lvscott Reviews

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Not as bad as some are saying here, and I will explain why..

[7/10 · 23 May 2008]

I believe the reason a few people are saying this film is really bad is because allot of people want that "film Magic" of the first film in this series, "Raiders of the Lost Ark". What people fail to realize is that at the time, that film was one of a kind for the time, a new roller coaster ride for many of us when we were younger.

No film will ever quite match it, including any film with the main character of "Indiana Jones".. Having said that, this film here is fun enough on it's own merits. Of course, it is not a great film, but it is entertaining..

My criticisms;

I could of done without what I consider to be "Alien Propaganda" that seems to plaugue allot of Spielbergs directed films.

The new characters could of been fleshed out more.

Spielberg should of kept his word, and used allot less CGI, he didn't. In fact, everything he has represented about this film before it's release has frankly been flat out FALSE!! The story could of been better, but it is not bad.

My likes; Harrison Ford still has it, He looks Great, and got back into the character of Indiana Jones quite well.

The pacing was good and about the same as Raiders in that regard.

Nice to see Karen Allen again on the screen. I always liked her as an actress.

final verdict.

Worth a viewing, but DO NOT EXPECT the same magic that Raiders had, or you will end up like many here, HATING IT!!

The God Who Wasn't There (2005)

Be careful, as misleading as religion it picks on

[3/10 · 24 October 2007]

Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.

A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.

first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.

verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.

It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"

follow?

lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.

It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Best Comic Book to film adaptation ever made

[10/10 · 6 May 2007]

The critics of this film are failing in their views miserably because they are solely looking at this film from the perspective of "a film" and not " a film adapted from a comic book series".

Myself, I am not a Spidey fan boy, but growing up, I enjoyed the occasional Spiderman comic strip. This what this film, more so than the first 2 capture. Examples of this would be in comic books, we are taken from scene to scene, a picture board if you will (which is what a comic action hero is)that are segments, fragments of plot.

At first they seem like bits and pieces, but then those bits and pieces come together and form the particular comic book series number of that month. This what this film is and it is spot on a perfect adaptation of that style. It is an adaption I have never seen done more perfectly than this film achieves.

Spiderman 1 had some of these elements. The second film went away from that and was more like a glorified soap opera.

This one by far gets it, and gets it dead on right.

Some people are complaining about all the simultaneous plot line occurring in this film, that " they are too much for such a short span of time". << EXACTLY!! For those people who say that, how often did you read action cartoon comic books?

THAT IS EXACTLY HOW THEY ARE!! This is a brilliantly done film, it delivers to those who truly want a true comic book adaptation.

It is not meant to be totally cohesive and brilliant in the sense of a real life film.

IT IS A COMIC BOOK ACTION HERO ADAPTION, and the best I have ever seen.

Go into the Movie with that in mind and you will see most people are not GETTING IT!!

I did and I really loved it!!

Casino Royale (2006)

Has the feel of a Connery Bond film

[10/10 · 24 November 2006]

A lot of people do not seem to understand a few things about this movie; For one, we do not really hear the classic Bond tune into the end of the film, and there is a point to that. This film shows us the process of how he became the James Bond in character, as we saw Bond back from the movies in the 1960's. It is not until the very end of this picture, when Bond has "learned his lesson" not to trust anyone, as he becomes the man with the "license to kill" Daniel Craig is excellent as Bond, on par with Connery and Dalton as the 2 men who really played Bond the best. I really cannot comment on whether he looks the role or not, I will leave that to the women to decide. For me he works as Bond, He is not wimpy looking like Bronson was in my opinion.

Gone is the over wise cracking lines that Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson's Bond seemed to all too much engage in as this film really brings us back to the feel of the older Connery Bond films.

In is the reality of the cold world of a secret agents life and mission requirements.

I really liked this film and Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond and consider it one of the best Bond films ever made.

The Departed (2006)

People are nuts, film is an overdone disjointed mess

[1/10 · 19 October 2006]

This film has to be the most over rated and over hyped film ever. First off, Nicholson is terrible in his hole, miscast and over the top bad.

2nd, The film has no real pointed direction, it wanders around aimlessly as if it is searching for a real thought out plot, only never to find one.

Murder, Death, Murder Death << that is the entirety of this film, its a piece of garbage, seen many times before.

Bas cop = good cop = bad cop = well he might be semi bad, no wait he might be semi good, murder, death, murder death..

People here saying this is this film's director's best work? ROFL!!

Are the movies so bad these days that people will convince themselves " if a big name director has directed it, it must be good"?

I give it 4 stars only because Dicaprio did an excellent job of acting, whereas "Jack" was terrible ( you guys also need to put away the Nicholson fan boy attitude, his acting was over the top terrible, I would nominate him for a Rasberry if I could for this film)

Damon was OK, the rest just OK.

I will make it my business to see "Internal Affairs" which cannot be worse than this film.

The bad;

1. no pointed direction 2. no real plot, film wanders around looking for one 3. no motive or character definition "why did they do what they did"? 4. Nicholoson over the top over acted miscast >> plays the roll in a cross between his roles in "as Good as it Gets" and "Batman" 6 same old bad cop, good cop, well decent cop, well could be bad cop" regurgitated trash.

If this film gets nominated for anything, maybe I will end up "with a bullet in the head" as it appears everyone else did in this film.

Don't waste your money!!

Batman Begins (2005)

Perfect Batman.. True Adaptation

[10/10 · 19 June 2005]

Most non Batman fans might not be wild about this film. The film as a stand alone is not what I would call a great film, but as a Batman film it is The "Greatest Batman film".

My opinion is this tops Burton's Batman mainly because it is not cartoon-ish or childish. This is Batman the way Bob Kane envisioned Batman;

A Gritty, introspective man "bat-bent" on fighting injustice.

In Bale, we finally have Bruce Wayne/Batman played perfectly. Thisis not to take away from Keaton, who played Batman the way Burton envisioned Batman. Here Bale portrays him the way Kane envisioned. In one scene, we can see and feel Batmans anger interrogating a thug, with a kind of almost "out of his mind" anger and focus. For me it was like watching the comic book come to life on the big screen.

Quite possibly, this might be the best comic book to screen adaptation ever made.

Gone is Burton's fantasy land. replaced with a real life feel the comics had.

This is the definitive Batman film to date, if one judges a movie on how it is adapted from the comic book.

Cinderella Man (2005)

Decent at best and getting over rated

[6/10 · 18 June 2005]

Not much for me to really say here. I do not like Ron Howard as a director. I find his style to border on "emotional manipulation" What I mean is that there always has to be a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in his films. Also, He is most unfair to Max Bear, portraying him as a type of lunatic Mr.T ala Rocky 3.

Basic story told over and over many times.

"Once a great talent, had bad luck, down in the dumps, 2nd chance, makes good." Howard, as I have said before, just goes out of the way to manipulate an audience with stereo-typical "ok now I am going to pull at your heartstrings". Howard's movies for me just do not flow and seem once again, "force manipulated".

Overall not a bad movie and the acting is great, but this film rating in at 8.2 is way too high.

This over rating could be explained by the lack of good films being released today.

6 to 7 at best. Peace

Constantine (2005)

What kind of krap is this?

[2/10 · 1 June 2005]

Jeez!! Can a film be more vulgar in it's story line in the battle of good verses evil? Who is good here? Who is evil here? What is the point of this mess of a film? Why do the movies always seem to portray The Angel Gabriel as a Satan? It is about time someone writes a film based on the Bible in context with added creative spark.

I am so sick of these type of films, they bring disgrace to the greatest book ever written, that is what is called "The Bible"

a few more films like this and surely the END OF THIS WORLD WILL COME IN REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF IN THESE AWFUL LSD TRIPPED OUT, HALF BAKED ABSURDITIES!!

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

This film is getting overrated

[5/10 · 20 May 2005]

Let me cut right to the chase here. I loved the original trilogy in this series. Having said that this one here is the best of the latest installments, but do not let that fool you, because the first 2 here suck badly!! Lucas once again shows his ego is out of control by insisting on directing this film. He flat out is terrible director, which explains the common criticism of " The acting is wooden" Hayden Christenson is NOT A BAD ACTOR. This is the problem; You take young actors and put them in front of a blue screen, you need to DIRECT THEM and inspire them to imagine. Note the acting in the original star wars film episode 4;

Wooden to a certain degree, Now note The Empire Strikes Back, THE ACTING WAS TERRIFIC.. why? Did the actors get better? NO THE DIRECTOR DID. This film COULD HAVE BEEN GREAT, instead its emotional manipulation, which Lucas excels at. As AOTC, its all desert and NO MAIN COURSE.

Not only was Empire FAR AND AWAY the best star wars film, its was a great film period!! I suppose Lucas's Ego just could not allow him to get a top notch director this time out and thats sad, because again, this one with good direction, would have been the best out of all of them!! !!SPOILERS AHEAD!! The PG-13 rating here is only warranted in one scene, The scene I call The birth of "Darth The Charbrolied Stumpy Vader" That, of the new Sith apprentice, Darth Vader, in his arrogance attempting am arrogant fighting maneuver against Obi-Wan, than ends him up as a human stump; followed with him being burned to a crisp is frankly a bit gruesome and Young children will be horrified by it, so parents be cautioned here in this one scene.

The last 30 minutes of this film is great, and this film has by far the best action out of all of them.

I do find Anakin's turn to the dark side very in line with the prior first 3 movies explanation on how a person can be seduced by the dark side. Hayden is normally a good actor but without again, clear vision and inspiration from a competent director, Hayden appears to stink, but better than the last film he was in, but only by a hair.

Mace Windu's very dominant fight victory over The Emperor is only spoiled by Anakin having to step in and save the Emperor, but Yoda The Master of all masters can't defeat the Emperor? << THATS HORSE-DOO-DOO AS WELL.

Padme dying is horse-poop. I guess Leigha in ROTJ was speaking about her stepmother when she says "My mother died when i was very young?"

and In Empire, Obi-Wan uttering;

"That boy (Luke Skywalker) was our only hope".. I guess he was a senile Jedi Ghost and needed to be reminded by Yoda "No there is another" Overall I recommend this film ONLY FOR STAR WARS FANS who are craving something better then the first 2 films of the latest trilogy. This will is better.

But again beware of those telling you how a great a film this is IS Isn't ITS ENTERTAINING but nothing close to the original series.

REVISED RATING;

After another look at this film, I lowered down to a 5 and that is being nice. The negative comments are well deserved here and I believe now I overrated this film at 7, and might be overrating this film at 5 but there is some entertainment value here.

Peace

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Misses the mark film wise However....

[7/10 · 28 April 2005]

However, the Musical sequences are sheer brilliance. The problem here is that we have what appears to be a "cut up film".

Here is what I mean. For people who have seen the play and know the story, this film will work. For people who have not, and do not have access to subtitles, it will be confusing.

The confusion would be in trying to follow the story because we have the overwhelming majority of the dialog being sung. That is hard to follow, and each sequence "cuts" into the next sequence. EXACTLY LIKE A PLAY!!

Now, should a film be a play on film? Or should a play be a play on stage and a rework on film?

I chose the latter.

This is the reason the academy balked on this one.

If they would have made a real film adaptation, that is, give us film dialog THEN GIVE US SONG AND DANCE, we would be looking at a great film here and would have given this one a best picture nomination.

Examples are such as "Moulin Rouge", "Chicago" "Grease"

Pros = Emmy Rossum might be a future star in show biz. She hits this role just right in my opinion.

The Male leads do a fine Job with the strange exception of Gerard Butler, whose acting is the best but singing the weakest.

Oh, and do not believe or be fooled by so called "Music critics" who are not professional musicians but got their jobs with a journalist degree;

Emmy Rossum can sing and she does very well. In fact, technically speaking her singing voice is superior to Sarah Brightman. What is not superior is the recording mix of this soundtrack verses the 1987

"Original cast" recording.

Mixes can make or break a singer. The trained ear can hear thru The mix. With all due respect, many of you do not know or understand what makes one a good singer and not a good singer. Most of you go by "what you think you hear"

However Emmy's voice is not as "seasoned" as Sarah's, Being 17 years old at the time might explain this. Speaking in terms of raw talent in singing, Emmy is miles above Ms. Brightman.

To Conclude;

If you are a big fan of great music and song and dance go see this film.

If you are looking for a story line that you can follow without music, take a pass on this.

7 out of 10 based on great music, great set and costume and good acting.

Closer (I) (2004)

Utter Trash

[1/10 · 2 February 2005]

I would like to check the mental stability of the users here who actually like this film..

This film is utter trash, and I am not a prude by any means, but people ask yourselves; "WHAT THE HELL IS THIS FILM ABOUT"?

1. RELATIONSHIPS? 2. How many times one can say "Cu**t" "Pu**y"? 3. the sad state of the western world, where love and commitment are vulgar 4 letter words continually?

If this is a good film, how about I make a film where I follow my bowel movements, and show how attached I am emotionally to my BM?

Would I get;

"Oh brilliant, what a work of art? I must be taking crazy pills!!

There is a time and a place for the above mentioned vulgar words, a place where they will work well. This one here is overboard perversion, it goes too far FOR NO REASON for my taste.

My rating 0 a big fat 0 for the worse film I haver ever seen.. Thank goodness other academy members feel the same way!!

Bad enough it was a hard time finding 5 films to nominate this year!!

Sideways (2004)

Slow starter, strong finisher

[8/10 · 24 January 2005]

Just saw the DVD screener; OK, I will get right to the point here; Most of you will not like this film for the first 45 minutes. I found myself asking "ok what is this film about" well as soon as I did, I started to become more and more interested in finding out what this film was about.(and interested in the characters) To keep this review short, this film has 2 or 3 of some of the funniest film moments I have seen in a long time. The comedy here starts slow and gets funnier and funnier as the movie progresses. The "car" gag had rolling on the floor, the way the filmmakers set it up was a riot.

8 out of 10 stars, a perfect satirical break "in real life"

Taking Lives (2004)

Awful but......

[3/10 · 8 January 2005]

I want to first start out with a quote from another poster here;

"Personal note: This was a horrible movie the story suck's. Angelina Jolie though she is attractive is not a good actress"

Jolie is not a good actress? This user is high on crack. She is an excellent actress, well unless the American movie academy gives Oscars to terrible actors.. Someone else mentioned Ashley Judd as being a better actress than Jolie. That is laughable!! Don't confuse your attraction for Judd with acting ability!! OK so you know I think Jolie is a great actress, and having said that, this movie stinks.. Reasons?

1. If after a few minutes you don't "get it" then with all due respect, your IQ is most likely under 100.

2. Nothing new here, same old same old. That is, twist after twist all seen 10 miles away unless once again your IQ is under 100.

Again Jolie saves this film from really being a piece of dung. Her Father is a great actor and it runs in the family, and if you think otherwise you don't know or understand what good acting is, and if you think once again Judd is a better actress, than your IQ might be as high as I rate this film which is about a 3!!

PS. Completely out of bounds "sex scene" tasteless and pointless. PLEASE ANGELINA, IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET NAKED DO IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A FILM LIKE GIA WHERE IT MADE SENSE, or risk becoming your typical "Ill get naked for any reason in any film actress" you are too good an actress!!

The Notebook (2004)

Barely misses The Mark

[7/10 · 5 September 2004]

OK, I normally will not comment about so called "Chick Flicks" but I feel this one here had great potentional, even Academy award potentional, but falls short because of 2 factors, The cons;

1. Ryan Gosling; a poor choice here to play Noah. First he gives a dull non inspired performance here. His "Younger Noah" does not match up with the older one AT ALL!! Simply stated he has no spark and no reason to be seen as " a special guy" that could invoke a "special love" His performance leaves me wondering; "why does Allie fall for this guy?"

He really does not seem to be in love, well not in "Great Love"

Colin Farrell would have been my choice here to play Noah

Gosling seems better suited for a love interest on a soap opera, and he is the main reason this film misses the mark to greatness..

2. The film felt and flowed like 2 separate films, with the first half of "The Romance" making no real sense. There is no character development and we know little to nothing about Noah AS A PERSON; which as per the above is mainly due to Ryan Gosling's boring and dull performance portraying Noah. Where is his passion? He really does seem like a typical red neck future drunk loser and this disconnects from the older Noah.

We are supposed to understand why Allie would fall for this guy beyond the simple "he is from the wrong side of the tracks" scenario. I understood why Noah could fall for Allie, but not the other way around!!

Many people are from "the wrong side of the tracks", SO WHAT? WHATS MAKES ANY ONE OF THEM STAND OUT, err CHARACTER, PASSION, UNIQUENESS? Gosling beings none of these to this lead and he almost ruins this film for me.

Pros;

1. The story of the older man reading to the older Woman who is suffering from Advanced Dementia is touching and original, especially when we find out why. Both Gardner and Rowlands are great here in these roles and this made the film in my opinion watchable and interesting.

2. James Gardner, Gena Rowlands, and Rachel McAdams.

The first 2 mentioned here are simply very good in their perspective roles. Where I was very surprised was the performance by Rachel McAdams. She really carried her part of the film. I have read where people here say "she and Gosling really had good chemistry" well she has good chemistry with James Marsden as well. Its not because of the male leads in my opinion, its because McAdams really shines here, and I had a lowered expectation of her going in to this film; "Hey, isn't this the girl from The Hot Chick and mean girls playing a serious lead? Common she cant act.. haha I was wrong!!!

McAdams is the scene stealer every time and she out acts Gosling about 10 to 1. She gives you the sense of the passion thats supposed to be here Between Noah and Allie when Gosling fails at it, She carries him in this film and Mardsen. although Mardsen does give an acceptable acting job.

Her portrayal of the 17 year old Allie is wide eyed, spunky, and right on the mark. Her portrayal of the 24 year old Allie is mature, tamed and right where it should be, again hitting the mark.

It seems to me McAdams has a nice future in film and it goes to show you that some actors when giving the chance CAN REALLY ACT,(Nicole Kidman comes to mind finally getting good roles and shining in them) while others given the chance STILL SUCK!! (Gosling, well as a romantic lead err, SUCKS!!)

The premise for this film is original, and 3 out of the 4 leads act very well. This film is not as "Diabetic unfriendly" as some people would have you believe, but is not sugar free either. What bothers me is we don't have enough character development, again with Gosling's portrayal be first and foremost lacking.

If we were able to change that, then this film would be an academy award nominee, A good film in spite of its flaws but not a great film. Remember people, because a film makes you cry don't make the film great. I've seen people cry watching Soap Operas and Hot Dog eating contests as well!! scores as follows;

1. a take a date to flick  2. originality= 7 (10 for the premise) 3. acting = 8 (would be 10 but Gosling takes away allot) 4. Kleenex needed? YES BRING A BOX!! (and save it for the very end)

finally; Academy award nomination potentional?

Supporting actor=Gardner=Maybe excellent acting Supporting actress Rowlands=Maybe= excellent Lead Actress= McAdams;

I'd say yes if she had a good leading man(Like Colin Farrell) to have worked with. Simply put, she just really carries Gosling too much, all the chemistry is from her, for this reason, she won't get a nod which is too bad, This lady has the potentional to be a top actress.

Movie=NO Director=good job but no. Other awards, possibly (cinematography is excellent, set design and costume)

Rasberry ward for worse actor? YES FOR GOSLING!!

over all 7 out of 10, Recommended highly for the 3rd date to 5th date scenario, but not a first date scenario!!

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

***SPOLIERS***

[7/10 · 30 June 2004]

OK guys, I agree this is a "master piece" of film making, no doubt; However, what is Frodo touted as the hero here? The little hobbit failed his task miserably. Sam is the real hero and in my opinion, his character was enjoyable. Frodo's character was not. Ya, always entrust a great task to a person who takes bad advice (keeps telling Same in all 3 movies "you are right Sam" but chooses to ignore his advice none the less, esp about that dirty little "Gollum".. Then he finally gets to the Mountain where he needs to destroy the ring, only to turn around to Sam and tell him "The Ring is mine", puts it on, and the only reason the damned ring gets destroyed is because Frodo fights for it back with Gollum.. I sure wish they would have killed off Frodo in the first film!! all that wisdom and they could not choose the right guy for the job?

Frodo the hero? They should have taken Sam into The West, but instead they take someone who if he had his own way, middle earth would have been the fire eye, "also a moron for a villain" Saron's!! I bet you Frodo found a way to sink that nice little ship!!

Now we can see why all these morons got into this whole mess in the first place? BAD DECISION MAKING will screw up 3000 years everytime!!

Really now, 13 months to defeat Sauron and destroy The Ring right?

Yet all the wisdom of the characters, esp Gahndaff, and he cant figure out that all they needed to do was get on of those "eagles" to fly Frodo (well not Frodo, but Sam, since Frodo is an idiot) over Mt Doom and drop the ring into the Mountain? haha!!

Oh but we cannot have that; That would mean one 2 hour movie!!

I have never read the book, and I do not think I want to!!

Well having said all of the above, the rest of the series, from the 2nd movie on, has great battle scenes, plots and real intelligent and well thought out sequences.

For me the whole "Destroying the ring" deal was a total absurdity!

Take the Ring away and we have "The Lord of The Battles" because that is where the real strength of these movies reside!!

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Anime revisited

[8/10 · 16 December 2003]

QT here has once again showed his knack for creating fleeting absurd characters, over the top action scenes, and original adaptation from various genres. In Kill Bill, QT picks The main genre "Anime" to bring to life on the big screen. If This film were done in pure cartoon Anime, it would just be another Japanese Anime flick, but here we have Anime without the cartoon.(Except for a few brief moments)

The violence depicted here is absurd and over the top, exactly what we would see in many cartoon anime series. It is not intended to shock, it is intended to stay true to the anime genre as if we were watching a true cartoon anime.

Uma Thurman aka "The splattered bride, aka Black Mamba, aka, her absurdly bleeped out true name of "Beatrice" is on your typical Anime plot based revenge march from an assassination attempt on her 4 years prior. In typical out of sequence QT, We see the first act of Vengeance, only after to get QT'a quick and fleeting foundation to the story, the reason for "Beatrice's" revenge. However we do not know the reason for the hit squads "hit" on "Black Mamba" The film is interesting and visually stunning, but lacks in depth character development. But is not not typical QT and why we like his films?

Spoiler!!!! Did anyone listen to black Mamba start to proclaim to Bill "Its your BAAAB" Then POW!! Maybe that's why Bill wanted her dead, JEALOUSLY! We shall see in volume 2 of this "Anime revisited Genre."

8 out of 10

PS Don't TAKE YOUR CHILDREN OR EVER ALLOW THEM TO SEE THIS FILM UNLESS YOU WANT YOU KID TO HAVE NIGHTMARES FOR MONTHS!

A Walk to Remember (2002)

Potentionally could have been great but....

[7/10 · 2 September 2002]

This movie is a prime example of "Commercialism vs. Artistry"

The story has a ton of potentional, but falls into the typical trap of trying to appease a certain target audience. The sub plots are not developed in the slightest, and The characters seem to have little depth. Really folks, are teenagers these days suffering from ADD this much that we have to have films with the "no Ridilin required" label?

Mandy Moore looks the part great, but let's understand that "looking" the part does not mean one becomes "the part".. For The most part, she delivers an inconsistent performance. Sometimes she is right on,(crying scenes and romantic intimaticy) other times I got the sense she was forcing lines without characterization.

Her Character she plays in the movie seems contrived, even selfish at times. Jamie might try asking Landon "what would you like to do today?" Jeez, as if EVERYONE that is terminally ill needs more patronizing, and enjoys being catered to "hand and foot" Honestly, yes, it is fine and well that Landon wishes to fufill her "wish list" but each and every second? There is a fine line between compassion and patronization.

What is missing here is obvious; "can we get to know you guys first before we see your pain?" "Jamie, tell us about your faith," not that you "have faith."

Well she can't, because it seems like the film makers did not want to "offend" anyone who is not a Christian. This is film making honesty? Jamie is A Christian correct? Isn't The head of Christianity someone named Jesus, then how come his name is never mentioned ONE TIME? Btw, Nice "Head Ornament of Jesus" in Jamie's home. I was not aware that "Southern Christians" had similar little "statutes" of The tortured thorn crown wearing Jesus as Catholics do. This is not a Christian film. Enough comments on how it is.

I have not read the book but I will wager the book goes into Jamie's faith just a tad more than the movie does.

Did we as well need a Mandy Moore Music video here? Her singing skit could not be more contrived unless she was a male midget at a ballpark urinal "tryting to measure up" This is out of character for Jamie, plain and simple.

There is perhaps something worthwhile to this movie. At least it is not the typical teenage flick in the sense that not every teenage idiot is a bad person. They are still idiots, but not "evil idiots".

Is this a tear jerker? Well, I felt sadness to a degree, but a small degree. Folks you want tear jerkers? Try The Green Mile. At least that film has characters clearly defined to love and hate. How about ET?..

I just feel this film was targeted at teenagers who cry if their parents won't buy them a new car, and/or new shoes. JEEZ.

If The film makers just really focused only on a good movie, without caring about just who in the hell might see it, they could have had a really good flick here. They should have gone for Anne Hathaway, who shows a good deal of acting ability and actaully looks 18 instead of 14. like Ms. Moore does. Maybe for The Male lead, they could have nabbed Ralph Machio,(The Karate Kid) he still looks like a teenage idiot, and he is like 50 years old.

Actually, all kidding aside, Shane West does an adequate job.. Mandy Moore? Well, she is certainly a nice looking young woman. Perhaps she will take some acting lessons because she does show potentional. At least she was better than those other 2 "singers" who tried acting. That isn't saying much.

Overall, not a bad film. However, could have been a great film. Peace