Worth $7 and 2 hours, but not much more

Rating: 8/10 (4 April 2005)

I fully understand how fans of the movie can immediately jump to give the movie a 9 or 10 star rating. However, I'm a bit shocked that there isn't much of a voice on the other side of the ratings scale.
The movie was enjoyable. It was entertaining. In spending $7 for the ticket I am confident that I got my money's worth. While the movie is avant-garde, the translation from page to screen wasn't performed seamlessly. There are several points in the movie where the digital effects required to rend a 2D image into a 3D set distract the viewer, pulling them out of what is intended to be an immersive experience. A still-shot of any of these scenes would surely be awe-inspiring, but in motion it simply looks manufactured. This isn't a fatal flaw by any means, but any time a movie reminds you that you're watching a recording of actors in front of a blue-screen, instead of a view into an alternate reality, it serves to make the experience less rewarding. (For an example just think back to your viewing experience of Star Wars ep 1, or Lost in Space).
The acting in the movie is a shining point. For most of the scenes the actors were dropped onto an empty set, in front of a blue-screen, with no other actors to interact with. This movie truly served to show the depth of the actors chosen for this movie.
Anyhow, to wrap this up: the movie was good. It's worth the few bucks to see it in the theatre instead of on the small screen. But this movie is no "Wizard of Oz" that will change the face of Hollywood.