Q: Like I said its a hidden surprise. It well written well acted and well cast. I liked everything in this movie. Look its Hollywood all right but the brighter side. Angelina Jolie is great in this and I'm totally watching every movie with her in that I can get my hands on. Well worth a look.
A: positive
Q: Don't even bother with this movie, it's bad when judged on it's own merits, but when compared to the 1972 original (which IS a classic) it's down right awful. And BTW, somebody commented that the 1972 movie is bad when compared to the book. This is silly, movies should never be judged against the books they are taken from. They are 2 completely different art forms (as if this needed to be pointed out but apparently it does). If you used this criteria for all movies then "2001" would suck and so would "Forest Gump" and "Silence of the Lambs".
A: negative
Q: Channel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those "I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad" moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.

There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.

Avoid like the plague.

edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an "obvious hater" which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)

Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again.
A: negative
Q: The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."

It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.

I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!
A: negative