what?

Rating: 1/10 (3 June 2002)

I don't understand how this movie made the top 250, although it wasn't awful, it was boring, unoriginal and appalling as far as special effects go. Far more enthralling, poignant and visually impressive films have been made on a shoe string budget. Most of the acting was respectable, especially from Dafoe who went a long way with his limited time on-screen and one-dimensional character (like most of the others) but Kirsten Dunst? I don't care if her simplicity makes her good for the character, I see no chemistry between her and Maguire. This movie was a big disappointment. What a waste of talent and vision from Maguire and the once great Raimi.