Reviews

I had high hopes about this film, but it left me feeling annoyed.

First, the positive. The cinematography is attractive and the scenes are well constructed visually. If you are looking for open-ended existential questions, you will find a few of those. If you are looking for Adrian Brody to do his sad eyebrow face, you will not be disappointed. There are a few cameos by other great actors, if you are in to that sort of thing.

Now, the negative. This film does not offer any valuable insight into any of the problems that it addresses. It gives a sensationalist portrayal of the difficulty of being a teacher in a failing school, the apathy of students and teachers, and the aftermath of childhood abuse. It emphasizes each of these problems without offering any kind of understanding beyond the expression of listless angst. All the vague statements that Adrian Brody says into the camera are certainly less than the sum of their parts.

I don't expect all films to offer insight. When the subject matter are issues that people care deeply about, it is nice, but if a film doesn't offer insight at least it can offer entertainment. Well, not this one. The story is aimless and meandering. The child actors are not believable.

Instead of watching this movie you might consider just sitting in a corner to think about how bad life can be, and then blame it all on parents without really trying to understand the situation. Same effect.

The acting was bad, the characters were stereotypical and cliché, and the story was completely without subtlety.

But the worst part is the message (also not very subtle). The movie is 90 minute straw-man argument against Christianity/religion. Interwoven into the plot are a stack of arguments against religion, with absolutely no attempt to fairly represent the other side. On top of that, the atheist arguments are not even very well thought out, and in the end the verdict seems to rest on the virtues (or lack thereof) of the characters representing both sides. The Christian antagonist is hypocritical, homophobic, and small-minded. The atheist protagonist is heroic and kind. Based on that, let's decide not to pray for our meal.

It wouldn't be so bad if it ended in a way that highlighted the fact that people can do good things or bad things regardless of philosophical orientation. The best that we can do is respect beliefs that are different from our own, and try to see what we have in common instead of what separates us. I enjoy fair-minded and respectful philosophical arguments, but this isn't even close.

This movie may be remotely enjoyable as long as you can turn your brain off. Unfortunately, I couldn't.

The characters were so unbelievably bad, and the worst was definitely the camera man. He was somewhere between quagmire (without the funny) and dude, where's my car. The writer couldn't have made the characters any more linear and cliché.

The story is exactly what you expect. Even if you haven't seen the movie but have seen the trailer, imagine what it is going to be like and how it is going to end, and you are probably pretty close. For a movie that is supposed to be mysterious, there are no real surprises here, and nothing terribly original.

The first person amateur video gimmick is so tastelessly done. The most annoying part is they feel the need to explain everything that is going on. I am pretty sure they are counting on an audience with a low IQ. Blair Witch broke some ground with this technique, and director Matt Reeves must have decided that they got it right the first time and there was no need to build on it. There are so many similarities that you can pretty much count on hating it if you didn't like The Blair Witch.

Finally, the movie is completely unrealistic. I am not talking about the monsters, I am talking about very simple details that it is not easy to ignore. For example, the beginning clearly states that it is on an SD card, yet the movie keeps cutting back and forth over footage that was supposedly filmed over. Also, apparently helicopter crashes are a lot safer than most people would guess.

Like I said before, the movie might work if you can simultaneously block all of these things. The rating it got here on IMDb absolutely boggles my mind. I can only assume an 8/10 is the new 5/10.

Good science fiction is supposed to entertain a fantastic notion in order to stimulate new perspectives and ideas about humanity and reality. If you are looking for that, then consider a different movie.

I watched this movie because of the reviews and ratings here on IMDb. This site doesn't usually let me down, but I have to say that there is no greater discrepancy here between rating and actual quality than there is with The Man from Earth.

Have you ever had a professor who obviously considered himself a genius, and also considered himself funny, even though he was plainly the opposite in both cases? Prepare for dejavu if you watch this movie. The humor tries to be intellectual, but I would say it is more like Full House meets The New Yorker. The characters are all so unrealistic and, well, downright unlikable. The acting is awful, just completely bad. It feels like it was made by an atheist who considered himself enlightened, yet the message gets lost in the abysmal story.

I won't spoil anything, as if there was some way that could make the movie even worse, but the ending will either make you laugh derisively or shake your head in disbelief over how poorly done it was.

The review I read said the movie was for people who are not afraid to think, yet the ideas expressed in between the cheesy one-liners were no more profound than an AOL chatroom discussion about who is greater, pirates or ninjas. Nothing new was said, no ideas reinvented, no original thinking in the whole blathering mess.

This movie seems to be made with the intention of cashing in on all the attention given to terrorism coming from the middle east. It also feigns an interest in seeing things through a middle easterner's perspective, yet I don't think they are really being genuine.

First of all, the acting, cinematography, and story are all second rate. The movie starts out with a shocking sequence, followed by an hour of snoozeville. It is not going to keep you on the edge of your seat. It was not totally devoid of talent, but there is nothing there to make it shine either.

The worst thing of all about this movie is the hypocrisy. The movie starts out with a big lecture about world economics and oil. The beginning seems to suggest that America is somewhat responsible for the situation we are in now. It is the only part of the movie worth watching. Despite the humble attitude at the beginning, what follows is a couple hours of eye-for-an-eye, American style ass-kicking and revenge (less exciting then it sounds, most of it is just building up hype for the end). The movie is EXTREMELY xenophobic and one-sided.

What we need are more movies that put the blame where it belongs, as much on America as anyone else. Not watered down BS like this to inoculate us to what is going on.

Do not go see this if you want to see a thriller about a bank heist. This movie has very little action. Instead, go see it because it is a masterpiece psychological drama, rich with original cinematography and a unique story.

The film centered around the main character, Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), as he struggles with feelings of guilt and powerlessness. Once someone that was admired and looked up to, he now finds himself confused and living a meager life. This is due to frontal lobe damage he sustained in an accident which he sees as his fault. More than anything, he just wants to be the guy that he once was. Looking for companionship, he falls in with a sketchy crowd. It is not long before they reveal their plan to rob a bank, the same bank that he works at.

This film has many good qualities, including strong acting, surreal cinematography, and complete originality. But what makes it really worth seeing is the story. It reminded me a little bit of Brick (another fine movie with Joseph Gordon-Levitt) but without the adolescent mood. Or maybe Memento without the gimmicky plot. Although the main character struggles with frontal lobe damage, his feelings of loneliness, guilt, and being a stranger even to himself are very human. It is an experience that most people should be able to relate to on some level. This movie will make you think, and you will probably find yourself recommending it to others as I am recommending it to you now.

This movie tries too hard to be dark and mysterious and at the same time funny, but it brings it to a level that just makes it look ridiculous and clumsy.

It has pretty much the quality and depth of story you would expect from a movie about ticket checkers. You have a troglodyte hero that could have been so much more, but instead, became a ticket inspector. Him and the group of misfits that make up his team go head to head, competing with other ticket checking teams. And yep, it ends up just as badly as it sounds. The end resolves nothing and provokes no thought. You are left thinking to yourself, "Wow." Do yourself a favor and watch the movie without subtitles, that way you can imagine that there is an actual story with characters that have depth.

For the most part, it is a visually impressive movie. I imagine the director could do some good if he stopped trying to copy the worst parts about American cinema.

This is such a poor movie, it is unbelievable. Especially considering it has such a solid actor like Al Pacino. Fans of his will wish they never saw it.

Al plays the role of a psychologist consultant for the police who is also a teacher of forensic psychology. The movie starts the day a serial killer who was convicted based on his testimony is about to executed. But it is a bad day for Al's character because there is new evidence that suggests he helped convict the wrong man. Oh, not only that, but he receives an anonymous phone call telling him he has 88 minutes to live.

Al Pacino plays a hardcore guy in most of his films, that is usually what makes them great. It seems like they tried to do the same thing with this movie and accomplished the opposite. His character is surrounded by bimbo 20-year-olds throwing themselves at him and guys with leather jackets for him to beat up. But it just ends up feeling like a desperate attempt to prove he "still has it." The only thing floating this movie is a gimmick for a plot (the whole 88 minutes to live thing) which sort of ends of being a subplot anyway. Al Pacino fans are going to hate me for saying all this until they see it for themselves.