interesting choice for the movies pivot.

I've seen the film with people who did not read the book, and some unaware of the book, and I think most had very positive impressions of it. Yes the book is a more fulfilling experience, but that is almost always the case. I understand that the film disappointed when it opened and all the stars ended up despising each other. I think that reaction tainted the film for several years. I think that the film has appreciated with age and really stands today as a great underrated piece of work. I think at some point if will be rediscovered and be placed among the best black comedy/farce/war movies of its time.

I was a moderate admirer of Tolkein. I read the Hobbit and the first and third books of the trilogy. I never really got in to the world of Middle Earth to the same level as the scores of D&D folks, but I consider myself a fan. That said, this movie left me feeling flat and uninspired. The books were not written to tell a story, they just existed, just as history books don't necessarily have a moral or plot. The movie however is trying to concoct a moral in this tale. The fellowship is far to thin to carry me along. I didn't care for any of the characters and the dialouge seemed very rigid and uninspired. Overall it wasn't a bad movie, and I suspect if the editing was a little tighter and about 30 minutes was trimmed off the end, I would call it a success. As of now, I can only recommend for the super fans, and suspect that if the second one isn't improved it will bomb.

I am amazed that I could like a movie about something so silly and saccarine. But it just goes to show you that with clever writing, good acting and inspired and interested directing, simple stories still make great films. I do think the film has something substantial to offer, it is not a "pastry" as some overweight film critics try to pigeon hole it as. Instead, the story attempts to show the importance of triviality and the insignificance of "world events" I love the way the story was loosely framed around the Lady Di tragedy. We see how Amelie's world exists inside and isolated from the events that the newspapers say we should care about. This film is about escaping the isolated voyeuristic world that we live for and begin to live our own lives, rich with our like and dislikes, or fetishes and quirks. While I watched the film, I wondered if Jeunet was in cahoots with Bin Ladin because the timing of the events could not be better. So turn off the 24 hour war coverage, skip Survivor and see Amelie. On the way home stop buy you grocer and dip you hands in some grain if you like.

Also, anyone who does not like this movie because it's too cute or sugary, is dead inside and should just off themselves now. The film (and actress) are simply too adorable not to like.

Sounds a lot like a high school film strip with a foreign accent. Instead of having one person explain how everything works, why not propose a debate, use logic, use reason. This is a self serving and not very interesting.

I saw this movie even though the ads didn't look that promising. But I remembered that I missed the boat on Something About Mary, which I thought had poor ads as well. So I though Zoolander may have something to offer, since Mary was one of the best comedies of all time (IMHO). Unfortunately, it sucked as bad as the ads suggested. And it is a real disappointment since so much talent was wasted. It appears to be an excellent sketch comedy bit, gone horribly, horribly wrong. It did have its moments, the opening scenes and the brainwashing montague were inspired and stylish, but the following scenes fell flat, and the audience could never get enough momentum to turn the occasional giggles to real laughter. The coal mining scenes were a waste (Why have Vince Vaughn just sit there, couldn't Stiller think of a single line for him) All the cameos were distracting, and none were very funny. The spy scenes were silly, and were meant to be. But Austin Powers proved that silly spy spoofs could still pack the laughs, despite the fact they are predictable. The modeling scenes were parodies of a genre that has already been parodied enough. (See Scary Movie spoofing a spoof) We all know Male models are vacant. Telling us again doesn't make it any funier. The plot against the Malaysian Prime Minister was very distastful (current events notwithstanding) The Prime Minister is a very real person, a muslim and an ally of the US. Why have a real person be the center of a death threat when it would be certainly very easy to make up a country like Bandonesilay or something. The whole movie seemed to be based around the one real joke of Zoolander's new expression (Magnum) which is so perfect it can stop steel. Funny for a five minute sketch, tiresome in a 100 minute movie. The film seemed unorganized and rushed. Jokes are overexplained and strange pauses in action left the audience giggling in confusion, rather than in humor. Cable Guy, Mystery Men and Zoolander is strike three. Stiller, keep your writing and directing talents for MTV, and leave the big screen to the Farrely Brothers.

Actually, it's not even that good. It is more like the loamy layer of decaying excrement located under an old sun baked pile of hog dung. I will reconstruct this car wreck.

Movie Producer 1 - Let's give Tom Green a pile of money and let him make a movie, I hear the kids at MTV love him.

Movie Producer 2 - You bet they do, but we can't edit or censor him because the kids like his honesty and in your face attitude.

Movie Producer 1 - Okay then, here's a blank check and tell Tom to make up a movie this weekend. By the way, do you know anything about Mr. Green except the fact that kids love him?

Movie Producer 2 - I think he's Canadian!

Movie Producer 1 - Like Jim Carrey!

Movie Producer 2 - You bet.

Movie Producer 1 - Well goddarn, forget the script, start shooting right now! Tell Tom he's got the afternoon to think of something funny, he likes that improv stuff. Make sure he gets in your face and outrageous. If he gets stuck for ideas, give him this old Carrot Top movie script we were going to make when we thought he was funny.

Hence we are left with Freddie Got Fingered. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being Citizen Cane and 1 being a hidden toilet camera of a person defecating, this is a 0.9.