Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: October 28, 2005
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 52 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
38
Mixed:
6
Negative:
8
Watch Now
Buy 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
JeffH.Jan 4, 2006
The story starts with a great premise and ruins it. The actors seem bored from start to finish, and by the end you don't care what happens to Jack Nicholson--you only hope the movie will end as soon as possible. I cannot believe that so The story starts with a great premise and ruins it. The actors seem bored from start to finish, and by the end you don't care what happens to Jack Nicholson--you only hope the movie will end as soon as possible. I cannot believe that so many people think so highly of this truly bad film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
VitoG.Mar 9, 2006
Boring, boring, boring, like all Antonioni's film. Nothing happens and you wouldn't care if it did. I would call it pretentious but it doesn't even pretend to be about anything. Of course, the critics love it.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
RitBNov 22, 2005
I saw this movie because of the numerous favorable reviews of the professional critics. That's not the first time I've made this kind of mistake. I left the theater wondering what the critics saw in the movie that I didn't I saw this movie because of the numerous favorable reviews of the professional critics. That's not the first time I've made this kind of mistake. I left the theater wondering what the critics saw in the movie that I didn't see. The acting seemed like ---- well, acting. I never got the impression that I was seeing real characters, only people reciting lines from a script. The story was boring and the tension level never really got elevated. The scenery was pretty and the movie was well shot. In fact, the best part of the movie (for me) was the last shot where the camera is inside a room shooting a scene through a gated window looking out. Then it slowly goes through the window and grate and is outside looking into the room. That kind of camera manipulation is common now days, but I wonder how they did it back in 1975. This movie shouldn't have been re-released. I'm reminded of the old saying: Let sleeping dogs lie. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
MarleneNov 25, 2005
I was disappointed in this movie because of the many layers presented and it never explained why the protaganist changed identity with Locke. Jack Nicholson looked great 30 yrs. ago but that was not a sufficient reason to rerelease this I was disappointed in this movie because of the many layers presented and it never explained why the protaganist changed identity with Locke. Jack Nicholson looked great 30 yrs. ago but that was not a sufficient reason to rerelease this movie. The story lacked substance, the photography was great. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
HBDec 12, 2005
Hmm. I saw this film cos of the rave reviews. I love cinema and parts of the film were beautiful but I would warn folks not to expect a gripping film unless you are a proper buff and are excited by watching 7 uncut minutes of filming (yup, Hmm. I saw this film cos of the rave reviews. I love cinema and parts of the film were beautiful but I would warn folks not to expect a gripping film unless you are a proper buff and are excited by watching 7 uncut minutes of filming (yup, that kind of thing). Actually make it sound quite interesting but you'll see. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
BenDec 16, 2005
Antonioni was a real landscape fetishist in this one. It's interesting to note the critical reaction 30 years where a film a dull and leaden as this one was hailed for its mainstream accessibility.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BruceNov 27, 2005
Critics, what are you writing about? I understand Jack did not want this movie re-released - now I see why. Although the movie had some great vistas, the whole, in this case, is much less than sum of its parts. SEE SOMETHING ELSE OR STAY HOME.
0 of 0 users found this helpful