It wasn't my favorite movie, but I really liked it and give it a 7, cheap but a good script and well acted! (no idea about the accents, and the choose of the country can be appointed... also the country when it ends!)
Anyway on my point of view it was never for a 1... I think some people should think twice before voting! ;)
They gave their opinion of the film, and you gave yours. They think is sucked and voted accordingly. I think It sucked also. So much so that I would consider starting a new IMDB account JUST to vote 1/10 again...
People have to be warned.
(spoilers probably)
just because we americans cant get it into our heads that our government is as *beep* as the terrorists are. so people see the cia doin some stuff like that.. and go "heyyyyyyy thats not right.. damn its suppose to be al quaida". the accents werent perfect. ryans anyway.. the acting was solid.. and the movie was easily more than a six at least.
another dumb beephole who probably thinks this is the worse movie ever it wasnt that bad to receive a 1. Please get a life pixelpunk(x) and stinkone
shareI thought it was incredibly boring, didn't even finish it.
share This was more theatre than a movie really and R.P. was just awful to watch. His pain-play was just irritating. Maybe I am cold hearted, but I just could not feel sympathy for his character. Everything about the layout of the movie was very weak, especially the dutch-scenes. The plot was not in anyway believable ( To poison every big mac, oh come on...) and you could see the end-twist coming miles away.
I still gave it a three though, cause there is just so much worse things out there these days.
I rated the film as 1.
Just a very few reasons:
1- I didn't understand the idea.
They got the list. Why did they kill him?
2- The film is full of stamps and cliches (Holland, Marocco, fingers, the guy with camera, Mc Donalds and a thousand more);
3- Imagine yourself being tortured. In this situation you would tell any story your kidnappers want to hear including the stupid one with poisoned hamburgers (yeah, a real horror, I see). So was the guy guilty or he just wanted to stay alive?
And so on.
The film just represents a typical example of cheap propaganda.
i understand that the dutch feel offended because they are the subject of terorist cells in this movie, but C'MON people! were's the fairness?!
anyway, the movie didnt sucked at ALL! of course, you can have questions about it, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie, right? i also, don't know what to believe: was it really a terrorist or wasnt he?
so... be more carreful with your appreciations! it's not fair to be SOoooo subjective
Oh Ryan was a terrorist allright and my understanding is so was his girlfriend.
The food "program" was actually the terrorist act itself.
I thought it was a great movie and I didn't see the twist coming. I thought the twist would be something else but not a complete role reversal like that,
im just happy to see that for once arabs aren't the terrorists.
but i still didn't like the movie and thought it was pointless of how they chopped his fingers off. pffft it was a waste of time.
No, I don't feel offended being Dutch. A cheesehead can become a terrorist like any other nationality. At the moment a Dutch female student fighting for FARC in Colombia is very topical.
I also understand, that an American actor cannot learn to speak English with a Dutch accent. I feel offended being a chess player. I feel offended, because the movie tries make me believe and accept impossible things. The director and the scriptwriter have not done sufficiently research; except the chess clock business I especially want to stress the relation between a Maroccan girl and a Dutch boy. Maroccan fathers and brothers being very conservative in The Netherlands do not accept this.
These are my main objections; there are several other minor ones. As a result I simply cannot believe this story. If I have to ask myself why this, why that all the time I rather quit.
That makes me wonder how you rated other movies. Or do you take any movie for its own without any context / comparison to other movies made?
sharelet's see... the dialog is bad, the acting is bad (even Fishburne looks bad in that one so forced are the lines!), the plot is thin as ice... YET another movie that is there only for the purpose of the cheap "surprise" twist at the end!
They really could have gone beyond that with a real psychological smart plot, exploring the characters and their relationships... like the excellent Death and the Maiden. but no... they just wanted some torture and the "unexpected" ending...
I guess if you're only interested in pseudo twists, you can find this movie is worth anything but I voted a 3.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
Alone In The Dark, House Of The Dead, Attack Of The Giant -Enterthingnamehere-
Those movies are worth of 1 and 2. This is worth of minimum 5.
"That makes me wonder how you rated other movies. Or do you take any movie for its own without any context / comparison to other movies made?"
I am sorry, but I don't really get your questions. So I don't know if I give a good answer, but let me try.
First I decide if I enjoy a movie or not, if I get fascinated by it or annoyed. Then I ask myself why. Yes I do compare; in my review I compared Five Fingers with Hard Candy. The latter, though quite far from being perfect, is superior.
Now I have been criticizing Five Fingers so heavily, let me explain how the torture should have happened.
The guards brings Martijn to the table. He sees the board and the clock. His hands get untied. The Fishburn character smiles a bit sadistically and says: "Hello Martijn, we are going to play a little game, blitz chess. We know you play chess."
Martij looks bewildered.
"If you win, nothing will happen to you." (Fishburn is lying, but it is a well known method to give the victim false hope).
"If not, we will do something nasty to you." Fishburn's smile is a bit more sadistic now.
Both play; Fishburn makes several sarcastic remarks to distract Martijn. The digital clock is doing its countdown. Martijn tries to concentrate, but gets more and more nervous; still he does not say too much. He takes too much time; a close-up of the clock counting 10, 09, .... 00.
"Your clock, Martijn. You have lost." Martijn looks scared.
"But let me give you another chance. What were you doing in Maroc?"
Martijn mutters a bit about his food program.
"Wrong answer, Martijn." There goes his finger.
This scheme can be varied in several ways: the second game Martijn gets mated, as he plays to fast. The third game it is stalemate; alas Fishburn judges, that Martijn has not won. The fourth game Martijn mates Fishburn; still he loses a finger. In between the games the stereotyped, but highly effective good guy/bad guy scenario is put on Martijn. "I feel sorry for you Martijn, you look like a nice guy. My boss is not Mr. Nice Guy. It really is best for you to tell us why you went to Maroc. Know what, why don't you tell me?"
This scheme would have made full use of the mental pressure involved with chess. It is a nasty game, as its goal is to destroy the opponents ego. Breaking its rules means relieving that pressure. Every experienced chessplayer, also relatively weak ones like me, would have changed the script like this.
give a spoiler warning dickhead
shareIf you like movies, you've seen all the twists a million times before.
If you watch movies from time to time, this one may surprise you.
I saw everything coming from the start.
I think it was a good movie, and the acting was top class with Ryan Phillippe and Laurence Fishburne, I think the accents were not bad either, considering we were used to how they normally speakSource:Movie Reviews - Five Fingershttp://moviereviews.noskram.com/2009/09/movie-reviews-for-five-fingers
shareAll the answers "explaining" why they gave it a one illustrate the ones had nothing to do with how good the movie was and everything to do with politics.
shareDon't worry, IMDB has a secret formula which actually weighs out these childish and thoughtless votes. If you look at the average rating, you'll see that it's weighted, meaning less influence is given to votes that it thinks are rash, reactionary or just plain unhelpful. This includes most 1's, and some 10's. It's a standard statistical technique to handle outliers, and in this case, unhelpful one dimensional trolls. Although imdb has never revealed its algorithm or statistical model, it describes it in the voting section.
On a related note, one major problem is that people often don't vote based on the movie itself, but rather as compared to his/her expections of the movie. For example, many complain that it didn't follow the graphic novel faithfully. The flaw with that criterion is that it says nothing about the movie as an independent self-contained piece. That's why I value the opinions of people who have never the read the story on which a movie is based, or watched previous versions of the movie.