As a fan of Cameron's and sci-fi, this film severely disappointed me. Unlike Cameron's other works, the characters here were too cookie cutter: the tough engineer who built the rig, the Navy SEAL who's got the save the world at all costs, the crew leader who does it his way or the highway... and then a smattering of two-dimensional support staff who are trying to hard... one who has a pet rat that he lets crawl all over himself because... see how unique he is?? This flix felt like ARMAGEDDON meets COCOON. The set-up was iffy at best -- but then, it becomes even more outrageous as characters make illogical choices who's function is only to advance the plot. So many annoying poor choices were made that the characters felt more like director pawns then real people. They had no depth. No real relationships. Characters in THE THING had more character development than this movie did... although, you could tell that Ed Harris was doing the best that he could... it's just that the plot becomes less and less plausible or relateable with every passing minute... and boy do you feel those loooong minutes pass when you're in the middle of the story... **yaaaawwwnnn** Were the special effects good? Oh yeah. But unless you're a 12-year-old boy who'd rather be dazzled by underwater effect than entertained by a solid story, you're going to be as disappointed as I was. This script was too unfocused. It tried to address too many ideas and ended up addressing none in a satisfying way. The ending is totally laughable... by the time the big climactic ending happens, I didn't care much about any of the survivors nor did I think their reunion to be of any importance based on everything that happened prior. You can see that Cameron needed to make this and learn from it before he could make TITANIC and AVATAR -- but honestly, I didn't need to see it. This movie lacks the joy and human emotions that allow you to connect to Cameron's work. It's far from an underappreciated masterpiece. It's more of an expensive student film that went into production before the script was properly complete. I give Cameron credit for the effort he put into this - he obviously wasn't trying for a money grab and did try to make it good -- but he simply bit off more than he could chew.

What do you get when you cross Mann's HEAT and Stone's TRUE ROMANCE with THE ITALIAN JOB and CASINO ROYALE's famous chase sequence? That's right -- TAKERS. This movie steals the action set-ups from all these better movies - and while it tries to put a bit of twist on it... it still leaves you underwhelmed. The casting was well done -- but the characters are too shallow. You never really get emotionally attached to any of the characters or their predictament. To make matters worse - the subplots are unbelievable. It's a shame because this could have been a really good heist picture. But instead, it's derivative, predictable and lacks soul.

Believe it or not, I went into this film without knowing much about the best-seller book nor the critical acclaim it garnered. So, I watched it and took it at face value. And boy was it boring. If made today, this film would be the poster child for toxic masculinity and the #MeToo movement. A story supposedly dives into the ethics, routines and psyche of ruthless Wall Street types, yet nothing much is really said. The characters are presented as more obsessed with fashion/couture, their bodies and beauty products than the girls on "Sex and the City." Okay. And? Well, to make it even more poignant and satirical, one of the shallow, vain, sexist traders is presented as a serial killer. Okay, again. But where's the satire? Where's the commentary on this lifestyle? The ambiguous ending says as little as the entire 2-hour film did... absolutely nothing. What's the point writer/director Mary Harron is trying to make? That wealthy Wall Street brokers are rich, narcisstic, mysogynistic pigs? Okay. And this is somehow interesting or enlightening because...? Armed with intimate knowledge of New York City's high-priced art world featuring Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock, I guess Harron thought she too was somehow making high art by exposing some of the NYC's elite as closet psychopaths. And if you've lived under a rock during the 80's, this might be new to you. But once you get past the point that these Wall Street types are obsessed with consumerism, the story has little else to say. From a script standpoint, this film reeks of the Emperor having no clothes. The director's theme and message is as hollow as the people who embody it. IMO, this film should is just another lame attempt at the Bonfire of the Vanities.

There's no doubt that director, Roman Coppola, knows how to shoot. The look and feel - and the music - was good. But the point of a film is to tell a story. And if your film is going to be about a bland editor/director (Jeremy Davies) who has nothing to say... then, you've basically got a 89-minute insider's joke. And for me, that was a waste of time. [I don't know if Jeremy was directed to be lifeless and boring -- or if that's his acting style - but having him on screen was like watching paint dry.] There's nothing new or insightful in this story. It's trying to be something like "Contempt" meets "Barbarella" but does little to make the story engaging or memorable. In the end, it's derivative trash that probably would have never been made without the support of Papa, Francis.

You know you're watching a bad movie when everybody is more charasmatic and more interesting than the main character, CJ, portrayed by Eden Duncan-Smith. For a character that's supposed to be smart and thoughtful, CJ makes a lot of poor decisions that come with unintended consequences... of course, this later makes sense from a screenwriting perspective because writer/director Stefon Bristol needed to have complications in the later scenes. And that's when you felt the manipulation of the writer/director that takes you out of the story and you lose that suspension of disbelief. To make matters worse, Duncan-Smith does a poor job of getting me to care for her or feel what she's going through. The movie did a nice job of creating an authentic, believable NYC environment that offered a glimpse into a colorful community. But the lackluster ending and the manipulation to make the ending happen is simply bad filmmaking. This story feels like Bristol is pushing the same philosophy that Spike was selling in "Do The Right Thing" -- to break the cycle of violence you must continue to do what has been done in the past. It's no wonder nothing ever changes.