input: Think Pierce Brosnan and you think suave, dapper, intelligent James Bond. In this movie, Brosnan plays against type - and has lots of fun doing so (as does the audience). This is a film about a hired assassin who befriends a harried businessman... and it works!

This is a fun movie, with very good scenes (a riveting, on-the-edge Brosnan and a good, compliant "off"-the-edge Kinnear have some good lines). My only cavil is that Hope Davis, playing the oh-so-tolerant wife ("Can I see your gun?") doesn't appear more often: she could have been a marvellous foil to these men.

This movie is like a matador: it plays with the audience, while "going for a kill". The ending is awesome because a storyline (with a positive moral!) emerges: this is a frenetic, frantic and fun movie, which does deserve a wide audience.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This movie features a gorgeous brunette named Danielle Petty. She has stunning green eyes, and is in the first few scenes and the last scene. She is the only thing about this movie that is not repulsive. She may not have a future as an actress, because this kind of movie is the kind of offensive disaster that kills careers.

The movie itself has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It is not a good horror film, or a good fake journalistic report, or remotely well done. There is no skill apparent in it's production. It is like a bad student film. The story's horrific elements do not make you sick, it is the fact that it is so poorly done that makes you sick. I would give this movie ZERO stars if I could.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Did anybody succeed in getting in this movie?

It's a total mess to me: a vague historical/sentimental context instead of a plot, a pretentious imagery as mise en scene and it lasts two hours!

Shame on those who wasted money here.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative