IN: Review: Did anyone else notice whenever they are in the car each time the camera takes a new angle they switch roads. Like in one scene it is a one lane residential with sidewalks, next they are on a multiple lane highway with a divider, next a two lane country road with double yellow lanes. I can understand a low budget but that was just sloppy film work.

I also read the other reviews and disagree that it was a bad movie. I think that if you are a fan of Paul Reiser and his comedy then you may enjoy this movie. If, however, you find his work/not funny then I would recommend staying away from this one.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.

I was wrong.

Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.

The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding cliched songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.

The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.

The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.

Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I caught this movie on IFC and I enjoyed it, although I felt like the editing job was a little rough, though it may have been deliberate. I had a little bit of a hard time figuring out what was going on at first because they seemed to be going for a little bit of a Pulp Fiction-style non-linear plot presentation. It seemed a little forced, though. I certainly think that the movie is worth watching, but I think it could have used a little cleaning up. Some scenes just don't seem to make sense after others.

I'm surprised to see the rating here as low as it is. It's not outstanding, but it doesn't have any really serious problems. I gave it a 7/10. The movie did show at least that Laurence Fishburne can act when he wants to. They must have just told him not to in the Matrix movies.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: What a great actor to have in such an awful story...

The film and its production, however, is quite good, even though set in London but with exteriors in Bristol. No matter see one cathedral, you've seen 'em all, sort of.

The story however...is about a man born with the power to wreak death and destruction upon anybody and anything, should he so wish. With just a passing reference to true life instances of telekinesis, the narrative builds a picture of a man misused and misjudged as a boy, a teenager and finally as a man; so much so, in fact, that he exacts vengeance at will, literally. Over time, he comes to the conclusion that the whole world is heading the wrong way and thus sets out to destroy the lot just by thinking about it!

The trouble with the narrative, however, is that it tries to mix genuine scientific data about strange mental powers and merge it all with quasi-religious claptrap to produce a hodge-podge theory about it all. Mixing fact and fantasy in this fashion rarely works and I'm afraid Richard Burton had to overact awfully on some occasions when trying to sound convincing. His very best scene, however, is when he gave his wife and her lover a verbal pasting as they left his home: sharp, witty and deadly dialog, delivered as only Burton could.

A good supporting cast helps to make things look and sound a lot better, though, beginning with Lino Ventura, whom I last saw in Garde A Vu (1981), as Inspector Brunel; Harry Andrews as Assistant Commissioner; the much under-rated Lee Remick as Dr Zonfeld; Derek Jacobi as a publisher, Towney, and a few other well known character actors.

I liked the way the story was presented, as flashback within flashback to fill in the back story and thus solve the immediate mystery of the attempted murder of Morlar (Richard Burton), the writer with the killer disposition. Up till that point, it was a good piece of visual detective work by Brunel and his English sidekick. Still, it was very predictable as it became quickly very obvious to me about the identity of the would-be murderer.

Then, they went and spoilt it all in the last fifteen minutes. If you want a clue about what that is, think Samson and Delilah (1949), from the illustrious Cecil B. de Mille, and how Samson got the bad guys in the end. And, the very last scene is just plain stupid. Why? Because there are at least a hundred ways that Morlar's rampaging could have been stopped, absolutely.

Shame, actually, because this could have been a lot better story and movie. I guess Burton really needed the money.

If you're Burton fan, then spend the time to see that scene I mentioned above. Otherwise, don't bother.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative