I can tell you that Game of Thrones is phenomenal, visual beautiful, fantastic, exhilarating and action-packed thrilling rollercoaster that in many ways has not been seen yet in a tv show. I could say that and be absolutely right about it, but unless you have been living under a rock without an internet connection for the past 2 years than no doubt you already heard, seen or read for yourself what a masterpiece the books and/or this tv series is.
Game of Thrones is exactly like the title says: A game for the throne. Played by the people who think its their right to claim, conquer or inherit it. They all have different goals and different ways of getting to that point, but their goal is in essence in one way or another the same for all of them: to be recognized and remembered for their deeds. Off course that is not so weird since everyone in real life at some level thinks like that. But the main characters in Game of Thrones are different, either through noble descent, the power and money they have, intelligence or sheer luck they have become a member of one of the noble houses that rule the countries and can decide the fate and lives of hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people within the fictional continents of Westeros and Essos.
The story, setting and characters are all taken from a broad range of European history. Most of what we see of the continent Westeros (castles and tournaments) is taken from High Medieval Western Europe from around the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. But the story takes bits and pieces from other time periods as well. For example the wildfire that was used in season 2 in a brilliant strategic move of "The Imp" Tyrion Lannister during the Battle of the Blackwater is in fact Byzantine "Greek fire" which was invented and first used in the 7th century during battles between Muslims and Byzantines. This and other historical events, devices and characters based on real people out of history are all as it seems perfectly interwoven into each other into the fictional world of Game of Thrones by the author of the books George R. R. Martin.
For the actors who play the characters i have nothing but utmost respect. The performance they manage to show episode after episode is definitely what makes this tv show so popular. There is one in particular that without a doubt is one of the more popular stars of this tv show: Peter Dinklage who plays the role of "The Imp" Tyrion Lannister. In the 1st season he was portrayed as nothing more than someone who took advantage of his noble status and money to do whatever he wanted. But in season 2 (and hopefully the next seasons too) he transformed despite his disadvantage of being born as a dwarf (who during medieval times and in this fictional world are considered "lesser" humans) into a brilliant military and political strategist and someone who can very good and enjoys as he so very accurately said himself "play the game".
Game of Thrones is without a doubt the hit tv show of this decade. It started out with a story about medieval times, but slowly with every episode we see the world of the Seven Kingdoms transform into a place where mythical creatures exist, magic and dark powers are used as a weapon against enemies and where the dead are once more walking again.... Winter is coming, and i have no doubt it that it will be as spectacular and story-wise phenomenal as we have have seen in the previous seasons.
Cool concept but terrible, terrible writing.
None of the characters behaves in a believable way, it all feels staged (you know those lines that just happen in movies but just don't feel right in real life? Like "there's no time to explain, just follow me" or "we've got company"), even at the beginning at the resort, before the supernatural part kicks in, like a series of scenes almost unrelated one to the other and patched together, each with the precise purpose to stimulate a feeling in the audience or to get the plot ahead. Characters falling as flies like in predictable horror movies.
Some unexplicable sloppy screenplay moments:
The ending was the best and more naturally progressing part of the movie
Such a mess of a movie.
I didn' t expect much and haven't watched the trailer before but apparently this movie is focusing on the younger audience only and not on the people who watched the first movie back in the day. It's one of these moments when you realize you get old.
Way too young cast, a dumb plot, so no-one needs to think about anything, degrading this movie to a shut-your-brain-off popcorn flick/time waster you forget instantly after leaving the cinema, clichès as far as the eyes can see, cringe dialogues, incredibly studid decisions by humans and aliens.
Liam Hemsworth is the actor to draw in the young audience and a total miscast for this kind of movie but he fits in with all the other young actors who are out of place as well. But that also means he will be the more or less tragic or cool hero and "win" a gorgeous woman at the end of the movie. How could it be different?
Hemsworth's literally horny sidekick is annoying the moment he appears, throughout the whole movie and is the deliberate comic relief and simply hateable as his character is written so blatantly obvious and without any care. You instantly know what trope his character is and what role he will have the rest of the movie.
You are in the alien ship and he carelessly jumpscares you: haha, how funny!
He's talking loudly, called out on it to be quiet and keeps going being loud, endangering all of them: haha, how funny!
He is fawning over the beautiful, "unreachable" daughter of the chief in command on the moonbase we all know he will get later anyway for no reason other than "we went through this sh*t together": soo original.
Liam Hemsworth is peeing in front of the aliens to distract them: haha, how funny and mature.
...and the aliens even fall for that crap.
The whole movie could only happen in its entirety because of the first major decision that was made for no other reason than plot.
Levinson is some kind of an authority when it comes to aliens but he is ignored to enable the movie when he says not to fire at that spherical spaceship, that looks so difficult to the others and behaves totally different as well. That appearance wasn't even foreshadowing, it was an obvious spoiler to how they would be able to win this time against the aliens and took out any kind of suspense there could have been from the get go.
The movie is predictable all the time and doesn't even try to avoid (or hide) it, ultimately leading to me not being entertained at all.
Recurring actors were all a total waste, except perhaps for Goldblum.
Brent Spiner, who plays Dr. Okun, was additionally unbelievable and simply unnecessary.
Using a poweroff button as sign for the resistance against the aliens was preeeetty lazy as well in the design department.
Easy cash grab movie. I have no doubt the next ID movie will be even worse. Here goes my hope for a good Stargate reboot down the drain. I hoped it would give the franchise a possibility to relaunch a series or so but I heavily doubt that now.
But to not only say negative things about this movie: the CGI effects weren't bad.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
From the first scene we notice the unusually subdued colors, which successfully conveys a cold, sad mood, long before we realize that Kutner is dead. Many people were thoroughly shocked by his suicide, as I would have been, had I not been slightly spoiled by an article which said someone on House would commit suicide. Since House M.D. doesn't like to do the expected thing, I kinda predicted that it was Kutner who would kill himself. His discussion with Taub about suicide a few episodes before just seemed to point that way, if you knew what to look for. However, the last scene with House and Kutner in the previous episode had me convinced that his suicide would still be far away, which was some great misdirection by the writers.
I didn't really care about the medical mystery this episode, even though Meat Loaf turned in a nice performance, so my whole focus was on the drama side. For the first time in a long while they showed us a Gregory House who actually cared (as well as showed it) and was thoroughly shaken by what had occurred. Although he would never admit it, Kutner was so much like House it was sometimes scary. He took risks, had a similar sense of humor (Yes, a cat.), as well as keen intuition. In the end the fact there's no reason for Kutner's suicide makes this episode that much more chilling and realistic, which is probably the main reason for some of the hate this episode receives.
Throughout "Simple Explanation" one thing particularly stood out for me. The performances. Everyone was on top of their game this time. However, the Special Gold Acting Star™ with Sparkles (sold separately) goes to Peter Jacobson, who acted his ass off and actually made me cry when he broke down at the end, although the big funeral montage just before that might've had something to do with that... you know, weakened my defenses, which makes my crying in no way unmanly, I tells you.
This movie was...really a let down. There were just lots of atmospheric shots and not a whole lot else. I loved the practical effects though, they were definitely disturbing. The movie needed 1 million times more backstory and development and also some more exploration of myth.
Antlers is a horror movie set in a small town following a teacher who finds disturbing drawings in her student's desk and the student who is trying to survive and protect his family. It happens that there is a monster in the town and his dad, who is a drug addict and single parent, runs into the monster at the start of the movie and things start to change with him from there.
The movie tries to drop hints that the teacher has a tragic backstory as well and to use that to entice the student to trust her to support him. Unfortunately, we are given perhaps exactly 3 flashbacks for the teacher and one additional scene where she and her brother argue briefly about their childhood. There's no depth given to this at all. There's also very little depth given to the actual myth of the monster. Spoilers ahead - the first lines in the movie are a native american myth or something which gives away that the movie is about the Wendigo. The retired cop actually brings this up immediately and shows them a book about the Wendigo myth and they decide alright this is the monster...practically instantly because all signs point to yes. Except the brother has to doubt it...of course. There were too few exploratory scenes behind the monster myth as well - this was quite a low-hanging fruit when it comes to Native American mythology - it was like seeing a movie version of Until Dawn, which did explore the Wendigo myth well IMO.
The movie, despite being so atmosphering and spooky, doesnt seem to utilise its artistic shots very well, a few times the filming and effecst really bring the movie down, especially in tense combat scenes where you can't tell what's even going on. I found myself rolling my eyes at the typical stupid cop stereotype that pervades the horror genre. Plus some events in the movie don't seem to make sense to me at the end. Like, for example how did both the brother and son get infected with the wendigo spirit if the protective charms are there and have held it in the cave for decades? and where did the original wendigo go after they killed the drug addict and possessed the dad? there were definitely more than 1 wendigo, why would they need to leave their body and possess a new human?
It...could be worth just watching the film but it wasn't amazing.
I can forgive people for believing this film if they just watch it and do no further research into the subject. But this is clearly just another money-grab and the many mistakes and inconsistencies have proven that.
Michael Jackson was autistic and couldn't always see when devious people were just using him for their own financial gain. He was too trusting of everyone. Anybody and everyone could walk into Neverland whether Michael was there or not and demand food from his cooks, play on the fairground rides, run riot round the mansions, or even sleep in his bed.
Being autistic, one of his obsessions was all things Disney. Even before he bought Neverland, for his 24th Birthday, he hired the original voice actress for Snow White, Adriana Caselotti, along with the seven actors who dressed as the Seven Dwarfs at Disneyland to come to his house and serenade him to sleep.
Another time, Michael was invited to the White House. When he arrived, he walked into a conference room and he saw many people dressed in suits ready to greet him. This scared him and he run into the library in the White House and locked himself in the toilets and wouldn't come out until they had all gone. This way of dealing with uncomfortable situations is common among people who are autistic. Some argue he wasn't autistic because in early interviews he has good eye contact. But another pop star, Mika, has also been diagnosed with autism, and he shows excellent eye contact and appears to be very comfortable in interviews.
Macaulay Culkin once stated that Michael "has never been great at explaining himself," which is why he could never understand the reaction he got when he stated on camera that kids have slept in his room. He did clarify that the kids slept on the bed and he often slept on the floor. And as Culkin pointed out: "I don't think you understand, Michael's bedroom is like two stories, and has three bathrooms." It was more like sharing a house than a bedroom.
Contradicting this mockumentary, many people who were there have verified that on these famous "sleepovers", there were always multiple people there including, Macaulay Culkin, Keiran Culkin, Brett Barnes, Natalie Barrett, Corey Feldman, Shanice Wilson, Aaron Carter, Omer Bhatti, Keira Chaplin, Michael Jackson's family members such as Taj and Brandi Jackson, as well as Michael Jackson's kids Prince, Paris and Bigi. As well as many, many more.
So where did it all go wrong?
In 1993, a guy named Evan Chandler told Michael that if he doesn't pay him $20 million, then he will go to newspapers claiming that Michael had molested his son, Jordie Chandler. Evan kept on pestering him for 6 months about this but Michael kept refusing until his attorney at the time stated that if Michael didn't pay, then he'd have to go to court and cancel his worldwide tour, losing him at least $100 million. Therefore his attorney arranged for Michael's insurance company to pay the $20 million.
(All artists have insurance companies because they are sued all the time. If they didn't pay people off then they'd end up in court every day of their life. The song "Billie Jean" is about a woman trying to sue him, claiming that he’s the father of her son.)
Michael then counter-sued the Chandler family for extortion/blackmail.
Despite many police raids round Neverland and the FBI getting involved, they couldn't find any evidence for a criminal trial. But when it came out in the newspapers that Michael had "payed off" an accuser for child sexual abuse, this sent out a message to the world: "Why work, when you can sue Michael Jackson?"
In 2003, a guy called Martin Bashir released a controversial documentary called "Living With Michael Jackson". He tricked Michael by saying that it was going to revive his reputation after the 1993 allegations. The reality was that Martin Bashir was just as harsh as the tabloid media and mocked Michael's autism and eccentric behaviour by calling him "disturbing". Believing Martin Bashir to be a decent journalist, Michael really opens up to him, showing him the tree that he often climbed to write his songs. Behind the scenes footage shows that Bashir encouraged Michael and couldn't praise him enough. Michael happily went along with him. But then Martin Bashir later recorded seriously judgemental commentary for the documentary. He basically used Michael like a monkey in a zoo.
To Michael, Martin Bashir told him that he wanted to show the audience all the charity work he does for kids and so Martin himself arranged the most controversial scene in the whole documentary, in which Michael is sat next to a surviving cancer patient, Gavin Arvizo, and Martin is asking Michael about the allegations and about the sleepovers. Michael does admit to having many people (both kids and adults) sleep at Neverland and in his bedroom, but does specify that it's not just him and another kid. It's "many, many children" and that it's "not sexual." He also does specify that the kids sleep in the bed, while he sleeps on the floor. (Verified by Michael's adult friend, Frank Cascio who was at all the sleepovers along with the many kids and parents who joined them.)
However it was those scenes in the film that made District Attorney Tom Sneddon believe he could finally prosecute Michael Jackson. When the documentary was released, the world's media went into uproar and to make matters worse, Gavin Arvizo who defended Michael in the documentary received a visit from Evan Chandler's lawyer, specifying how much money they could make if they claimed Michael had molested him.
The police arrested Michael and he went through a 5 month trial in 2005. This is when Wade Robson (from "Leaving Neverland") defended Michael. If Michael really had been molesting Wade Robson all those years, then he took a HUGE risk putting him first on the stand to defend him in the trial! Doesn't make much sense to me.
But this trial wasn't the Wade Robson Show, as he made out in "Leaving Neverland"... There were many others who defended Michael too, including Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker all of whom still defend him today.
But as Michael's new attorney, Tom Mesereau pointed out, he didn't really need a defence team anyway because the prosecution side made themselves look ridiculous! The 8 thousand page court transcript of the trial is online for you to read. It may take some time but it's worth it for comedy purposes. I laughed out loud several times at what they were trying to claim and how they contradicted themselves. (There is also a book about the court case by Aphrodite Jones that's worth a read too.)
Gavin Arvizo first claimed to a child protection officer that he had been molested before the Martin Bashir documentary... and when the outtake footage was shown in court, he then claimed he was molested just AFTER the documentary was released.... and then when further footage was shown of the Arvizo family defending Michael after the documentary was released, Gavin changed the molestation date again to months after the documentary.
It was also proved in court that Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain even before he met Michael Jackson. He tried to claim that his mother was raped by a security guard at a department store. The CCTV cameras proved that he was lying. The Arvizo family had quite a history of lying for financial gain. They had even told many celebrities that he couldn't afford the treatment for his cancer, when in fact, his father's insurance covered all costs. But they fooled many celebrities and attained thousands of dollars from them.
The Arvizo family also tried to claim in court that Michael had kidnapped the whole family and took them to Miami and held them hostage. The dates of plane payments and witnesses proved that this was also untrue.
Plus many people who were on the prosecution's side, including June Chandler, the mother of Jordie, actually said more to defend Michael than anyone. June even claimed that she always thought that Evan Chandler was in it for the money.
So Michael was already proved innocent of all these false claims even before Wade Robson took the stand.
After 5 months, the jury found Michael: Not Guilty on all charges.
When Michael passed away in 2009, Wade Robson wrote this tribute to a friend via email:
"Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk."
In 2011, Wade attempted to gain employment as the lead choreographer for a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production. He was rejected.
His career in his words began to "crumble."
In 2012, heavily in debt, he tried to sell a book to publishers claiming he had been abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher agreed to publish it.
In 2013, he filed a civil lawsuit against the Jackson estate for up to $1.6 billion dollars. A court dismissed his claims in 2017 on the grounds that there were too many inconsistencies and a judge actually stated that “no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements.”
In 2019, "Leaving Neverland" is released but they claim "It's not about the money".
One thing Wade Robson conveniently forgets to mention in the film is the fact that he was dating Michael Jackson's niece Brandi Jackson for seven years and it was Michael who suggested they date. But that doesn't fit in with the story that Michael wanted him to stay away from girls because they were "in a relationship”.
In “Leaving Neverland”, Wade Robson claims that Michael Jackson was molesting him ’til he was 14 and then lost interest because he became too old for him and so he replaced him with Macauley Culkin… Culkin is two years older than Wade Robson so that doesn’t make much sense!
Arguably the most laughable moment in the mockumentary is when James Safechuck pulls out a ring and tries to claim that Michael had done a mock wedding ceremony where they exchanged vows to each other. He then placed the ring on his finger. Why would a child’s ring fit so well on an adult’s finger?
Safechuck was very clear in the documentary that the abuse stopped when he was 14. He was very specific about that - Watch the documentary again to see how specific he was. However he also claimed that he had been abused several times in a train station built on the Neverland premises.
After doing some research, Mike Smallcombe proved that the train station wasn’t built until 1994, when James Safechuck was 16. Even the director of “Leaving Neverland” had to admit that Safechuck had made an error and when “Leaving Neverland” was made available for streaming, the train station error had been mysteriously edited out!
Time travelling errors seem to be a Safechuck family trait. James’s mother claims in the mockumentary that when Michael Jackson died in 2009 she celebrated by dancing saying “he can’t hurt any more children.” In 2012 however she was following Michael Jackson fan pages on Twitter and sharing his music. In 2013, she claimed she had only just found out about the abuse.
Many argue “we’ll never know what really went on” and that can be said for both in favour or against Michael. But in response, I’d say you can tell when someone is lying. Dan Reed, the director, had admitted that it’s a one-sided film and that he never attempted to interview anyone who was willing to defend Michael (including Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker.)
Four people have accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. 2 in his lifetime and now 2 after his death. 3 out of those 4 people (Evan Chandler, Robson and Safechuck) have been fully grown adults attempting to sue Michael or his estate for millions. The one child that accused him, Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain.
I’m enjoying it, it could be better unfortunatly, but generally I like it.
My main gripe is the background music, it’s just a bit off and almost cheapens the whole show. Reminds me of an 80’s show. I don’t normally notice any background music, but this is annoying.
I like anything sci-fi, fantasy, supernatural etc. And it is difficult it seems to pull off a good show. So, I’m used to them all having something off with them.
The female reporter is probably the most annoying character and it’s just too much and spoils things.
It’s good to see characters from old shows and films: Damon Salvatore- Vampire Diaries
Jeremy and Eleana Danvers - Bitten
Seelie Queen - Shadowhunters
Dr Elliot - 12 Monkeys
And so many more
It’s not as cheesy as some of the above mentioned thankfully lol.
Something is not quite right about this show sadly, it’s got a good line up of cast and so is the plot, but it’s simply not delivered as well as it could be. Almost a bit rushed perhaps. I can’t quite put my finger on it.
However, I’m still enjoying it and hoping it will improve if it gets a second season. As this can be common with new shows.
Definitely worth watching.
I don't even know how to approach this. I am at a complete loss of words for how uninspiring and delusional this film was. I feel like it did a great disservice to the original film, and I am saddened by that idea. I really am, because while this film started great, it didn't end well. Additionally, the second half of this film seemed rushed and how the characters progressed seemed to be a bit of a cop out.
Let's start with the ending. Let's get this out of the way first, because I still don't know what's going on here. Usually this is okay, as with the first film, but this was just poorly executed here. The whole idea of Kate being an agent and Sasha having her own agenda is great. Loved that part. The implosion? Great. I loved that too. The part about Kate's mission being to retrieve a device from Sasha and later being killed to protect some information? Didn't like it. I didn't think it was well explained and I didn't think it fit the narrative.
The original film kept the viewer inside of the cube. We never saw the outside; maybe it wasn't even outside that Kazan walked into. In this film, however, we are taken completely out of the cube and we are shown a huge array of characters who have little meaning. We go from a nice cast of a handful of characters, true to the original film, and abruptly are shown twice that amount in additional characters. That ruined my immersion and I feel sad.
Let's talk about how the characters die. The first half of the film kept a really good pace for this and characters died and a steady pace. Grim, but true. After that, the viewer is forced to accept a multiverse theory, which is okay, and is shown characters repeatedly dying. Still, kinda, okay, but now we're losing track of who our "original" characters are. This tries hard to break immersion, but it's saved somewhat by Kate realizing the watches in the end. Oh, and we still don't know who wrote all of the things on the walls. That was shown from the onset, and wasn't explained. I also feel that they ran out of time and killed off characters wayyy too quickly in the end.
This is not a terrible film, but it definitely wasn't great and certainly wasn't as good as the original. It's worth the watch, still, but keep your expectations in check. It tried to do more than the scope of Cube and I think that's why this film isn't as successful. If they had kept closer to the original structure, this would have fared much better. There's a lot more I could talk about today, but suffice to say, I didn't love this film. Watchable, especially because of the first, but not memorable.
You can't call out the ABCs of Death for not being an ambitious horror anthology! Featuring shorts for every letter in the alphabet made by directors from all over the world with a budget of 5000$ each. This might be a bit much so it work's best on the small screen, giving you the chance to think about them or just taking a short break (it's clocking at a bit more than two hours). There is bound to be difference in the quality of the segments when it comes to anthologies but overall I found it to be an enjoyable project. Some shorts failed the mood a bit and "M" was a major disappointment (no idea what he used the 5000 bucks for). If you're a horror fan, nothing should stop you from watching it. I would not recommend it for casual viewers.
Standouts: D is for Dogfight (Marcel Sarmiento) / L is for Libido (Timo Tjahjanto) / N is for Nuptials (Banjong Pisanthanakun) / P is for Pressure (Simon Rumley) / T is for Toilet (Lee Hardcastle) / U is for Unearthed (Ben Wheatley) / X is for XXL (Xavier Gens) / Y is for Young Buck (Jason Eisener)
Bads: G is for Gravity (Andrew Traucki) / J is for Jidai-geki (Yûdai Yamaguchi) / M is for Miscarriage (Ti West)
I think Asamy wanted the relationship to work—which explains the "You are the first one who is really warmhearted and tries to accept me." monologue re-appearance at the end—, but when she snuck into Aoyama's house and saw his wife's picture still erect on his desk, she realized he was lying when he said he will only love her; thus, her PTSD kicked in and, fueled by her tortured past, she started setting up her revenge.
It's worth it to keep in mind that lust, fused with torture and violence, is the only form of intimacy she knows so, when she has full control, and in the absence of lust, torture and violence are all that is left.
I think Aoyama's nightmare was fueled by many things:
His guilt over (1) remarrying after his wife's death (manifested in turning away the picture of his wife when he was looking at the CVs), (2) ditching his employee after sleeping with her, and ignoring her attempts to get him to commit to a serious relationship, (3) agreeing to stage the fake audition, which, in his words, made him "feel like a criminal", and (4) lying about not loving anyone but Asamy because he still has feelings for his wife.
His fear of (1) committing to a serious relationship for the first time in years, (2) Yoshikawa's warnings, and (3) Asamy's obscure and troubled past.
His son's remark that Asamy is almost his age might have been the catalyst for the son's girlfriend appearance in the nightmare.
I think there are two endings: (1) Aoyama's nightmare passes, and life goes on, and (2) it is not really a nightmare, and Asamy got her revenge, not only against Aoyama, but against every man who wronged her.
Finally, I think every horrific thing that went on up until the beginning of the final torture scene only happened in Aoyama's imagination; a bunch of narratives that his brain invented and weaved together as a result of his fears. It is possible that Asamy's life followed a similar path, but not necessarily what Aoyama imagined in his head.
I wasn't frightened by the film, but I was amused throughout, and left in awe when it was over. This is an excellent, genre-defying, Takashi Miike film. I can't really think of any sequence that dragged, or anything that went wrong. The cinematography, in particular, was pitch-perfect in every beat—in general, it's very easy to tell there is an auteur who knows what he's doing, and why, behind the camera.
10/10 would recommend, and watch again if an opportunity presents itself.
One of my favourite B-movies. It's a fun ride, but as many times as I've seen it (two so far logged on Trakt, but closer to a dozen otherwise), the twist in the middle when he switches from Digicorp to Sunways and then the similar twist later is just handled poorly. They knew what they wanted to do, but they didn't handle it well, and it only makes sense when you get to the end and you learn what's really going on. Still, it's a great concept.
I think this film was marketed a little too heavily to the Matrix fans, and while it may appeal to some of the same fans, it really deserves to stand on its own. The acting is a little off, or Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam's character) is just super punchable. Though, I think the bad acting is mostly intentional as this movie is all about people (not just Sullivan) who pretend to be something they aren't. Is it bad acting or are they acting the roles of bad actors well?
This is not really a movie for 'normal' people. If you're looking for something different and original in the genres of science fiction and suspense/thrillers, this is a good pick. It's not a great film, but it's a fun techie/spy movie. Although calling it a spy movie isn't entirely correct; because of James Bond, we expect spies to use all kinds of weird gadgets and seduce beautiful women on foreign beaches with fancy drinks. This is more corporate espionage.
