Q: The Wayward Cloud is a frustrating film to watch. Infuriatingly enigmatic, it treats each shot like a work of art. You get the impression that the composition of each shot has been designed and prepared with a degree of exquisite care that borders on obsession; Expressing how far cinema has progressed since the very first films were cranked out in the nineteenth century and mimicking their construction, the camera here hardly ever moves apart from during the camp and colourful musical numbers. Ambient noise is kept to a minimum and barely a word is spoken. This curious but effective device forces the audience to focus their attention on visual stimuli alone so that, even as the story progresses at a snail-like pace we feel ourselves becoming immersed. Unfortunately, for me at least, this immersion begins to unravel somewhere around the hour mark. I began to feel as if the film was challenging me to keep watching while becoming more difficult as the minutes dragged so that the mere act of watching became a battle of wills.

Had the content of this film not been as sexual as it is it would no doubt been even more obscure to Western audiences. As it is, there's an abundance of female nudity and an act of sexual abuse on an unconscious (or possibly dead) woman that is so repugnant that, while it may speak volumes about the degradation to which pornography subjects both men and women (the users and the used) it is so over-zealous in the manner in which it chooses to make its point as to effectively render it ineffective. Of course the worst and most enthusiastic participants of the explosion in available pornographic content will seek this film out for all the wrong reasons and watch it with their sticky finger on the fast-forward button of the remote.

For all its problems, the film is definitely a stayer, and the more you think about it the more sense certain aspects of it seem to make. Ironically, for a film in which so little happens, the viewer would probably be proportionately rewarded by watching a second or even third time. For me, however, once was enough OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Why is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.

Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.

I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.

The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I bought this a year or more ago for $2 (yep, $2), left it on the shelf for ages, now watching DVDs while holed up with a cold.

This is a haunting movie. Brilliant performances by all involved, especially the 6yo boy (about the only smiles you get in this movie).

Plot reminds me of perhaps my favourite movie ever, Grosse Pointe Blank, but obviously that's lighthearted, this is heavy hearted.

As a psychologist, a clinical and forensic psychologist, a shiver went up my spine when the identity of the new contract was revealed. Scary stuff! Brilliant work all round.

Pete OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.

If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative