Newmarket Films | Release Date: July 23, 2004
8.5
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 294 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
264
Mixed:
13
Negative:
17
WATCH NOW
Buy On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
MichaelS.Sep 8, 2005
If you people consider this a "good science fiction movie" then you clearly have never been exposed to good SF before, this movie is crap, I cannot even recommend it for its camp value it is so bad. This is merely the attempt of Richard If you people consider this a "good science fiction movie" then you clearly have never been exposed to good SF before, this movie is crap, I cannot even recommend it for its camp value it is so bad. This is merely the attempt of Richard Kelly to seem profound when he is merely ridiculous and tedious. Please people, go read some good SF like the work of Philip K. Dick or see a good SF movie like Tarkovsky's 1972 film "Solaris" or Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful
2
joey-clemenzaFeb 27, 2013
trite, mundane, pretentious, hackneyed, sloppy, arrogant and dull......i never did understand the cult following this film has garnered. if ever the movie said anything to me, it said that writer richard kelly is way too in love with his owntrite, mundane, pretentious, hackneyed, sloppy, arrogant and dull......i never did understand the cult following this film has garnered. if ever the movie said anything to me, it said that writer richard kelly is way too in love with his own material (southland tales and the box being proof of this). there is nothing wrong with wanting to endeavor into your project like a child, nurturing it and loving it just as such. however, once a director reaches the state of "i don't care if it does make sense", you have then left your audience in the ditch and are now lost. there is an obvious disdain and further disconnect with kelly's audience, as the movie is only experienced in stylized sequences, complete with "plot twists" askew. oh, the plot twist. ever was there a more cheap though effective technique in fiction writing. this brings me to my next point. the story is so convoluted, there have been countless websites developed for the simple function of either identifying or deciphering the movies message, plot, theme and "code" like a child who recently discovered the usesfullness of a Marvel styled decoder ring. only whence identifying these modes (or theorizing them, as there really is all you can do with this film), the former just seems so wishy washy in the end, you'd just as soon begin thinking of this film as a classic because if it doesn't make sense, it must be cool, right? Kelly has no business directing, as there is only a subtle hint of character in every one of these one or two layered protagonists. Richard Kelly really is the Omar Rodriguez of film and i see no other reason to praise him, save for the fact that he knows the Gyllenhaals? i assure you, rich.....your farts smell the same way as mine, and as your movie. **1 out of 5 stars** Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
3
nicolew.Aug 20, 2007
The good parts of this movie, black comedy about suburbia, remind me a LOT of Heathers. The "original" parts of the movie, based on some idea of time travel, are tedious. Cutting this theme back in the original film made it at least seem a The good parts of this movie, black comedy about suburbia, remind me a LOT of Heathers. The "original" parts of the movie, based on some idea of time travel, are tedious. Cutting this theme back in the original film made it at least seem a little mysterious. The directors cut makes that theme more literal , silly, bloated, and self-indulgent. Anyone who assets they found some deep and original meaning here is fooling you and/or themselves. Collapse
1 of 10 users found this helpful
2
WayneH.Jun 16, 2008
Did I miss something?
0 of 3 users found this helpful
1
chrismMay 14, 2009
Not a good movie, once more the wooly rabbit suit is pulled over our eyes.
0 of 4 users found this helpful