Bad (maybe spoilers)

Rating: 1/10 (5 June 2003)

This guy is the most over-rated director around. The film is nothing special, it could have just been a 30 minutes tv film. There is no story really, just one plot and some attempt to create characters, but it's too superficial. Nothing to compare to any other film of the same kind. A copy of many other pictures, in the features he mention to have been inspired by three very famous classics but I don't think so, I guess he has copied something else. Is an amateur movie. Any film student could have done it better, but the question is: who made this guy an A-list director? This is (if it didn't have Mel Gibson and Joaquim Phoenix in it) nothing more that a b-movie or direct to video. Roger Corman himself I don't think would have produced it the way it was. The script needed a revision, rewriting, the dialogues are silly and predictable, the sub-story is silly. And on top of that the director shouldn't try acting. He is patetique, to begin with is not even cast right. He doesn't match with the film, that goes for any of the ones he made.
Also, a movie like this does not really cost that much money to make. Very little set (you don't need to build a house for that or grow a field of corn), very few scenes (with good actors you can film the whole in a week), as for the special effects, why making a CG character when a man with a costume would have been enough? >