I didn’t watch Transformers as a kid but I was familiar with them and was looking forward to seeing this as a feature length film. Unfortunately I was left disappointed.

The good: The look of and way they handled the Transformers transforming was pretty impressive. (However it usually happened too fast to appreciate how it worked.) I could suspend disbelief enough to follow the plot.

However the rest of the movie was pretty awful: It was obviously written by and for a 14 year old boy. Geeky selfish, spoiled upper-middle class Caucasian boy gets his dad to buy him a new car so he can ditch his friend to go after a “hot” girl (who he doesn’t even know anything about other than that she is attractive) of course.. he saves the world/gets the girl. The script was pathetic – trying to be hip in places it didn’t work. Editing was bad—too hard to follow the fights and the bouncing between plot points was not well done.

I counted at least 10 separate product placements and would love to know just how much of the budget GMC paid to get their name and their logo all over the Transformers. I could have forgiven the rest of the flaws but paying $10 to see an ad really really pisses me off.

It’s not just some fantasy.
In fact… it’s actually the best argument AGAINST killing Bushie Jr. I’ve heard in a while.
PRESIDENT CHENEY… need I say more?
It delves into the kind of backlash we’d experience if this happened—further dismissal of any of our civil rights.
It explores many of our stereotypes and the current climate around politics, race, what do people consider “racism” and many issues of the day. How certain rights are trampled on to make people feel safe/secure.
Definitely worth a watch!

I like art films- I don’t mind black & white. I don’t need everything
all laid out to me in a film… I’ve taken film classes & learned to
enjoy German expressionist films for their lighting & symbolism,
etc….. but for the life of me I can not comprehend how this film has
such a high rating.

I felt like I had wasted 1.5 hours of my life in trying to see this
film. I think I would’ve enjoyed it better had I skipped the movie &
just read the reviews and learned that it was supposed to be about an
alienated man in a depressing industrial who suddenly has a monstrous
baby. If only I could’ve gotten that from the film. Instead I stared at
piles of hair, a deformed warty chipmunk woman, and a alienlike giant
spermatozoa being stabbed to death while people hallucinate. I wasted
the entire film searching for meaning…. trying to figure out what the
piles of hair?/hay? were for? What alien looking spermatozoa had
anything to do with what was going on?... etc.

Just a few hints could’ve helped make it a good film… there were
things that if explained would have been more enjoyable and seemed
interesting… the ominous/abrasive music, the creepy mis-en-scene (the
elevator that hesitates, the radiator, the dead tree in dirt, etc.)

This film is in no way a work of genius. I’ve seen films that deal with
alienation & isolation. There are tons of films out there about the
fear of parenthood or the feeling that your child is an evil entity
(Rosemary’s Baby, Omen, Bad Seed, etc.)

You CAN convey these emotions in a coherent/logical fashion and have a
plot/make sense.

This just added to my internal debate that David Lynch movies provoke:
Is he literally schizophrenic and unable to process reality the way
most other people do? Has he taken too many psychotropic drugs? I even
tried watching the interview with him after the film on the DVD and was
unable to bear it. He seems lost in another world and just rambles.

People seem to like this film simply because it’s shocking &
experimental. Sorry, but that’s not enough for me. I’d rather have
something that’s original, pushes the envelope but ALSO be interesting (or at least not like watching someone’s disjointed nightmares). I took nothing away from this film – and that makes me feel like I wasted my time.

I give it a 3/10. It gets a few points for 1. No T&A, no sexism, no racism, no homophobia 2. No product placement 3. Showing the otherside of the overly sanitized/sentimentalized concept of parenthood.

I wanted to like this film.
I like art capers (to catch a thief, to steal a million).
I like Pierce Brosnan. I know he’s typecast – but I like that suavey Cary Grant-esque elegance.
I was very pleased to see an AGE APPROPRIATE couple!

It started off interestingly and nearly ended interestingly too. I enjoyed the parts that centered on the theft(s). The “trojan” horse bit was amusing. The twists and trying to figure out who is doing what was amusing.
The Magritte references – not only to the amuising Bowler man switch but the reference to Thomas Crown himself were all done well.

However the “romance” just didn’t work for me.
I felt like it was all about Rene Russo’s character using her body to solve a case and then (stupidly) falling for a crook. There were mutiple gratuitous breast shots (I detracted points just for that). There was an overly long sex segment. It was mostly just boring and overly cliched. The dialogue wasn’t snappy or interesting. The scenes added nothing to the movie. Also, another point was taken off for the soda product placement by Russo in the station.

So if you’re bored one day & want to see an “almost” good movie caper movie or you’re a fan of either actor, go ahead and rent it – just be prepared for it to not be as good as it could’ve been.

*SPOILER**
BTW, at the end did he steal 2 paintings or just the boats one for her? If he did only steal 1 -why is he leaving the country?

I was very impressed by this film and how many different ways it can be read/experienced. It is indefinable even by genre or plot (is it a war film, coming of age, fantasy, etc.)

I made the mistake (as many) by thinking this was just a dark fantasy/fairy tale. I actually mistook the title to be a reference to Pandora’s Box (not the god Pan) – since the preview I saw showed a young girl opening a box and some kind of dark spirits coming out.
While watching the film I couldn’t help but also reference other stories. Ofelia/Ophelia (of Shakespeare’s Hamlet), driven mad by the politics and death. Ofelia’s Alice in Wonderland-like dress & frock and how she descends into the alternate world. The faun was portrayed ambiguously at first and the cloven hooved animal asking for a sacrifice conjured up Christianity’s portrayals of Satan.

I think one’s background/beliefs in mythology, religion and the time they grow up in can very easily influence how you perceive this film.

I’ve read nearly 200 comments on imdb and everyone has different interpretations/expereiences. The fantasy world can be read as real or imagined. The ending can be read in different ways.

Even people’s comparisons to other films/directors varies across the board (Takashi Miike, Ridley Scott, Miyzaki, Gilliam, Henson, Neil Jordan, Tim Burton, Etc.). People have mention the film is comparable to other films”Spirited Away”, “Life is Beautiful” “Company of Wolves” “Alice in Wonderland” etc.

I personally saw a parallel to another film showing the horrors of war & its aftermath “A Very Long Engagement”. I thought the combination of imagination and belief vs. bitter reality of warfare was similar. As with “AVLEngagment”, I thought the war scenes in this film were both stylized enough to be interesting to watch and bloody enough to be realistic. I dislike gore, I dislike GRATUITIOUS violence, but I would have been disappointed if it had been too sanitized and unrealistic. This was not some horror flick where some people watch gratuitious bloodshed for FUN. Yes I had to cringe & look away, but I hope that scenes of torture and killing would make me do so.

This brings me of course to the social commentary on today’s world – where our country is heading towards facism (with the removal of our civil rights) and those who dare to question and refuse to blindly obey are condemned as traitors “giving aid to terrorists”. I thought the speech by the doctor about not being able to blindly “obey” as the single best moment in the film. This was not just a film about facism then, it’s a film about facism today – so take heed.

Yet despite the warnings people can be selfish and refuse to listen and will pluck at those grapes thinking no one can see them or that it can’t hurt to take a small step down that road….

All in all a stunningly gorgeous film – the red of the food at the table of temptations, the eyeless creature itself - not too much CGI (which too me can ruin a film). The acting was superb by all and I thought the main characters were fleshed out fairly well. (I particularly liked the Captain’s obsession with time - for me that scene of him annoyed at the late arrival of the cars conjured thoughts of Italy under Mussolini where (supposedly) the trains always ran on time). I would highly recommend it to all adults.

p.s. I was hoping for commentary about the symbolism in the film—what is the eyeless creature she unleashed? why did she pick another lock than the one the fairies pointed to? is the mandrake root in milk & blood something from folklore? (The mandrake root reminded me of a Czech film “Otesanek” where this childless couple adopt a root that becomes their baby).

See this one instead of the hacked up Taratino ruined dubbed version called “the Protector”.

Actually we thought the English title should’ve been “Where’s my elephants?” – since that was one of his only lines.

While the plot line is weak (and yes, I do expect good martial arts films to ALSO have plot) – the chance to see an excellent fighter do amazing things makes it worth it. While I love Chinese martial arts film, it’s nice to see new things. It was nice to see some elements of Thai culture and to see a new style of fighting. I especially liked the scenes where you got to see Tony Jaa using his Muay Thai style against the more traditional Wushu(? I think) style and against an opponent using Capoeira and then just try to pound some huge hulk of a guy.

Some of it was gratuitous sure, like the endless scene of him just breaking people’s arms continuously. (Seriously the endless cracking noise grossed me out after a while).

I haven’t read anything by Elmore Leonard, so I can’t comment on the book-to-movie aspect.

Seemed like it might’ve made an amusing book, but it didn’t really (IMO) translate well to the big screen.

I liked the idea of comparing mobsters to hollywood insiders (but that couldn’t sustain a whole film) and there were some amusing moments (like Chili’s minivan), but it just didn’t do anything for me.

The glib chatter just didn’t interest me, maybe it tried too hard. The loose plot of movie w/in a movie was too weak and tried to do too little with too much. The actors seemed like they were phoning it in.
Devito & Hackman & the guy that played Leo were pretty funny, but nothing special. Russo was just there as the one-dimensional “girl”. Travolta’s a brainwashed cultist (Scientology) who had basically one line “look at me”…. so I just tried to pretend he’s not in the film. Dennis Farina, though I like him on Law & Order was cringe-ingly awful and hammed up.
I just kept thinking, ok, stereotype of mob guy, stereotype of hollywood, stereotype…. where’s the humor?

I’ve seen a lot worse so I won’t say avoid….
Watch if you’re really bored… but don’t expect much.

I can not understand the hype around this film.

I watched this because I love crosswords (I’m an “INK-er” myself, pencils are for the weak! ;D ), but I worried it wouldn’t be that interesting. The fact that Jon Stewart had a cameo sealed it for me – so I rented it.

I actually enjoyed it a lot. Personally, I thought there was too much focus on Will Shortz and “NEW YORK TIMES” (as if they’re the only ones that do crosswords). I do the NY Times (at least M-TH) occasionally, but I think Mearle Reagle is the best crossword constructor. I like his clues and his humor. I was really glad the movie featured him! Will Shortz just edits other people’s puzzles, so I wish they’d featured more of the creators talking about how they make the puzzles.

I learned a lot, I hadn’t realized how they make the puzzles or that the patterns are mirror images. I think I enjoyed the earlier part of the film more than the second half that focused on the tournament. I enjoyed meeting the puzzlers (even that self-hating obnoxious whiny woman -was she really the only female in the top 20?) If I was still trapped in CT I would consider going to the next tournament.

I thought they had a good mix of people. Not just throwing in
celebrities for no reason or not including ‘regular’ people. It’s true that most of the people featured were Caucasian and probably middle-upper class – but if that is who is doing the puzzles and going to the tournament, you can hardly fault the film makers.
Jon Stewart was (of course) darling – I was amused to see he too is an INK-er. (He’s mentioned that he proposed to his wife using a crossword puzzle – which made me just like him even more.)

Seeing Bill Clinton solving a weekend NYT & using it as an analogy for politics was interesting (& yet depressing as it pointed out the disparity in intelligence levels of him & Bushie JR.)

In all a movie I would recommend to anyone that likes puzzles. (Not sure if non-gamers would enjoy, but I would still encourage them to try it out.)

P.S. Did anyone else feel bad for Will Shortz & Merl Reagle – if they’re designing all the puzzles and running the tournament, when do they get to play??

(most of the spoilers will probably refer to the original 1936 film, so don’t read on if you plan to watch that version).

I saw the original recently and enjoyed it. I was then forced to watch the Adam Sandler version recently on a bus trip. I admit I was prejudiced. I don’t generally like Adam Sandler’s sophomoric “humor”. And I normally think remakes are a bad idea (unless there is something that needs to be updated, removal of racism, sexism or improving on aspects that couldn’t be done in the original). However, having liked the original and being a fan of Winona Ryder & many of the other bit actors I gave it a chance.

The only “updating” it really got was to include more moronic “humor”, more violence, more swearing and flipping off.

The entire point of the original film—which stresses the disparity of the Great Depression vs. the obscenely rich was completely cut out! I saw this film as a chance to comment on our current society’s economic disparity where under Bush Jrs’ administration the rich are getting WAY richer and the middle class is becoming poor and the poor are just totally screwed. There is no understanding of this in this film. There is no social commentary (apart from some jabs at Entertainment “news” shows.)

Even when Adam Sandler’s Deeds tries to help people he just gives the money to one group he seems to select out of the area (not to say they’re not worthy) – but the point of the first film was that he reaches out and tries to individually help as many people as he can.

The movie is not just about one guy who is not greedy, it’s also about social responsibility. This movie weeded that out and put in moronic/simplistic jokes instead.

I also did not understand why this simple nice guy was so violent. This wasn’t one justified punch this was pummeling some guy nearly to death and various other disturbing recurrent fights.

I’m also docking it for featuring product placement (wendy’s, corvettes, etc)

Buscemi, Torturro & Ryder gave fine performaces for what they were given but they should be ashamed for having helped make this film.

I enjoyed the rather old fashioned stylized costuming. I though Jim Carey did a great job. I think he found both the villainy and the humor in Count Olaf. His physical ability to get into a character is fantastic & that along with the makeup/costumes a person who didn’t know what was coming would’ve been fooled into not immediately recognizing Count Olaf too. Many segments of the film were obviously well thought out. The scenery was pretty good. The credits were some of the best I’ve ever seen.

What I didn’t like was how they tried to cram three books into one film that was barely 1.5 hours! It was way too short for all this. I felt this made them lose the essence of the books. I knew the marvelous wordplay would be hard to adapt, but I felt they started out well with the voice-over and then lost it for rather pedestrian dialogue. They should have fleshed out the stories and gone a little more into depth, otherwise it just felt like 3 sat. morning cartoon episodes. For example, you barely met Monty before he met his end. So there was no long set up of what was coming. Also, the book already has a particular sense of humor, so trying to stick in lame one-liners from Cedric/Dustin Hoffman was stupid.

Finally what I didn’t like was the ending. They tried to stick on a relatively happy/hopeful ending for a series that is literally an endless series of unfortunate events. That’s what brings you back, you watch & you think things are going to be OK, then something awful happens and they move again and the whole cycle starts again. I’m not saying they should make it entirely depressing and hopeless because it is in fact that very grain of hope that keeps you reading the books to find out what will happen.

So worth watching, good effort, but as with all adaptations of books… go read the books instead, they are much better!