Bummer

Rating: 3/10 (6 December 2003)

Even if I had liked the story (which I did not), I still would have found the acting horribly over-the-top. There's lots of eye-rolling and scene-chewing in this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie in which the actors `indicated' virtually everything. Only Laurence Fishburne emerges without the smell of ham clinging to him and that's probably because he has a fairly small role. The story is fairly disjointed and virtually lacking in suspense. It's basically an exercise in red herrings. What was the point of this movie? It certainly wasn't to entertain. If it was to preach, what was the message, `Life sucks. Too bad'? `Stand by your man Â– or else'? There are a lot of stupid devices in the movie, like one character's estranged wife calling him all the time and not saying a word. What was the point of that? What did it have to do with the rest of the movie? Of course, it has lots of 90s psychobabble and has child molesting as its centerpiece. And the cast is far too OLD. At one point, a character is described as `mid-30s' and the character is played by Tim Robbins, an actor who saw his mid-30s a long time ago. Even if it had been done really well I still would have hated it. I see no point in this movie's existence.