input: The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.

The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks.

The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either.

Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Save the $8.97 you'll spend at Walmart to buy this DVD and go see the real film by Steven Spielberg.

I'm a filmmaker, and being an avid fan of H.G. Wells, I had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. Instead, it took four days to finish watching this because I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. It's horrible.

There are reports that Timothy Hines had a $20 Million budget for this production. Where the heck did it go? Did he use most of it to buy a new house? Finance his retirement? Or what? Let me start with what is actually good about this film. It does stay true to the book AND there are a few good performances in it. I can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. But good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible... and I do mean horrible special effects. Any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the CGI. To me, most of it looked like "stop action" card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated CGI software that a $20 Million project should be using.

There's no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. My own partner and I sat down and recreated our version of the Ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500.00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what Hines created. I've seen films with budgets of less than $2 Million look better. Much better.

In my opinion the special effects used in the original King Kong were more sophisticated and better than Hines' special effects in this film. IN fact, I have a much better appreciation for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes because of this film. There's no excuse with today's technology for a film to look like a 50's B-Movie unless that was the intention, which shouldn't have been with this particular project.

A problem I had with the DVD transfer was that the film is jerky, another demonstration of amateur film-making.

Overall, I have to say that I produced a $45,000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film.

I strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film-making or who is a fan of WOTW to leave this film on the shelf and watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman instead. It would be easier on the eyes.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The story turns around Antonio 'Scarface' Montana, an ultra-violent Cuban refugee who comes to the United States with less than nothing, and makes a place for himself at the top of the cocaine trade...

As a calculating man with a conscience, and extreme ambitions, Tony strongly begins to desire the things he sees a criminal high-roller enjoying, including his luscious lover... Heights his way out of a refugee camp by enjoying the chance to stab a former taker of Freedom, takes out rival dealers, gains the confidence of an important drug lord by eclipsing a local gang boss in Miami, and eventually makes it to the highest levels of the drug organization...

Pacino shows the results of greed and lust for power on the human psyche... He guns his way through the sunny streets of Miami where he got 'the world and everything in it.' With his ruthlessness, obscene dialog, and his negotiation skills, he begins to imagine himself invulnerable and above all others... He quickly moves deep to the world of gangs, and becomes more ruthless than anyone else can possibly imagine...

Michelle Pfeiffer looks dazzling as the addicted wife with no inner life... She succeeds in portraying the trophy 'object' navigating uncertain waters with her anti-hero... Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio happens to be the best in Tony's life, the only thing that is good and pure... Her revulsion at the end of the movie is so fiery that her whole head could have blown off... Robert Loggia exhibits a weak and fearful disposition, especially when faced with Pacino as a challenger... He proves to be a less-ambitious boss in a position of power... Steven Bauer shines as the man of charm, loyal ally and faithful friend...

The Oliver Stone-scripted 'Scarface' is a change in genre, lifting scene after scene of Hawks' classic while updating the rise-and-fall gangster saga to modern, drug-infested Miami... But, as always, the focus is on decadence, profanity and violencememorably a sickening chainsaw murder, rather than on the psychological and social reasons for the hoodlum's psychopathic behavior...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive