Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Rachel McAdams. Cillian Murphy. Wes Craven. The Dream Team. This is one of the best thrillers of 2005. A great plot. A great twist. A great eye candy. This is one of Wes Craven's greatest movies apart from "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This could be the best. The plot is one of the best things about the movie and it is very simple. Lisa Reisert (McAdams) a struggling hotel manager, boards a late Red Eye back to LA. Little does she know that she has been followed by Jackson Ripner AKA Jack the Ripper (Murphy). They have a couple of drinks and end up sitting together on the plane. Later he reveals to her that he is an assassin who was sent to kill the Secreteary of Homeland Security who is staying in Lisa's hotel. And what does this have to with Lisa. Well, she would have to move his room to the top suite so they can bomb him, if she doesn't Ripner will murder her father (Brian Cox). The twist and bringing of the story really gives it the extra zing and the side characters and the side jokes really add to it. Overall, definitely one of the best thrillers of 2005. Definitely worth the see.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.

The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.

Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".

If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.