Q: Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.

The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.

I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.

Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE? OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This "film" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)

What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.

What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still "wants" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)

What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the "I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)

What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,

What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.

I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex.

I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.

Big Budget Action films: "you so have to die" OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: no comment - stupid movie, acting average or worse... screenplay - no sense at all... SKIP IT! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative