- Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
- Release Date: Nov 6, 2002
User Score
6.1
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 31 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 18 out of 31
-
Mixed: 5 out of 31
-
Negative: 8 out of 31
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
VladP.Apr 3, 20038
-
-
JerryH.Nov 5, 20025This is a tough one. It's not offend your intellect horrible and it's not completely boring, but it's not good either. Most of the cast seems to be having fun, but they are slapped in a laboriously paced thiller. Doesn't exactly make it thrilling. Enjoy it for what it is -- a trifle.
-
-
YoonMinC.Oct 2, 20038
-
-
MattM.Feb 9, 200310
-
-
JonK.Apr 26, 20030
-
-
ZeljkoM.Sep 24, 20032Awfull!
-
-
FrankO.Jan 25, 20065Had great hopes for this movie but DePalma just couldn't pull it off...too long, a waste of Peter Coyote's skills as an actor.
-
-
SimpsonS.Nov 10, 20022Sucked big time.....such a waste of a good lesbian scene.
-
-
TheIceManNov 12, 20021
-
-
MatthieuR.Nov 9, 20029Save for some parts of the ending that are a bit cliche, I really enjoyed this film. It is repleted with references to other works, subtle symbols and "clins d'oeil" to famous film directors (I kept thinking of Kiezlowski's "Rouge". The lack of dialogue is refreshing in today's "explain everything to the audience". Yes, it is an erotic film, but a very well done one at that.
-
-
JackD.Dec 20, 20029Great tongue-in-cheek suspense.
-
-
TimA.Dec 9, 20024It had sexy babes, the movie was ok, but the story was messed up!
-
-
ElijahOct 17, 200310
-
-
JonasMar 27, 200310I am a little confused: I must have seen a different film than some of these viewers. This film was incredibly gorgeous, stylish, and sexy. It's amazing for a film to be so captivating when there is very little dialogue. One of the best examples of a film that resembles a director's pure love of movies. It's one of the very best films of 2002.
-
-
RichardApr 4, 20037
-
-
JohnNov 26, 200210Wonderful ... a "Mulholland Drive" that doesn't cheat.
-
-
JoviNov 6, 20025Somewere someone forgot what kind of film this was going or trying to be. Other than the T&A you get from Romijn Stamos, this is one long borring film that in the end looks more like a failed attempt at a fantasy than a drama or action. The first 10 minutes I enjoyed, after that, God help me, I could have stayed at home and watched Le Femme Nikita and lez porn.
-
-
MikeyG.Nov 7, 20026
-
-
SamanthaDec 8, 200210Fabulous! Anyone who says otherwise is juat plain stupid.
-
-
JosiahR.Dec 9, 20020
-
-
JackJan 13, 200410Great meta-thriller, with the usual DePalma hijinks, choreography and tongue-in-cheek preposterousness.
-
-
ElliottNov 15, 200210
-
-
JoeL.Nov 27, 20022Points for babes only. movie sucked - walked out.
-
-
Dec 29, 20128All style, no substance, but it's very cool and superbly shot. You can say the whole is less than the some of its parts, but nearly every scene by itself is amazing.
-
80The story, to the extent that it is comprehensible, is pretentious and banal, closer to "Vanilla Sky" than "Notorious." But Mr. De Palma proves that, in the absence of insight or ideas, some amazing things are possible. It is possible, for instance, to be entranced by a movie without believing it for a second.
-
63Sexy, witty, energetic and gorgeous, but it is as stripped of the human element (in some of its production design, as well) as a minimalist Calvin Klein store.
-
38De Palma fools around with split screens and slo-mo, but no amount of cinematic artifice can varnish over the fact that this is simply a bad film.