Bonnascope Reviews

Bangkok Haunted (2001)

Quick Review: BANGKOK HAUNTED

[3/10 · 10 January 2024]

THE BEST: The cover is deceiving. The curiosity that each argument incites.

THE WORST: How poorly made it is. We have 2 directors, one of them the creator of "THE EYE", and they bring us... this? Three stories whose plot had promise but whose filmmakers make it so dizzy that you end up not giving a damn about each story. Because you come to the conclusion that: 1st This happens... 2nd You don't know why, 3rd no one explains it to you (ever), therefore, 4th What the hell am I seeing?

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: 3 stories related, mixed or... I don't care... about spirits and ghosts. I'll try to tell them (more or less without spoilers):

1) A girl receives an old drum by mistake, that drum has a ghost in the pack. The girl will know the history related to that drum that dates back to 1917.

2) Another girl, she receives from a neighbor a kind of potion whose powers supposedly make any man surrender at her feet. To all this while in parallel there is a guy who works in a morgue who does "strange things" with girls' corpses...

3) Another girl is found hanging by the neck. Possibly it is a suicide. But the police officer investigating the case thinks it is a murder. In all this it seems that the girl's spirit is helping the police to find her murderer...

ONLY FOR: Those who see it and understand the 3 stories the first time. Those who want to use it to compare it with the theories of Socrates: "I only know that I know nothing."

Spoilers:

WORST #2: I simply didn't understand the first story. I don't know why things happen and what it has to do with what. The 2nd one makes a little more sense but you still don't know why they die, why they appear, what's happening?! It's the only one that makes sense, if you look hard enough. It could have been better. And the 3rd, okay yes, it seems like a very typical episode of C. S. I./Cold Case etc... But the ending is so poorly told that it is simply impossible to be surprised. It's not because you saw it coming, but because you don't see the point. Pay attention to the screw-ups in this episode: Constant axis jumps. At this stage!

Ahora o nunca (2015)

Endearing characters vs. Forced script

[4/10 · 6 January 2024]

I finally saw this movie and I have to say that I expected it better, although they said it was going to be much worse... It is a story that could happen... if it had not had constant UNLIKELY conflicts added, not to mention a script that you have unnecessary, meaningless and very forced scenes, just to get a joke at the end of each one. The actors are good, you don't need to force the scene for them to be funny. I will comment on everything in more detail in y the SPOILERS part.

I love the characters, I have no objection to that, the only one that can make me a little mad is "6", but it's their character, of course. But of course, we also find forced characters, like the English blackmailer, who is very pathetic (not the actor, but his character) or some other character. By the way, I will never understand the complaints of some about Melody, in the movie, if she appears so little in the movie that there is no time to see if she does it badly or well. For my taste it is acceptable and in line. Badly it doesn't.

The film ultimately remains a failed romantic comedy, whose ending, although completely predictable, is ruined by its own script. A fun movie could have come out, not a blockbuster, but something fun. A real shame (after all the hype they gave it...).

Spoilers:

Here I leave the doubts and plot holes that I have found in the script.

1- Yes, the wedding takes place in London and there may be flight cancellations and the groom/family may not be able to go that day. But... Is it really possible to delay a wedding so easily? The first conflict and it's already leaking... I don't think that place is free every day and available more than anything to them... But apparently yes, and I say, won't they have to pay more for delaying it for more days? Or even pay the staff more to make them pick up/reassemble everything? The issue of money and how expensive it will be to delay everything is NEVER MENTIONED. And the perfect character for that would be Rovira's mother. She doesn't find losing money a "hassle" either. They should have financed the wedding with coupons, right?

2- The plot of the English blackmailer could have been solved immediately, but of course, apparently the girls had to have some conflict on their side... It is not until when they are going to give him the money that they decide to beat him up, recover the money and his mobile. Why didn't they do the same when they were in front of him the first time? What prevented him? What will post the photos on the page? As easy as pounce on him, before he does anything and take away his cell phone or even if something happens, delete it immediately from his cell phone. It would have been solved immediately. And they would have saved the cheese thing. That the end of that scene is very "Hanna Barbera" or "Mort &Phil". Not even the cheeses serve as a "help" to the plot, they are just another joke. By the way, if he is English, how come he spends ALL THE TIME talking in Spanish?, even when he is alone. Even if they are your best friends, not many would say yes to getting rid of their personal belongings (laptop and tablet included) to get the money. At least, I wouldn't give up the laptop if it is my work tool.

3- The Amsterdam part is shoehorned in. The second cancellation thing can happen if the thing in London is serious, and confusing the suitcase is already bad luck, but losing the taxi from sight when you are running after it... I know CLEARLY that Alex is running behind the taxi, and it turns into a street, and Alex doesn't know why but he continues walking, FOR NO REASON. And there we put the whole part about drugs, etc., so that on top of that YOU CONFUSE THE SUITCASE AGAIN... This whole sequence could have been eliminated and it would not affect the plot, so that later in the end Alex uses the uniform to get to London. To save all the drug nonsense, they could have passed the dispute on to the suitcase's owner. And I'm sure there would have been much better ideas. But not...

4- The simple fact of not having heard English when the girls come out of the bar (WHAT ON TOP SAY IT IN SPANISH!) causes the wedding AFTER EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED, to end up being cancelled. All to provoke the last scene of "LOVE CAN DO EVERYTHING". If they give so much importance to the site, it is not a plan to finally send everything to hell, for something that could also have been solved immediately. But of course, it seems that the film would have fallen short. But again, no one talks about all the money lost after having delayed the wedding for several days and having several workers working both days AT ALL. Since again NO ONE MENTIONS all the money that has been lost.

5- It is nonsense that Alex tries to resist the police at the London airport, when he can see perfectly well that they are also taking Eva into custody. It is clear that they are going to put them in the same place. They take you directly to her, why do you resist?

I'm sure I left out some more, but that's just a few.

Grieta en la oscuridad (2013)

30,000 Euros for a short film, gentlemen...

[4/10 · 6 January 2024]

Very good photography, art direction, lighting, settings, performances that could be improved, but the script... bad. Our lead does nothing but distract us until we find that "final twist" (which I won't say) that yes, surprises you, but leaves you with more doubts than anything else. When the end of the short came I was like, "What happened?" "Why has that happened?" No reason? Once again I think I have come across another project for which I would have to ask the scriptwriter or the director to explain everything briefly, since it seems that they are the only ones who have understood it. And that is a big problem when doing a project. If the creators are the only ones who end up understanding the project, that's a very bad sign... And on top of that, as I already said in the title, this short film cost 30,000 euros. Budget that many of us dream of to do projects to which they never open the doors... Next time I would give the money to someone who knows how to write scripts that do not leave the public with more questions than answers.

The Man in the Silk Hat (1983)

Overrated and wasted documentary

[5/10 · 6 January 2024]

A documentary made by Max Linder's daughter, Maud. I found it on a Max Linder DVD collection, as well as his OV in French was surprisingly in English and Spanish. We discover that it is a French speaker (I don't know if Maud herself or someone else) reciting the text again in English and Spanish. The announcer recites with a particular French accent throughout the documentary. She is not 100% perfect and sometimes she makes mistakes in the translation, therefore I recommend watching it directly in her original language, because the Spanish ends up becoming somewhat burdensome.

Anyway, this documentary is very overrated. The speaker intervenes on very specific occasions during it, rather it clearly seems like ANOTHER COMPILATION of his work. It ends up getting quite boring when what you want is to know more about the life of Max Linder. A shame.

The Simon's Jigsaw (2015)

How a bad editing can ruin an entire project...

[4/10 · 22 March 2023]

I discovered this documentary as one of the extras on the Blu-ray of "Pieces" (1982), and the truth is that it seemed to look very good. Above all because of its cast of interviewees and its long running time (which for me that could mean, a lot of information, anecdotes and curiosities). But the truth was that when I got into one hour of the film, I couldn't stop looking at how much time was left with the help of the player control...

At first it is a very poorly structured documentary, instead of stopping and going through the movie film in the filmography of Juan Piquer Simón, they are constantly jumping from one to another. For example, they stop talking about "Supersonic Man", to talk about "The Rift", to continue with "Cthulhu Mansion", to return to "The Rift", to go on to "Pieces", to go back to "The Rift" and so with all the movies...

The documentary is poorly finished, it seems more like a quick "rough-cut" that has not been fully reviewed. Sometimes an interviewee appears with one letter less in his first name, to later appear corrected. Some interviewees also have their name appear on a caption that appears and disappears in less than a second, in addition that these captions appear constantly under the interviewees, as if their creator was afraid that the viewer would forget the names after changing from one to another... Many silences and pauses have been left, which could have been cut with image transitions (although that didn't matter because you also found pauses and silences when an interviewee was in voice over). There even a moment in the last third of the documentary when an excerpt from an interview with Juan Piquer Simón appears that leaves it uncut for almost 4 minutes, making it boring and tedious, something that should not be the case since the documentary is dedicated to his work and his person (in addition to the fact that no other interviewee is left so much time on screen). And finally, the occasional sound cuts or abrupt cuts on the image, which, as I already said, could have been eliminated with a simple final revision.

Of all the people that appear, the only two persons that I have left over are Lone Fleming and Sandra Alberti, who contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the documentary, Sandra appears at the beginning walking through some corridors acting as a ghost, to reappear only at the end, and Lone appears assembling a puzzle that is shown at the beginning of each "chapter" of the documentary. They are totally wasted. Also, I think it would have been more worthwhile having them interviewed, giving them a role that could have been played by other actresses or a models unrelated to the director. Colin Arthur, although he provides a lot of information, I would have allowed him to conduct his interview in English, since unlike Jack Taylor, he's not so fluent in Spanish. In addition that his interventions have not been subtitled, something that he would have helped since there are moments where, I'm sorry, but what he says is not understood...

Lastly, although this is not the documentary's fault, probably due to rights issues or huge amounts of money that they should have asked the director for, NOT A SINGLE SCENE FROM ANY OF THE DIRECTOR'S FILMS IT'S SHOWN. Only posters, photos, newspaper cuts and the occasional behind-the-scenes footage are shown. It's something very surprising since in this kind of documentaries, some footage is always shown, but in this case surely nothing could be done since I doubt that they were given facilities when they were making it. Although it is always a rights issue, such as "The Eastwood Factor", a documentary about Clint Eastwood talking about his career, but since "Warner" was behind it, in that documentary ONLY the movie clips that Clint made for "Warner" appeared, the rest... photos or as if I had never done them.

In conclusion, it's a documentary that has completely missed its potential and has been ruined by bad editing. I doubt that if it had been given one last review it would have kept its final running time (101 minutes), surely it would have been shorter and above all more enjoyable and entertaining. A pity, since many of those interviewees will never be able to get together in another project like this again.

Miami Supercops (1985)

Terence Hill and Bud Spencer with guns?

[3/10 · 21 March 2023]

I've known this rowdy Italian duo since I first saw them in "Watch Out, We're Mad" (1974). This film was the penultimate one they made together... and it was the second time they played American police officers since "Crime Busters" (1977); Well, this movie is honestly the weakest they've ever made, and why is that? Two thirds of the action scenes have been replaced by guns drawn. Bud's "slaps" and Terence's punches disappear almost completely from the film when the two protagonists draw their guns and threaten the staff. And then where is the grace? This is when they stop being rowdy... you only see 2 or 3 moments in which they "let loose" like they do until they draw their pistols and the magic is lost (and don't tell me it's because of how old they were, since 9 years later they returned in "Troublemakers" (1994), and "they let go" as in the old days...). And to top it off, the soundtrack only has one musical theme that is repeated endlessly throughout the film. In the filmography of Bud Spencer and Terence Hill this is their weakest film.

Detroit Rock City (1999)

Criticizing quickly: Detroit Rock City

[6/10 · 21 March 2023]

THE BEST: Sam Huntington and Guiseppe Andrews. Camera movements and editing. The moments of "reveal of the characters". Joe Flaherty and Ron Jeremy cameos.

THE WORST: Some dirty jokes. The title in Spanish, "Zero in Conduct", being called "Detroit Rock City". That some think that because it is the typical adolescent movie it is going to be the typical nonsense without a plot in which only bad and dirty jokes abound. It also contains some realistic situations such as the fights of Catholic mothers against KISS, and much criticism of the church.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT: 1978. 4 kids will do anything to be able to attend the KISS concert in Detroit.

ONLY FOR: Lovers of teen movies, period movies, road movies with plot and for KISS fans. It's worth watching, basically because there are much more bad and worse movies...

Supermen Dönüyor (1979)

Criticizing quickly: Süpermen Dönüyor

[6/10 · 21 March 2023]

THE BEST: How shabby it is. With an endless list of unforgettable notations: Soundtrack taken directly from the original "Superman", including the James Bond theme. Retro-projections made with the doll Ken (Barbie's boyfriend) replacing the actor; fights more false than Maya the Bee's memories, the new powers she has: Telekinesis, Zoom View, Ability to see girls in their underwear, See the past and Deconcentrate their enemies; and a long etcetera that I recommend to everyone.

THE WORST: That being a Z series movie, it is hated by many. Being so bad that it deserves its own thesis.

WHAT IS IT: Made exclusively for Turkish export because at that time in Turkey, American films were prohibited from being released; For which reason these "remakes" of budget 0 were made to be shown to the public. A real "suecada" as they already did in "Rewind please". This time the argument is as follows (extracted with the help of English subtitles): The only Survivor of a race of Supermen who live on the planet Krypton is sent to earth. There he is welcomed by an old couple who ends up calling him Tayfun. When he is an adult, his parents tell him where he really came from, and give him a green stone (a square) that leads him to a cave. The square shows... his father of him? And he tells him his real origin and what will be his destiny: to become the last of the Supermen. Curious fact, the stone that came with him is Kryptonite, and here it does not cause death, but having it next to him has no powers. After becoming Superman, a professor (it is not known how) has obtained the Kryptonite to study it. One of his group of colleagues is the Turkish Lex Luthor (who is called Ekrem here and is not bald) intends to get the stone because he has discovered that the Kryptonite material connected to a device of his invention could turn any material into gold. That's when this story begins in which our Turkish Clark Kent gets involved, and his companions; Alev (Turkish Lois Lane) and Nazi (Turkish Jimmy Olsen, and yes, he is called that in Turkish) and Ekrem's henchmen. Will they get the stone?

ONLY FOR: Those who dare to see it. Obviously not in Turkish, there are already subtitled versions. It has no waste (that's why I give it a 6/10). Plus it only lasts 67 minutes!

American Psycho II: All American Girl (2002 Video)

The Patrick Bateman Legacy?! Rather, dishonor.

[3/10 · 21 March 2023]

"American Psycho" brought to movie screens a great serial killer: Patrick Bateman (an unbeatable Christian Bale). Years later it arrives directly on video, a sequel. Oh really? A sequel to "American Psycho"?! I thought: if it didn't make it to theaters it will be for a reason.

"American Psycho II: The Patrick Bateman Legacy." It is the story of a girl, who managed to murder Patrick Bateman from behind. Oh really? And then when he grows up he ends up looking like him even though he says he was going to go after serial killers. And I say looking alike because here it seems that people like to leave traces of crime everywhere, well... it must be because the police (the only ones who appear) are absolutely pathetic. For me, this sequel has nothing to do with "American Psycho", it totally loses the aesthetics of its predecessor, it doesn't even come close to it (and that's what it said on the cover above all: "more furious, more bloody and more perverse ", all ironies there is no doubt). The only thing I liked was the protagonist Mila Kunis, better known for the original voice of Meg Griffin in the series "Family Guy" (by the way, I love her voice), her co-star Geraint Wyn Davies (actor from the small screen, which I also saw in "Cube 2") and the end credits accompanied by the song "The Girl Who Wouldn't Die". The rest nothing.

William Shatner (the mythical Captain Kirk), tries, but it seems that they do not get him out of this type of role. The music doesn't even stick, the composer, Norman Orenstein, seems to have completely confused the genre, because what the soundtrack has made me understand is that I've been watching a black comedy about university students. The script has a lot of black holes and the director Morgan J. Freeman has not been able to show me that he has been directing a horror thriller, rather I repeat, a college black comedy.

In short: American Psycho II, is a film that totally lacks the title, not to mention the intention of the producers to have said, "let's do it, see what happens", well you see it; the script (if they had eliminated Patrick Bateman) could have been something else and it might have gone better, and lastly, I was not amused at all, the impudence of having so dishonorably killed Patrick Bateman (because , if I were Christian Bale, I would not have come out even making a cameo). A lazy movie.

Anastasia (1997)

My critic of "Anastasia"

[3/10 · 21 March 2023]

THE BEST: The animation.

THE WORST: The script. Although it is the typical story of a boy meets a girl and they fight against the forces of the evil that persecutes them... the story is set at the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917. But in a world in which the Czars are the good guys, and that after they murdered, the Bolsheviks have left the people in real misery! Ahem... Who failed history and has shown it again?

WHAT IS IT ABOUT: The "evil sorcerer" Rasputin puts a curse on the Tsar's family. Fifteen days later the 1917 revolution arrives, supposedly also caused by Rasputin's curse, the evil Bolsheviks "murder" (supposedly) the Tsars, although one of their daughters "Anastasia" manages to escape with her grandmother, although she gets lost by the way. 10 years later, "Ania" leaves an orphanage, supposedly without remembering anything from her past... A young man named Dimitri (who previously worked in the palace) and his partner Vladimir, are now a couple of con men trying to extort 10 million rubles from Anastasia's grandmother, who is sent actresses who are close to her beloved granddaughter. They will coincidentally find "Ania" (without knowing, of course, that she really was), and they will go to Paris to take her "supposed" lost daughter. And to all this from limbo, Rasputin and his henchman (secondary comic) Bartok, will do everything possible to get rid of "Anastasia".

ONLY FOR: Animation lovers, and for those who want to laugh out loud when listening to the authentic hoaxes that have ranted from history. Such a tough part of 20th century history should be given a little more respect!

CONCLUSION: Yes, it is for children. As an adult it's hard to enjoy it while listening to every nonsense they make up about the story. Please parents, if you show this to your children explain the true story at the end.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

Why did they want to do it this way? Just because.

[3/10 · 21 March 2023]

I was a little scared just because of the fact that several things had disappeared after "THE MUMMY RETURNS". The fact that Rachel Weisz was replaced by Maria Bello because the script was unable to convince her. And that its director and screenwriter Stephen Sommers be replaced as director by Rob Cohen, and that Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, both creators of the "SMALLVILLE" series and "SHANGHAI NOON" I and II. All this new information already said a lot in his favor to know that some other change would be noticed. And indeed, think wrong and you will be right*. 7 years have passed, and they have only kept 3 of the previous 2 things: The word "mummy", Brendan Fraser and John Hannah. We are in 1946, 13 years have passed since the last attack by a mummy, and that is when the eldest son of the O'Connells (Alex) finds the tomb of the Han Emperor (Jet Li) and of course (otherwise there would be no movie) they wake up his mummy and have to stop him before he destroys the world (as always). I know that this is the typical line that this franchise has always had, but please... I have experienced something very different. It has not been the simple fact of passing from Egyptian culture to Chinese culture, but the film has already gone completely into another dimension. The plot of the film is as follows: things happen, because yes.

-The best: Brendan Fraser and John Hannah, because it is the only thing that remains from the original series and they made me laugh as always. Luke Ford, who tries and gives Alex a lot of strength, I also mention Isabella Leong in the role of Lin, who I find a very attractive actress. And some moments from the Randy Edelman soundtrack.

-The worst: The simple fact of having wanted to close the saga of "The Mummy", because if, without taking into account the public, putting a new director and some new writers, who but they caused Rachel Weisz to leave. But worst of all, they wanted to continue without it and with a script so convoluted and absurd that it makes it seem that "a rubik's cube" is child's play. Having wasted the talent of Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh as actors, and that they only come out static and kicking.

Spoilers:

Emperor Han is not only immortal, he can also control some of the 4 elements, which makes him a resourceful man, but of course, only when it suits him. He also transforms into animals, from a dragon to a... It's not that I shouldn't say it's that I don't know what it is, but the most surprising thing is that it's not known how he can do it... the only reason they give you is the next: "Just because". And that answer appears constantly in the film:

-Why doesn't a Yeti appear, but 3 at the same time?; just because.

-Why do we find clichés through a tube, not to mention that I have found scenes taken directly from "Indiana Jones"?; just because.

-Why 2 of the yetis throw one of the bad guys into the air and celebrate by making the CLEAR gestures of having scored a "touchdown"?; just because.

-Why do you have to include so much digital effect if the only thing you get is to overload the film?; just because.

-Why are there so many constant gaps in the plot and in the characters?; just because.

-Why, even though they are father and son, would Rick and Alex tell each other because of their age and by eye that they are brothers?; just because.

-Why did Rob Cohen, Alfred Gough and Miles Millar not want to keep the style that Stephen Sommers already used in the previous 2? I have no answer there, they will know.

-Why didn't all this happen to the pre-quel of the saga, "THE SCORPION KING"? There I do have an answer, because Stephen Sommers continues to collaborate as a co-writer and producer.

-Why in this 3rd part Stephen Sommers, being a producer, did not do anything to improve the film itself? He only knows that.

Taxi 4 (2007)

This was wrote by Luc Besson!

[3/10 · 15 July 2016]

I saw the third one jaundiced, but this one is deeply bad. It's normal that Marion Cotillard didn't return, actually that decision give her the Oscar for choosing "LA VIE EN ROSE". The plot it's so simple has a child movie, with constant "hommages" to "SCARFACE". It seems that Luc Besson wrote only for the money and with no interest at all, and I can believe that we talk about the same guy he wrote "LEÓN", "NIKITA" and "THE FIFTH ELEMENT".

The history tries to be supported with it's characters' jokes and with the action. But in this one, the characters here are abnormal and the action in addition it's forced sometimes is almost non- existent.

The only normal character is Daniel (Samy Naceri), you look at his face and it seems that the actor wants to return home with his family in every scene. The other characters have already became retarded. Émilien (Frédéric Diefenthal) is dumb and unable to do nothing without Daniel's corrections, and sometimes he acts like a damn baby who doesn't even know that 1+1 is 2. For example, the scene were he's incapable to recognize his wife Petra, only because she's wearing a brown peruke (and nothing else)... That burned by brain down. One thing is Clark Kent's glasses, but this is STUPID.

And the rest of the characters are not better... If the earlier films Gibert, was dumb, in this one... Even Émilien and Daniel's children's doesn't in the movie. The children's are only there for one sequence, when they help one of the Belgian's thugs, who's is a "professional" who cannot use a computer.

The villain, is flat and unfunny to me, I don't know if he's great or not in his country, but he doesn't make me laugh. The actor seems he's always trying to stand out, but the bad script stops him.

Even the TAXI has presence in the film. Only in the first sequence and that all, and it's actually the one who's in the TITLE.

The movie is garbage, I have seen Z movies with better scripts and smart characters. Don't waste your time watching it.

Somewhere in Time (1980)

Disappointing

[3/10 · 18 April 2016]

He spend years looking for this film, look on the premise: Christopher Reeve + Time Travel. But once I found it and saw it ... everything changed. I felt ripped off (although I found it cheap on 2nd hand DVD) and completely disappointed. I know this review will have many "dislikes" but I do not care, that's what I felt when I saw it. It is THE WORST TIME TRAVEL MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN. Look, I've seen all kinds of methods to travel back in time: Cars, telephone booths, XIXs machines, doors, necklaces, family heritage, etc. But when I saw that in this film: You can travel in time with SUGGESTION... No I couldn't believe it. No, I'm not kidding. And all this comes from the mind of novelist Richard Matheson (creator of "I Am Legend" and "The Incredible Shrinking Man" among many others).

It turns out that our lead (Christopher Reeve) advised by his former philosophy teacher, tells him that only repeating to himself again and again, that we're on "X" date, you're gonna go to that date. We suggestion our mind and is eventually it send you back in time. Besides being clearly impossible... It's ridiculous! It's like saying that if we rub our hands we can get that our body begins to fly. Or if we hit very strong two bronze horns'll open an inter-dimensional gate... Ridiculous and impossible to develop a strong plot. This is what happens to this movie.

Above all, it is a romantic drama, no one intended to make it a science-fiction movie. The script is an overdose of teenage love. He reminded me that even the "Twilight" saga, boy and girl who fall in love and no one thinks carefully about the consequences of their relationship, because they are too immature and stupid to think about it. Reeve falls in love with a 1912 photography of an actress. A photo!. Although everything begins with the scene of the old woman giving him the watch and her line "Come back to me" just start the movie. It is not until it gets to investigate (obsessively) that photo, that you just discover that the girl in the picture and the old woman are the same person (without seeing the trailer and I knew I could happened). So he decides to do everything possible to travel back in time from 1980 to 1912, from the same hotel where she was 68 years ago. Suprisely, he discovers that he really traveled back in time, when he finds (in less than 2 minutes) the 1912 guest-book to find that his name was inscribed on it. So, the fact is that after hours repeating the message... Reeve's MADE IT (Duh) and he travels back to 1912 to meet and hang out with her (Elise). And just in a day, he will conquering her and make her fall in love with him. A stranger who behaves like a slimy stalker. It seems to me that it will never works in the real world, but i worked here...

My conclusion: An immature script, not only by a central shaft that sinks from since the beginning, but also the characters and the purely adolescent brat plot. Best thing in the film: Christopher Reeve and the score. The rest sucks.

Ah the 4 is because the performance of the actors but would be a 2. Which by the way, in the making of the film, even the director himself said that he didn't know how it would sell the story to any producer knowing how the main character travels in time...