smijatov's Profile at Metacritic

Average User Score: 3.2

User Score 2

This was such a bad comedy! The cast is actually quite impressive, but they do not do much with their shallow characters - and how could they?? Horrible screenplay, and just a bad film overall... Nicole Kidman is decent in the film, and the overall cast is good. Bette Midler is pretty good and pretty much the most entertaining character in this "comedy." As Kidman said at a press statement once "It's a comedy. We hope." Unfortunately, that hope did not materialise into reality, since there is almost nothing funny about The Stepford Wives. It is not even bad enough to be funny - that's how bad it is! The 2 is truly only out of my respect for the misguided actors and for rather good production design - the costumes and art direction were both very well done. Overall, though, a film that had a lot of potential has been sucked dry of all its originality, charm and, most importantly, its humour. 2/10… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Beginners

Average User Score: 7.2

User Score 5

For all its merits, I just did not really connect with this film. Yes, it was rather wittily written, with interesting situations and dialogue. It had very good acting, especially from McGregor who, in my opinion, overshadowed Plummer who did not strike me as anything out of the ordinary. Same thing happened with Alan Arkin in "Little Miss Sunshine" - I would have never expected him to get the Oscar. Anyway, the film as it is, is rather interesting and somewhat entertaining. What is lacking, though, is the connecting with the characters. While many have written about how real the characters felt, I had a rational understanding for that, but just could not connect to them at all. Usually I like films like this, but this just did not resonate with me all that much.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

The Last Exorcism

Average User Score: 5.2

User Score 6

Like many other films, The Last Exorcism has joined the storm of "documentary" style films. At first, to be honest, it seems rather annoying - the whole thing, not just the fact that is a documentary-style film. The acting looks forced, which is true throughout most of the film, since the actors are trying to look as if they are not acting. The notable exception is Ashley Bell, who plays the role of the possessed girl, which she does excellently! Nothing but words of praise for her. And, apparently, she did all the acrobatics with her body herself, no CGI -- she's a ballet dancer, hence extremely flexible (just an interesting fact!). Overall, the story is rather interesting, and when you think you've got it figured out, it shifts and completely changes your perspective. As I said before, at first it seems predictable and boring, but the film builds very nicely and is actually a rather interesting, intelligent horror. It does leave the audience with a ton of questions, which might be intentional, but one cannot be really sure. It has lots of thrills, though, they are not properly dispersed throughout the whole film, but are built one onto another throughout the film. While that may not provide entertainment non-stop, it becomes rather effective. Overall, pretty good, scary horror, without too much gore, but lots of thrills. Worth the while!… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Race to Witch Mountain

Average User Score: 6.8

User Score 4

While it surely is entertaining, the film is not very good. It provides for action, and plenty of it. It is mostly good enough action, but nothing one hasn't seen before. The story is somewhat intriguing, but ultimately rather flat and obviously cannot survive on its own without the action sequences. The effects were not quite as good as I hoped, and the acting was rather bad. I have to point out that Dwayne Johnson was atrocious in his attempt to act. The kids were much better, though they were no stars either. I don't know, it was entertaining but it was a typical Disney film that did not provide for anything that would make you even scratch your head and think, let along challenge anything. The villains are hyper-villains, the good guys are good, and The Rock is a good cabbie, who happens to be able to kick ass... ah, when unrealistic things are annoying me in a film about aliens, you know something's wrong. But, I guess it's ultimately worth for the action... or is it?… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

The Smurfs

Average User Score: 4.3

User Score 3

Keeping in mind that this film is mainly catering to a younger audience, I gave the film a 3. In reality, it deserves a zero. And that statement isn't even true - it's geared at the actually older audiences who actually watched The Smurfs as kids, since that's a very very old cartoon and today's generations probably don't even know them. Anyway, the film is just awful. There is nothing positive about it. It uses pathetic acting (mainly Gargamel and Sofia Vergara who is playing Gloria from "Modern Family" basically - or is she just playing Sofia Vergara?), horrible screenplay - the dialogue is pathetic - and it is just not very funny. There is something to be said about a film in which a character makes fun of "how annoying" the theme song is. The sad thing is - the song is very annoying (at least in the rendition in the film), as is the whole picture. As I said, I'd give it a zero, but realising that kids films are usually stupid as it is, I gave it a 3. Avoid it if you can, for your own good.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

Average User Score: 6.8

User Score 5

The theme of the film is very beautiful - lifelong, committed and loving friendship. While the theme is good, the execution of the film is not quite the best. The setting is the parallel stories of two female friends in China - one pair in the 1830s and 40s, and the other pair in modern day Hong Kong. While it's nice that the story was laid out that way (I'm assuming that's how it was written in the book), it just did not translate very well in the film. The 19th century story was very moving and much more interesting than the modern day one. The modern day one just seemed to twist and change for the sake of it, and for the sake of making the 19th century one more interesting and beautiful. I was expecting more from the production design also, which may be the fault of the so-far popular Chinese films with impressive production design, costumes and effects. Snow Flower, however, is not quite up to par with those films, but still holds its ground, I guess. One of the two leads was excellent, Bingbing Li, who performed beautifully throughout the film. The story and idea behind the film are the highlights of it, but as I said, only one half was necessary. Something like Julie/Julia, but not even quite as good as that (not to say that Julie/Julia was that good). Nonetheless, worth the time to watch.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

In Time

Average User Score: 5.9

User Score 4

It surely has an interesting concept behind it. Has an interesting cast. Has a decent production and technical value to it. However, the actual screenplay of "In Time" is rather weak and disappointing. With a number of unthought-through ideas/occurrences/actions to just bad writing with dialogue scenes, it does not quite get it right. The director/writer Andrew Niccol is no newcomer to films, having written "The Truman Show" and having directed a number of (not so good) films, which makes it even more surprising that he had so many weak points in the film. Inconsistencies and just stupid ideas were all over the film, and made me (and my friends watching the film) really annoyed. Also, tons of film clichÃ©s are used and abused all over the film, which makes it even less bearable. The best thing about the film was Amanda Seyfried, who was mesmerising with her hairstyle and look (yet, nothing special acting-wise) and Justin Timberlake's shirtless scenes (which were too few and too short to make up for mediocre acting). The only reason why it'd be worth the time to watch the film is because of the idea, which is quite interesting, but, as I pointed out, not really thought through and properly developed.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Scream 4

Average User Score: 6.7

User Score 3

As the critic Michael O'Sullivan from the Washington Post noted in his review of the film, Scream 4 does not care whether one laughs with it or at it. And I definitely laughed at it. It was one of the most ridiculous attempts at a horror film that I have seen. With no scares, and barely a few thrills (but 49 different plot twists to make up for it, unfortunately), Scream 4 just fails at being a horror and turns into a parody of itself and of the franchise it represents. Not remembering most of the previous Scream films, since I watched them a long time ago, I soon enough realised that there should not have been another Scream film in the first place. The desperation of the producers to get some more money out of the died franchise is obvious, when they are trying to "re-invent" the franchise through recycling old material but making it seem "original" and "different." I ended up laughing at most of the film (I guess, at least it was entertaining in that regard), but also found myself palm-slapping myself a number of times because of how poor the screenplay was. It is basically a comedy and has nothing what a horror ought to have. It is a failed attempt to rejuvenate the franchise, which in my eyes, has utterly failed. Hopefully this will be the last of the Scream films.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

March of the Penguins

Average User Score: 8.3

User Score 5

Maybe if I were a nature-fan, or a bird-fan, or more preferably, a penguin-fan, I would have enjoyed this film. The way things are, I just did not find it all that amazing. Ok. I was just ok. All white all the time. And the little penguins. They're cute. And all. And it's Morgan Freeman. We get it. Ah. Maybe it's Freeman, we've had too much of him narrating lately. Either way, it just did not do anything for me. It was alright, but I felt bored by the film since, well, I do not care about the poor penguins. There have been way better documentaries than this - thank god!… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Australia

Average User Score: 6.9

User Score 6

I had very high expectations from Luhrmann, being that "Australia" came as his next project after "Moulin Rouge," which is my favourite film of all times. However, "Australia" is far from deserving that honour. The critics got right the fact that the film is epic. Yes, it clearly is. Almost 3 hours of glorification of Australia - how could it not be? But grandeur alone does not make for a great film. Don't get me wrong - I did enjoy the film, and thought it was good. However, it had a bunch of things wrong with it. First of, it is not one story, it is a dozen of stories mixed into one overly-long film. Seriously, this could have been his next trilogy or something, since Luhrmann squeezed so much material into the film, that it's bursting out of its seems. Technically, though, "Australia" is amazing. With breathtaking cinematography, the usually spectacular art & production design, as well as costumes, and a good soundtrack, technically the film is superb. Acting is pretty good, too. Kidman is very good in comedic moments, but her lips indeed are too distracting from her acting. Jackman is his usual action-her self, so good, but nothing spectacular. The outstanding performances came from David Wenham as the arch-nemesis and the boy Brandon Walters, who stole the show. The screenplay is the weakest link of the film, along with its editing. Overall, "Australia" is a good film, but the story is too long, too stretched out, improbable and just not credible. At the end of the film you are visually amazed and in awe, but you are annoyed with the story. A nice try from Luhrmann, but he should have definitely cut at least 20-30 minutes from the film and worked more on the screenplay. Still, entertaining to watch for the visuals!… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

My Scores

smijatov's Profile at Metacritic