|
Showing all 34 reviews...
|
|
 |
Most people don't like this movie!!! I do!
10/10
1.3.2003 -
spacegrimms@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
I expected an action packed adventure from a film with both Pierce Brosnan and Jamie Lee Curtis. I expected something like James Bond meets True Lies. Instead this was a change of pace for both actors. It had a pedestrian pace, an interesting story and was a good movie, BUT it would have been better without such high profile stars distracting from the intent of the story.
5/10
1.1.2003 -
tedmitchell@ - age: 50+
This movie was stupendisaly horrific! I would never go see it again! Even if they payed me too! Don't waste your time! Run! For you're freedom!
1/10
11.23.2002 -
yo_yo32@ - age: 50+
A quirky film, but not entertaining enough to make it worthwhile.
5/10
10.20.2002 -
patnkat@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I think this movie is misunderstood by a lot of viewers. It is not a serious movie, and to judge it as such is bound to lead to disappointment. Take it for what it is and enjoy it.
7/10
6.19.2002 -
hoppy_hoppy@ - age: 26-35
Delicious and sexy dialogues! The movie is like a bottle of porto and a cigar, to taste absolutely. And hilarious, I was rolling on the floor at the scene when Brosnan and MacCormack had dinner by the canal and danced at the Soy una gallina fina song, so corny it was! At the same time, it's serious bringing to our attention the problems of Americans wanting to controll everything in the world in their interests, and of local people suffering from such control... But such as life, the misery goes along with joy and fun.
7/10
3.11.2002 -
xvenice@ - age: 26-35
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Andy Osnard (Pierce Brosnan) seems out-of-character casting but he did an excellent job of it. Harry Rush, is a delightful character... Although there are some details that leave you scratching your head. Why would an obviously assimilated and previously-criminal Jew send his son to a Jewish day school and his daughter to a Roman Catholic day school? For the overall rating, I am giving it a 10 [...]. It is unfairly rated as it stands.
10/10
7.17.2001 -
kgardner50@ - age: 36-49
Fortunately, I saw the movie before reading the ratings here. I find it quite depressing how an intelligent movie is degraded by the masses BECAUSE it is intelligent. Do we really need to go to a theatre to see Planet of the Apes? ;-) It is a good movie. I don't think my vote is going to count much in this flood of ignorance, but (and in fact, therefore) I'll go all the way and give it a ten!
10/10
6.24.2001 -
james_parker@ - age: 26-35
Give me a brake, this movie sucks. Save your money!
1/10
6.7.2001 -
rperetz@ - age: 18-25
After seeing its rating at this site I almost decided to stay away from the Tailor of Panama. But I'm very glad I saw it, it was excellent. Of course there were Hollywood bits (I've learned to ignore over the years), and not enough hot Latin music for the soundtrack, but it flowed nicely, was never boring, and condensed a complex story into an appropriate format.
9/10
5.31.2001 -
jonnyzim@ - age: 26-35
Good, complex and original plot. Some nice twists and turns and some good performances. But its story-telling was not typical HOLLYWOOD format, so it was more challenging to follow its sometimes odd pacing and tone. Towards the end, it seems like a comedy, which distracts from the original tone of the film. Would rate higher if it could decide on its own genre.
6/10
5.26.2001 -
brdavidson@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
What is John Boorman doing directing this misogynistic, misguided, pointless, implausible piece of crap? And what did Brendan Gleeson ever do to Boorman to deserve this? Gleeson is the reason why The General is one of the greatest contemporary Irish films, and how does Boorman reward him? He asks him to commit the kind of career suicide that only occurs when you ask the Irish-est of Irishman to play a Panamanian revolutionary, because NO ONE will ever, ever buy it! As for the rest of the cast, Boorman destroys a few more careers because, and I never thought I would be driven to say this, but Geoffrey Rush is too annoying! And Brosnan is absolutely artless in his rendering of slime. While Jamie Lee Curtis does nothing but take off her clothes a bunch of times. And she's supposed to be playing a "smart adult woman." Sheesh. This is Amateur Hour at the movies, made all the worse by the fact that everyone involved has great potential.
2/10
5.21.2001 -
berrybloo@ - age: 18-25
Perhaps one of the sloppiest pieces of cinema I've ever seen. The film did not know what it wanted to be, a satire, comedy, action adventure, or spy thriller. The acting was stale and statice. The dialogue was nothing short of lame, and the plot twists were completely predictable. LeCarre has certainly written better stories. It was an utter disappointment.
2/10
5.21.2001 -
wry@ - age: 26-35
Different to see Pierce Brosnan play such a slimy character. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Rush is excellent as usual.
8/10
5.17.2001 -
asrubino@ - age: 36-49
Disappointment.
4/10
5.8.2001 -
jimjon@ - age: 50+
I loved it. The acting, especially Geoffrey Rush, was excellent by all cast members. The script was clever and funny. The humour is very subtle but perfectly executed and for those who said it was boring and pointless failed to pick up on these subtleties. Go see it, just don't expect a bunch of explosions and gadgets - expect a darkly funny and witty view of corruption and politics.
8/10
5.8.2001 -
owen_drummer@ - age: 26-35
No comment!
9/10
5.7.2001 -
ouhaddayousef@ - age: 26-35
Very good movie. It was intelligent and very well done. The others who have bashed this movie have no attention span or patience. This was a very good movie!
9/10
5.7.2001 -
lukes101@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
It's not that Pierce Brosnan is not convincing or anything like that... it's just that he has always played the gentlemen in his movies and it's kind of unacceptable to see him in this coarse language role... Don't get me wrong... the scenario is good, Geoffrey Rush is great... plausible scheme... but very disappointing to a Brosnan fan.
6/10
5.3.2001 -
dvinette@ - age: 36-49
This film was terrible. Slow an d boring, a complete waste of time and money.
1/10
4.23.2001 -
pheonix,0@
This was a very disgusting movie! It was boring and very confusing.
1/10
4.20.2001 -
amanda_potter_1@ - age: 13-17
| 
