Boring and bad directed film that had good intentions initially, but there are no interesting moments enough to bring some life into this film. I didn't even like Hoffman and De Niro's performances in this film. They wasted their talents in this silly film. The plot's premise is interesting and definitely it could have been developed much better, but scene after scene it was becoming more absurd and pointless. The only things I liked about it were the small roles that Kirsten Dunst and Woody Harrelson had. Anne Heche wasn't bad either, but the film definitely doesn't work. It lacks soul, magic... it didn't captivate me at all in any moment. Really overrated movie. I really don't understand why almost everybody liked it. It was supposed to be a political satire, but it was a stupid movie pretending to be a political satire. It was completely aimlessly.

The film deals with several important social issues, especially racism, and it does it correctly. Not brilliantly, because being a Disney film, realism isn't precisely what you could expect. However, the film is good and correctly done. The first half of the film had some brilliant moments, but it declined in the second half with some boring spots. Generally, it was very good performed, with terrific performances of Denzel Washington and Will Patton. And the soundtrack was great, with several classic songs from the 60's and 70's. The football scenes were well done, but they could have been better. Overall, the film is good, but it was a little bit too corny in some parts.

A charming family film without big pretentions, but with a good message and nicely done. The lead performance of the girl Keke Palmer was truly remarkable, and Laurence Fishburne was very good in his supporting role. Cinematically the film is nothing new or special, but it's a little film that despite being corny and predictable, all it's got are good intentions. This movie was perfect for the purpose it was meant to achieve, and not many films are capable to do that. This film simply tries to bring some joy to heart to anyone who watches it, and it worked for me.

Stanley Kubrick set the bar very high with his adaptation of this novel, in his film Lolita, which is one of my favorite films and from my point of view, Kubrick's finest film. So, Adrian Lyne took the risk and he filmed his own version of the story, and he also did a brilliant film, but unfortunately for him, he is simply Adrian Lyne, not Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest if not the greatest filmmaker of all time. Lyne still did a wonderful job, because his film is almost as engaging and captivating as the original. Filmed 35 years after the 1962 adaptation, this film had the advantage of the MPPA rating system, and there was more freedom to film more explicit scenes. And, so he did, because this 1997 adaptation is way more explicit sexually and with the language. While Kubrick in his film suggested everything in a very subtle but perfect way, Lyne didn't need to do that, but still he handled with it in an excellent way. So, comparing both films is really unfair, though Kubrick's is undeniably better, being a perfect film from beginning to end; Lyne's was beautifully shot too, and it had several fantastic moments, but there were some moments when the film's pace slowed down for a few minutes. Jeremy Irons' performance was superb, and almost as good as James Mason's in the previous film. And if there is one aspect in which this version overmatched the other, it was Lolita's portrayal. Domique Swain's acting work was ten times better than Sue Lyon, and Lyon's was already brilliant on its own; so, imagine how superb she was. This 1997 version fails in two major characters that were memorable in the other version: Charlotte and Quilty. Shelley Winters and Peter Sellers were the ones who played those characters back in 1962, and Melanie Griffth and Frank Langella did it in the 90's. They were pretty lame and this is one of the two biggest flaws of this film. The other huge flaw was the ending. Right after Humbert leaves Lolita's house when he sees her for the last time, and when he goes after Quilty to take revenge, those were the lowest points of the movie. Quilty's death was exaggerated and ridiculous, and unnecessarily bloody. Humbert's escape wasn't a very good scene either. This ending ruined the film... sadly, because until that moment it was almost as great as Kubrick's film. This was a very exciting and erotic motion picture that sadly had to compete with a masterpiece made by Kubrick. However, it's a geat film as well on its own and it's worth to watch. I guess that if I had seen it first than the other, I would have liked it much better, but that wasn't the case. I don't even want to imagine what would have done Kubrick with this story if he would have made it in the 80's or the 90's when he would have had all the freedom Lyne had in this one.

Sadly its title could alienate many people that might think that this little film is some kind of spin-off of the irregular Rambo film series, and I have to recognize that it was my first impression when I found out the existence of this movie. But I read a few things about it, and I knew what it was really about, and I gave it a try. So, I watched it and it's a very funny, lovely and clever family film that's mainly about the friendship that comes up between two very different kids that happen to go to the same school. Those two child actors were wonderful and they were the soul of this movie. But not everything was good, because there were some silly things in it, especially all the sub-plot regarding the French boy. It was kinda annoying and very dumb both the character and its mini-storyline; however the final scene where this character appeared was quite interesting and symbolic. The religious background with one of the kids' family was well done, and I think that this film very subtly was criticizing this, without bad intentions or reaching controversy. The final 5 minutes were beautiful, and the film is fun to watch despite those silly details.