Reviews

Coming from Rob Reiner about Albert Brooks, this film is a huge letdown. Two fantastic filmmakers tell, rather than show.

This is NOT a documentary, but rather a filmed conversation, illustrated by archive photos and videos, occasionally interrupted with short praises coming from celebrity fans and very few actual collaborators.

Hopefully, someday, parts of this material will be used in a real documentary about Albert Brooks. A documentary that will do more than just recycle the already seen bits and pieces.

Reiner fails to show us the genius of his lifelong friend. Instead, he gives us a never-ending, uninspiring, and predictable paean. Combined with the impression of a very limited production budget, one gets an idea that this draft for a film was made in a great hurry.

I am not a die hard fan, but I looked forward to this adaptation.

The main problem is the script. Apart from Sheen's and Tennant's characters, others are one-dimensional and seem to be there to fill in the void before the angel and demon reaper. Hamm's character Gabriel might be an exception, but this lack of development is especially visible when it comes to female characters. The dialogue feels like it is supposed to be funny, but lines seem to miss their mark. The omnipresent narration of the Almighty is more often than not superfluous. It is a gimmick and does nothing for the story itself.

FYI, I watched all the episodes, even though I lost interest. I loved the opening credits though :)

Acting is excellent. Editing too. However, they cannot make up for a screenplay that lacks depth. Certain characters, specially female ones, are seriously underwritten. It's obvious that they are there just because they were a part of the original story and/or to move the story along. (and NO, one cliché scene, where female character is given a moment to cry alone is not enough to make it a round character, it just makes it a flat cliché). It is a touching story with a good message, but an average film.

I've just seen the film at the "avant-première" here in Paris. I really wanted to like it as I have great respect for everybody involved and I really loved the premise. First off, the actors are great, hats off to the younger cast. They held their ground until the last scene, but that loss of believability has much more to do with the script and directing as the ending felt artificial and rushed. Now, the beginning is good but what follows, not so much. The main character is underdeveloped, thus her journey at some point becomes repetitive and even though it is visually interesting, story-wise it is boring-ish. Speaking of visuals, the fact that it reminded me of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Amelié actually bothered me because it made everything sound out of tune - it was both too similar to be original and too different to be a good copy. There are some great ideas and good laughs, but all in all it could have been much much better. What's worse, it deserved to be.

Meryl Streep is great. And so is the premise. However lack of story and character development ruined the film. These pillars of storytelling cannot be replaced by numerous quality music numbers. Mediocre directing further damaged the film. It's simply empty. Supporting actors do not have enough material to work with and their characters are cartoonsih. The author is trying to make up for the lack of the real story (the up-above mentioned "flash") by relying heavily on stereotypes. By forcing the viewers to take these shortcuts, she is robbing them (us) of quality experience and emotion. In the end you just don't care about the characters, you stay for Meryl Streep.

I looked forward to this film. I remember thinking that the first images were promising. When the trailer came out, I thought that it would be formulaic, but it still looked as if it had some potential. What a disappointment. I almost walked out. The set up dragged on, fights were unconvincing and acting was average. The most boring part was the direction. I still think that with the material at hand a more dynamic film could have been made with a few stricter choices in editing. The use of music was unbearable. As if the predictable script hadn't been enough, we had to be reminded of the importance of certain moments by loud and dramatic music. Dialogues don't ring true and mostly serve to convey information necessary for the development of the story. A waste of talent.

This could have been a decent TV film. The story is easy to follow, complex facts are simplified and repeated. The problems begin with the fact that it was made for a theatrical distribution. That is where it fails miserably. In that context the direction, cinematography and editing are just OK. The biggest problem is, without a doubt, the script. Characters are flat and sadly no one has enough material to work with, a part from the lead actor and the film cannot ride on a brilliance of one man, even if it is Mr. Cumberbatch himself; just as good storytelling cannot rely solely upon the importance of the story being told. Wasted potential.

The most important problem is the script. The story is one dimensional, characters are caricatures, and dialog is artificial. With such a shallow material, acting is average at best, apart from Matt Damon who delivers a quality performance.

More often than not, we see the puppeteer, as certain scenes are poorly directed and only serve the purpose of moving the story forward.

This film makes me wonder what Mr. Nolan thinks of his audience. His need to bang us on the head with loud music and simplistic dialog is not only insulting but painful. References to 2001: A Space Odyssey are overdone as well, so that anyone who has so much as heard about it, is bound to recognize it.

He manages to patronize and pamper the audience so much that in the end one cannot really say what was sweeter in the theater, the film or the candy.

As someone who admires Mr. Nolan's work and likes cinema, I found this failed SF by numbers profoundly disappointing.

Simple and predictable. One could, with no effort, finish each line of the dialog. Originality was certainly not the point.

Actors are charming and do their best with the material at hand.

It would be unfair to say that it was unfunny. I watched it in a packed theater in Paris on a Sunday afternoon (which in itself would be very strange were it not for the fact that the French are known to stubbornly queue for any film that features their actors and/or Paris) and everyone around me was laughing their heads off. I couldn't help but giggle a few times myself.

I would recommend it for a rainy afternoon, on TV.

There is not a review bad enough to prevent someone from seeing a Ridley Scott film, nor should there be, because one does have to see with his own eyes to believe just how bad this one is.

The major flaw is undoubtedly the story itself, or the lack thereof. The absence of structure leaves the impression that no choices were made, not only in the writing phase, but in the editing room as well. While certain scenes seem redundant, some unconvincing, there are those that are downright ridiculous. There is no suspense, save for a few weak attempts to hide the obvious. The sense of gradual progress is missing and any interest that may have been sparked by the opening sequence swiftly wears off.

The lack of character development does not help either. One-dimensional characters do not provoke any emotion. Even the protagonists do not stand out, despite the attempt to bring back, or rather chronologically speaking, pave way for Sgt. Ripley in Dr. Shaw.

Dialogues are weak. Even the most benevolent audience could not but laugh at lines that were not meant to be funny. And this was as a benevolent an audience as it gets, given the fact that everyone had waited for months for this film to come out and cued for at least two hours to buy a ticket.

The film was promoted as the latest achievement of the director of Alien and Gladiator. The Kingdom of Heaven was conveniently forgotten and this film would share the same fate on the posters promoting the director's future efforts if it were only up to the artistic criteria. However, box-office will most likely determine whether a new franchise will be made based on the open ending.

Had it been someone else's film it would have deserved two stars, owing to the strong, good and solid points mentioned in the title, however, as it heavily milked the allure of the Alien mythology and the director's reputation, one star is all it gets.