Wow! I seriously did NOT like this movie. The plot sucked and the acting was mediocre. I thought the curse would be something more dramatic and I thought that the acting would be better. The ending even stunk. She lost her stupid boyfriend because he got sucked down by... THE SEA?!?! What is THAT?!?!
shareWhile I didn't dislike the film per se, I found it to be somewhat clunky and Dunst's accent from Irish to Whatever to Southern to be annoying and her acting mediocre. If indeed James drowned in the sea, fulfilling the prophecy/curse, why didn't the fish come back? It looked like the island's fishing dried up permanently, so to speak, after that. Maybe it had to be an islander and not a British boy. I thought perhaps Silly would sacrifice herself to the sea and save James, which would bring back the fish, but then who the hell would Lynn Redgrave's character be if not the older Silly?
I liked Lynn Redgrave though, and Anthony Higgins is good in everything and sexy in a naval uniform, and the location is beautiful.
Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?share
The fish was supposed to disappear every 50 years. James drowned in 1949, so the fish should come back after that event for only 50 years until 1999. The film takes place in 1999-2000, so it would make sense for the fish to disappear again and needing another sacrifice.
shareI like the movie, but good gods, what was up with Dunst's horrible accent?! She sounded as bad as Julia Roberts in Michael Collins!
I wanted to watch this movie because it has Lynn Redgrave in it, and I thought the story was OK, but why oh why do movies continuously get made with supposedly "well-known" AMERICAN actors and actresses instead of finding PROPER people to play the roles, ESPECIALLY where ACCENTS are concerned?!
She should have stuck to "Bring It On." Or was that Reese Witherspoon? It's hard to keep track. They're so similar in looks and acting, lol.
I actually like it's mythic other-worldly story and mystery. But I agree the acting and accent was quite bad.
share