Q: Recherche is a good word to describe this movie.

Let's say every movie has a selling point, a gimmick. Transformers' gimmick is the awesome effects as well as fan boys nostalgia. Sleepless in Seattle's gimmick is situational in their tag-line, "What if someone you never met, someone you never saw, someone you never knew was the only someone for you?" Many romance relies heavily on these gimmicks and some through draw of big names. Leap Years employs both by using the Irish folklore as the circumstance and featuring considerably famous names within the country.

So now that the audience are in the cinema, besides all the usual elements in characters, conflict or consequences, crisis, resolve and denouement, they also look forward to stimulating dialog, more absorbing situations as a result of the leap years, interesting sub-plots and perhaps, to a certain extent, a good twist in the middle or towards the end of the story that favors the circumstances of the characters.

This is what Jean Yeo is trying not to achieve. If they've tried to, their goal was apparently in the other court, at the other stadium, on the other end of the planet. She and her writer, Alain Layrac, utterly failed to provide stimulating dialog. Most of the lines were contrived. It seems that they have a bag filled with lines which she would like to use in her movie: "Okay, these are the lines and quotes which I've heard or read from either movies I've seen or books I've read before and they all sound good to me. If they sound good to me, they will sound good to the audience. Therefore, all i have to do is piece them all together. I am going to use all of them." The result is cathartic. I can't say that the lines were unnecessary and bears no relation to the story or in driving the plot on, but they seem to spring out of nowhere, catching you off guard with these quotable quotes.

On a personal level, i know people who cite quotes based on most of the situations in our dialog, trying to make it meaningful to themselves while nodding along. I don't go out with them anymore because the urge to punch them is overwhelming.

Secondly, the characters portrayed are silly and one-dimensional. With exception to the unnatural dialog which implies their motivation (necessary to drive the plot), there was no sense of conviction in them. I haven't an idea who they are. They are all simpletons spouting lines from the advice column of a female-oriented magazine.

The gimmick in the leap years is not enough to drive the story on because the circumstances are too shallow. Then again, there are movies with less but fared better than this, aren't there. They made it up with my first and second point. Moreover, the sub-plots are inconsequential (not that it's a bad thing for movies) and thin (bad thing).

Jean Yeo and the producers are trying to pass off the terrible plot with fancy locations and passable photography. This is because they probably understand that it is possible and easier to attain the approval from some viewers than the others with the good use of cinematography, soundtrack and filming location. These non-discerning viewers.

It is not even the kind of movie that is so bad that it's good. It is just bad. Don't watch this.
A: negative
Q: I just rented this movie to see Dolph Lundgren, whom I hadn't seen in any movies since Rocky IV. Unfortunately this movie was a big disappointment. The acting of all the parties was bad except for Mr. Lundgren, who was okay-ish. Kata Dobo was something nice to look at despite her ridiculous outfit and make-up.

The plot is not at all clever, it's something that's been repeated a million times in different movies. The crooks were utterly stereotypical, and Lundgren's character hadn't any depth in it. I didn't really expect a movie masterpiece, but unfortunately this is not even decent action. Every turn in the plot is extremely predictable and the unbelievable amount of over-the-top unrealism and comic-book like characters started to annoy me strongly pretty soon.

I would recommend this to young kids wanting some comic-like action, but only if nothing else is available.

1/10. (I guess the current average vote of 7.0 with 6 votes must have been influenced by somebody involved in making this movie)
A: negative
Q: Since I'd seen the other three, I figured I might as well catch this made for TV fourth part of The Omen series. As a stand alone film, this movie is mediocre; but as a sequel to the 1976 masterpiece; it's a travesty. The film goes along the same route that many series' go down when they're running out of ideas; that being the idea of changing the male lead to a female. It's always obvious that this film was made for television as the acting is very standard, the plot lacks ideas and the gruesome murder scenes seen in the previous three are kept to a bloodless minimum. The film does keep a thread with the original, which I won't reveal as despite being obvious; that revelation is one of the most interesting aspects of the movie. The basics of the plot largely copy Richard Donner's original, and see a young couple adopt a child, which they name Delia (not Damiella or Damiana, fortunately). There's a big dog involved, and a child minder; and pretty soon, the wife starts to suspect that the child may not quite be normal; as she's menstruating at eight years old, and never suffered from any illnesses...

The first two sequels to The Omen weren't bad at all, and the series really should have ended at number three. I guess there was money involved somewhere down the line, as there really is no artistic reason why this film should have been made. It brings nothing to the table in terms of originality, and the only thing it's likely to succeed in doing is annoying fans of the series. The film looks and feels like a TV movie all the way through and for the most part plays out like a film about the troubled upbringing of a young girl. Indeed, Asia Vieira does look like a little bitch; but she never convinces that she's the Antichrist, as her stares are redundant and most of the 'evil' she does is laughable. Faye Grant is given the meatiest role, and doesn't impress; while the rest of the cast regret agreeing to star in such an awful waste of time. The only good thing about this movie is the theme tune, which of course has been ripped off from the original; and is overused. On the whole, this film really isn't worth seeing; as it delivers nothing that the series is famous for, and doesn't even do justice to weaker second sequel.
A: negative
Q: I won't repeat all that has been said already by other viewers of this film.

In my opinion this is an excellent film, not only as a very human tale of the developing relationship between a father and his grown-up son, but also as a little window onto the world of practising Islam, for those like me who are not very familiar with that religion.

An important aspect of this story is that of the young man's relation to his father's beliefs and practices, and how his attitude towards the religion seems to alter in subtle ways as we progress on their journey with them.

This is a very thought-provoking, enjoyable and well-made film that I would recommend to anyone with brain and heart.
A: positive