Q: Dennis Hopper is without a doubt one of the finest underrated American actors of our time, and it was interesting to see how he would play out his role as a cop on the case of a child serial killer. Most movies Hopper has always played to psychotic menace threatening to blow up stuff or go on a killing spree, but in this movie, Hopper tried his best to keep that intensity and emotion while carrying a shield. Once I got into the plot of the movie, I was hooked, but it's just the little things that ultimately murdered the film.

The concept of the film is great - not only are the cops on the move of catching the killer, but we get a chance to see how the gangsters operate in catching the killer. The subplot of the football stadium is kinda ridiculous, but necessary to involve the gangsters in the killer hunt.

That's about all that is good you can say about the film. Although Hopper did try to act like a tough, experienced street smart cop, I can't help but feel his acting was below par, and there wasn't enough conviction that he was truly attached to the case. The directing was also terrible - it didn't have the feel of a true film, but rather a TV-movie production. This is most evident when the gangsters meet for the first time to form an elite team to hunt the killer down. When the leading gangster shoots the other mouthy gangster in slow motion, the acting was weak, predictable and terribly unexciting. That's when I knew that 1st of all, the action is going to be atrocious.

The angling of the camera was amateurish, and the recalling scenes or haunting images of the killer's little sister had no true distinctive effect. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. Everyone's acting was terrible, and even for Hopper, I didn't feel for his character, and I just didn't really care too much about his relationship with his daughter.

The final thing that bothered me the most is the swat team. Once I saw the swat team in action, I was thinking, finally, something good. But I was wrong. 1st of all, the entire swat team consisted of 4 guys. That is just impossible. 2nd of all, apparently the swat team has no training whatsoever because many times in the film they carry their HKA4 submachine guns with one hand. Had the killer been hiding near the staircase with a shotgun, these 4 idiots would've been blown to bits because they weren't even aiming at anything or paying close attention. They should have had both hands on the gun aiming forward, but it just looks like they're not taking the job seriously and are just flaunting around. 3rd, SWAT team members do not yell out commands such as "Keep your eyes open, watch out for yourselves, are we good to go...etc." In reality, they use hand signals or have radios. But they're literally yelling at each other - how are you supposed to catch the killer when he can hear you're coming??? And to top it all off, these guys have no plan - apparently they're just running up and down going on a wild turkey chase. Eventually they end up doing nothing. That was the last straw. I'm no expert on special forces, but basically what I've just outlined, is pretty common sense. When the audience knows the movie is terrible, the action pretty much becomes the life-saver of the movie - when you can't even make an effort to make the action great, the movie is lost.

I give 2 stars for the concept, but the rest cannot be credited. If you want to watch a crime thriller, don't bother with this one. There's plenty of crime in the movie - but it has the lack of thrill. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Seriously, can you imagine such a spread of talent in one film without a huge budget: Daniel Day-Lewis, Ray McAnally, Brenda Fricker, Hugh O'Conor AND Fiona Shaw? There's no doubting that Fricker and Day-Lewis deserved their awards: but it would have been entirely justifiable to have seen O'Conor (as Young Christie) and McAnally awarded: the cliche is true here: they don't perform the roles, they inhabit them. Day-Lewis' performance is a tour de force - such a transformation that it is awe-inducing, but it was truly a mark of the Academy's intelligence that alongside this performance, they also honoured Brenda Fricker's beautifully restrained, still and heart-wrenching work as Christie's mother. By the way, if you haven't seen this magnificent actress in "Swann", that's another film well worth checking out for her contribution (and the sublime Miranda Richardson). OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I have no idea how a Texan (the director, Douglas McGrath) and the American actress Gwyneth Paltrow ever pulled this off but seeing this again will remind you what all the fuss about Ms. Paltrow was in the first place! I had long since gone off the woman and still feel she is rather dull in her Oscar-winning "Shakespeare In Love" performance but she gets all the beats right here--she is nigh on perfect as Emma Woodhouse. She may have won her Oscar for Shakespeare but she should be remembered for this.

Of course, she's surrounded by a great supporting cast including Toni Collette, Greta Scacchi, Juliette Stevenson et al...Jeremy Northam is very appealing as the love interest, even if the script wallows a bit in his declaration of love to Paltrow (in the process, allowing all of the tension to drain out of their relationship); several years on, Ewan's hair is a little easier to take than it was in '96 and, personally, I find puckish Alan Cumming a grating presence in anything nowadays. But the standout is, without a doubt, Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma Thompson, daughter of Phyllida Law) as Miss Bates; what this version needs is a scene where Emma reconciles with Miss Bates, as she is the character to whose fate we are drawn. The film is worth watching (again even) for her performance alone.

All in all, this has aged wonderfully with charm to spare and more than enough subtlety to sort out the British class system. Well worth a rental (because its unlikely that Paltrow will ever be this good again--but we'll always have Emma). OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive