Based on William Goldman's novel, this is a post-modern fairy tale that challenges and affirms the conventions of a genre that may not be flexible enough to support such horseplay.
I'll name a few: you can barely understand Inigo or Fezzik half the time; the romance feels shallow; several plot points that could have been better developed (such as the romance) feel glossed over due to the 90 minute running time, and the framing device is so underutilized it feels like they tacked it on to justify any of the story's cliches. (Yes, I know it's based on a book, and the framing device was in there too, but I'm just judging the film on its own merits). It's a good film, but certainly not a great one.
Wow. I honestly can't believe that people like this movie. It's a crappy, old, stupid pile of crap!!! It's not funny, it's not cool and it's just BAD!!!! I mean it's a pile of overblown crap!!! Tell me otherwise I frikkin dare you!!!!
Coming from someone with the name Koopa Bowser, I don't think you should talk. Go sit in a corner and play your Mario games, while the adults talk about a fantastic movie.
Sadly, Variety -- a big player in the entertainment industry -- once again gets it wrong. I would say that Variety consistent. Consistent in giving TERRIBLE reviews for films that are usually quite good. I usually read Variety so I know what to see; if they like the film, I'll steer clear.
It may not be flexible enough? Which is to say, it could be flexible enough. The "variety staff" is really going out onto a limb, so, I can understand why nobody wanted to 'fess-up to writing this review.
That's not even like a bad review. It isn't really a review at all. This should really be taken down, since its not a real review by a person. WTF is Variety Staff?
I'm tired of these so called "top critics," especially ones without valid points. Just because this movie or genre doesn't run with your style doesn't mean that it deserves a bad review. Try to get past your own (however limited and misconstrued) beliefs of what makes a good film and try telling me the book didn't encourage such horseplay.
Time will always tell an idiot. Hindsight is 20/20, wonder if this reviewer still feels the same way 25 years later. The Wizard of Oz wasn't well received either when it was released in 1939, bet those people ate their crow too.
AJ P
It's just unamerican to not like this movie!
Aug 16 - 12:01 PM
Tiago Paulo
raggedmoon's comment is stupid enough. but the rest of the comments are unbearably stupid as well.
Jun 8 - 04:28 PM
VJ Perry
@The Stunner Name a bad aspect of the film.
Mar 22 - 05:26 PM
Noah Abraham Goucher
I'll name a few: you can barely understand Inigo or Fezzik half the time; the romance feels shallow; several plot points that could have been better developed (such as the romance) feel glossed over due to the 90 minute running time, and the framing device is so underutilized it feels like they tacked it on to justify any of the story's cliches. (Yes, I know it's based on a book, and the framing device was in there too, but I'm just judging the film on its own merits). It's a good film, but certainly not a great one.
Dec 17 - 11:32 AM
Ben McLaughlin
in human!!!
Jul 22 - 08:17 PM