aprovost-2

Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is a hack. He's another one of those mediocre, jerky camera directors who hasn't a clue how to tell a story or create tension. Worst of all he is an over-user of what I call the Tarzan Syndrome (Based on Tarzan, the Ape Man, 198) which means you don't actually see any action, just lots of fast-paced shots adding up to nothing. This boring film was really like a hour-plus Windex commercial. Every other scene had somebody putting their fingers, bloody or not, on glass. I am sure Juan has some kind of explanation for this silly device, but it got boring really fast. So did all the gore scenes, which were, in essence, identical in pace.Films like this are only fun as a game. How many scenes can you predict before they even happen? Despite the praise of some misguided critics, 28 Days was a terrible film and this is an unwatchable sequel. I won't reveal the ending, because I can't. I got through half of this film when I decided it wasn't worth my — or anyone else's — time.

I am a smart person. But I didn't get this film at all. Is it about Diane Arbus or not? How many of the incidents are real? And if the Downey character existed and his bizarre apartment had all those outre photos, does that mean that Diane wasn't that innovative after all but merely an imitator? The better question is how do these films get made. It takes a ton of money to hire all these talented people, get talented set designers, photographers, makeup people, stylists, etc. Aren't they aware while they are filming that this is a film very few people will want to see? Or don't they care? The unfortunate thing is that it really commanded my interest for about fifteen minutes, but soon the slow-talking, tentative Kidman got on my nerves as did the downy Downey. Plus, recalling being prepped for an operation, I couldn't get over the fact that, once shaved of all that hair, he would have been an itching maniac rather than a happy stud. Sorry, I am sure this film was made with the best intentions, but, unfortunately, it wasn't made with the most entertaining results.

Your first clue that this film was a loser was the trite and overused title. The second was the self-conscious character name Harirson Hill, "who owns the biggest ad agency in New York." The third is that you are supposed to believe that Giovanni Ribisi is supposed to play a secondary character a la Jimmy Olson. Now that you know this film is el stinko, you can relax and count the clichés. There's one! The obligatory eating Chinese food. There's another! Everyone is super-skilled with computers. The fabulous apartment on a working girl's salary is always good, especially when accompanied by a fabulous wardrobe. The direction is about as bad as it gets, the plotting as silly as possible and the ending the kind of cheat that audiences detest and have from the days of Mary Pickford. Bruce Willis seems to be out to take over Michael Caine's "I will appear in any film." title and poor Halle seems to forget she has a reputation to maintain. Ribisi, usually great, hasn't seemed so insignificant since his first appearance on "Friends." I would love to see a documentary on how directors like James Foley get to be directors, when they don't have vision, pacing, taste or a clue where to put the camera and when. Don't confuse this review with the "Perfect Strangers" of 1945, 1950 and 1984 or any of the TV movies with that name. All of them had to be better, they just had to be.