i was embarrassed for Harrison Ford in this movie. what a disgustingly bad film from one of the better actors of his generation. i mean, was this part of some midlife crisis where he was trying desperately to recapture a younger audience? bad. worse than bad .. sad.
shareDefinitely man. Ford is one of my favorite actors of all time. I was absolutely shocked when I saw him in this.
I think I saw him say in an interview before this movie that he wanted to branch over to comedy. Not a good first step mate. I'd say retire while you're ahead.
----------------------------------
The Great Eye is ever watchful.
I think he was visibly embarrassed too. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.
shareWhile I didn't like this film either, I gathered that you all hated it worse than I did. I gave it ** out of 4. It was embarrassing for Ford and Hartnett. They did not have any chemistry and seemed to be forcing the material to work when it wasn't going to work no matter who you plugged into their roles.
John P. Germain
Yeah, you´re right, but why 2 out of 4 ? This is easily zero out of four, or even a minus number ...?
shareWell, I gave it 2 stars because the film tries to be fun and exciting it just does not work. you could say that 1 star goes to Harrison Ford and the other goes to Josh Hartnett. A zero star movie would be STAY ALIVE or that horrible movie SEE NO EVIL with Kane, that wrestlin' dude. HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE wasn't THAT bad.
shareHm, 2 of 4 is like 5 of 10 ... that´s what it has on the IMDB ... I would give FORD 1 star out of 10 and the movie, since someone was able to move a camera (smile) 2 stars of 10, but not 2 of 4.
If a movie "just does not work" (I agree!), why 2 of 4 ?
OK, it might not be zero (altough I "hate" an expensive production, which is poor, more than a cheap one, which fails - an expensive failure is a waste, a cheap one is not that surprising - however, I am always thrilled about cheap goodies, many cheap movies are better than the expensive "blockbusters", so-called "A-productions" ... but I am getting off the track), since there are always worse ones ... I just try to think hard about one, but in recent times I didn´t have the "luck" to see one ... :-)
2 out of 10 for heaven´s sake, smile.
(But then again, who I am to blame you ...?? ROGER EBERT must have seen another movie, haha, cose he gave it 3 out of 4 stars !!!!!!!!!!!)
Touche'!! O.K. *1/2 out of 4. I hate having to adjust whether or not it should be 1 to 10 rating scale or 1 to 5. I always liked the 4 star rating system. It keeps it short and simple. * is poor so I will adjust my rating to *1/2. Thanks for you spirited input. I disagree with very little you wrote. Ebert sometimes goes soft on some movies. I was shocked by the great review he gave THE DEVIL'S REJECTs.It was an absolute scuzpit of a movie! I gave that movie 0 stars. He gave it 3 stars out of 4, if I am not mistaken. Go figure. Take care and don't be a stranger.
shareThanx a lot for your kind remark ! Actually I agree with you regarding the scale, I also prefer the 5-star-concept, being 5 stars for the abolute masterpiece, which applies to maybe 2, 3 movies each year, if at all, 4 for the superb picture with absolutely minimal flaws, 3 being the well watchable effort, 2 being average, 1 below average and no star is ... beep. :-)) That´s a logical concept, but what to do with 10 stars ...??? Anyway, that´s the IMDB ...
Regarding Zero-point movies I have to admit I haven´t seen one lately. I´d really have to think hard, but I am not going to the pictures as often anymore as I did earlier (family, children) and on TV I check so not to fall for the trap or waste time with a complete failure. And then again, often complete bummers don´t get synchronised anyway and don´t come to Europe at all.
Ebert, well ... strange guy, very soft at times and then again he tries to sink some nice B. I think he was more precise in his older reviews, esp. in the 70ies, recently he is throwing the stars around (so many 3 and 4 stars ...). Does not live up to his (inflated) reputation anymore, sadly. Has lost his bite.