PDA

View Full Version : original sin review


pablotheintern
08-01-2001, 04:59 PM
Just when you thought it was safe to return to the multiplex, along comes "Original Sin." I’d be shocked if a film this bad is released anytime in the next four months, and nothing as bad has been released so far this year. And that’s saying something. Frankly, I’m getting sick of writing negative reviews, but this movie is, well, real bad.

Antonio Banderas stars as Luis Vargas, a wealthy coffee plantation owner in Mexico. Lonely and wanting a family, Luis orders a bride from America. Later, he explains that he desired an American because they think of the future, while in his country they only ponder the past.

The woman, Julia Russell (Angelina Jolie), turns out to be beautiful, much to the surprise of Luis. He was expecting someone not as attractive because she sent him a photograph of another woman. It seems Julia worried that a man might love her only for her beauty. She, too, learned that it’s what’s on the inside that counts.

To even things out, Luis lied to her as well. Being filthy rich, he feared a woman would only love him for his money. So he told Julia in a letter (they were pen pals before she arrives) that he is a lowly, poor clerk.

That same night, Luis and Julia are married. They get to know each other and fall madly in love. They are headed for happily ever after, until one day when Julia disappears with all of Luis’s money. She is not who she claimed to be, and soon Luis is hunting her down with the help of a private detective (Thomas Jane), who came to check on Julia at her sister’s request.

This is not even the halfway point of the movie. It still has a long, long way to go. Plot twists are thrown around and secrets are revealed every few minutes. Not that you can’t see them coming. Thanks to not so subtle foreshadowing and lazy writing, every moment is telegraphed and easy to predict.

Director Michael Cristofer’s ("Gia") screenplay, based on the novel "Waltz Into Darkness" by Cornell Woolrich, is the movie’s biggest problem. There is no attempt to set up either Luis or Julia, so we know nothing about them. And the dialogue is the corniest and most unintentionally laughable you’re likely to hear all year. Soap operas offer stronger characters and better dialogue.

There’s a lot of gratuitous nudity, which might get some people into the theater. Jolie, who starred in "Gia," must feel comfortable getting nude for Cristofer. She is in the buff three or four times throughout the movie.

The acting does nothing to offset the weak script and characters. Jolie has a mysterious accent that comes and goes randomly and gives a performance that’s all over the place. She’s either overdoing it or not doing much of anything, and she never strikes the right note. Banderas and Jane are more consistent and give it their all, but can do nothing with the material they are given.

At two hours in length, "Original Sin" refuses to end. It keeps throwing on twists and turns and goes on much longer than it should. You’re likely to check your watch an hour into this snoozer. This is the kind of movie that is either made for cable or goes straight to video. The only real mystery is why a movie this bad is being released in theaters.

Grade: F

Mike
08-01-2001, 06:13 PM
I haven't seen the movie and I plan on checking it out on video. Even though you gave it a bad review I'm still curious. But you did write a nice review...

The Heart Collector
08-01-2001, 06:57 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pablotheintern:
There’s a lot of gratuitous nudity, which might get some people into the theater. Jolie, who starred in "Gia," must feel comfortable getting nude for Cristofer. She is in the buff three or four times throughout the movie. </font>

Good enough for me.


[This message has been edited by The Heart Collector (edited 08-01-2001).]

Horror whore
08-01-2001, 10:36 PM
Your going to see a movie just because it has nudity? Not a very good reason to see it..

daddiefatsacks
08-02-2001, 03:19 AM
thats coming from someone who posted the topic "Any movies coming out with Nudity?"

uh huh

slowpoke2
08-02-2001, 03:59 AM
omg you guys crack me up and im just gona see it to see jolie naked...wow is she gorgeous...

The Heart Collector
08-02-2001, 08:00 PM
No, I'm going to DOWNLOAD a movie with nudity.

ak
08-02-2001, 08:17 PM
...just watch GIA..she has lesbian sex in that.

The Heart Collector
08-02-2001, 09:14 PM
Ohh, I know.

Dignan777
08-03-2001, 03:51 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
...just watch GIA..she has lesbian sex in that.</font>

Why bother going to sit in the theater you guys? Gia has plenty of Jolie naked. And there is also a rewind button.

I'm passing on this movie, seeing Jolie naked doesn't interest me, and neither does the movie.

inglourious basterd
08-04-2001, 01:47 AM
Why do you think that Ron Jeremy got popular? Its because he did more than one movie. Its not about watching the same person...its about watching creativity on screen. Not that I watch a lot of porno or anything /ubb/wink.gif

Mike
08-04-2001, 11:55 AM
So far at rottentomatoes.com it has 3 Fresh and 46 Rotten reviews. And guess who gave one of the positive reviews----- None other than Roger Ebert. I read his review and it actually made me want to see it more, but I'll still definately wait for video.

theINSIDER!
08-04-2001, 07:30 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The Heart Collector:
No, I'm going to DOWNLOAD a movie with nudity.</font>theINSIDER! asks:
How,and where do I download OS?

so asks(politely) theINSIDER!

theINSIDER!
08-04-2001, 07:33 PM
theINSIDER! asks:
Can anyone be a little more specific about Ms.Jolie's t&a scenes?

so asks theINSIDER!

The Heart Collector
08-04-2001, 08:27 PM
With a program like Edonkey or Kazaa.

I'll just have to pray the movie is mildly succesful, otherwise, no bootleg, no nudity.

inglourious basterd
08-07-2001, 11:59 AM
Ebert gave three stars for this movie:

BY ROGER EBERT

The first shot on the screen is a closeup of Angelina Jolie's lips. And what lips they are, plump and pouting and almost bruised. Eventually we tear ourselves away from the sight, and realize she's talking. She's telling the story of why she happens to be in a jail cell; these flashbacks will eventually reveal that she has been condemned to death by garroting--a nasty way to go, as the executioner turns a screw to tighten an iron collar around your neck.

This prologue undermines any romantic illusions as the story itself begins, circa 1900, introducing us to a wealthy Cuban coffee planter named Luis Durand (Antonio Banderas), who anticipates the arrival of a mail order bride named Julia Russell (Jolie). Handsome and rich, he has never married ("Love is not for me. Love is for those people who believe in it"). His expectations for the bride are realistic: "She is not meant to be beautiful. She is meant to be kind, true and young enough to bear children."

"You don't recognize me, do you?" Julia murmurs in a thrilling low register, as he finds her standing before him at the dock. He does not. This sultry vision is not the plain woman in the photograph he holds. She confesses she sent the wrong photo because she did not want a man who was attracted only to her beauty. He confesses, too: He owns his plantation and is not simply a worker there. He didn't want to attract a gold-digger.

"Then we have something in common," she says. "Neither one of us can be trusted." Actually, he can.

"Original Sin" is based on the novel Waltz into Darkness, by the famous noir writer Cornell Woolrich. Another of his books inspired Hitchcock's "Rear Window"--and indeed this one was earlier filmed as "Mississippi Mermaid" by Francois Truffaut, in 1969 (Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve played the roles). Like many good thrillers, it really gets rolling only after we think we've already seen through the plot. There are surprises on top of surprises, and I will tread carefully to preserve them.

The purpose of the movie is not really to tell its story, anyway, but to use it as an engine to pull Banderas and Jolie through scenes of lurid melodrama, dramatic ultimatums and stunning revelations. Another purpose is to show off these two splendid human beings, and I am happy to report that there is even a certain amount of nudity--which you would expect with this passionate story, but then again you never know, now that studios are scurrying into the shelter of the PG-13 to hide from pruny congressmen.

Jolie continues to stalk through pictures entirely on her own terms. Her presence is like a dare-ya for a man. There's dialogue in this movie so overwrought, it's almost literally unspeakable, and she survives it by biting it off contemptuously and spitting it out. She makes no effort to pretend to be a nice woman--not even at the first, when Luis believes her story. She's the kind of woman who looks a man in the eye and tells him what she wants, and how soon she expects to get it. Banderas skillfully plays up to this quality, spaniel-eyed, lovestruck, so overwhelmed he will follow her literally anywhere.

The movie is not intended to be subtle. It is sweaty, candle-lit melodrama, joyously trashy, and its photography wallows in sumptuous decadence. The ending is hilariously contrived and sensationally unlikely, as the movie audaciously shows an unrevocable action and then revokes it. I don't know whether to recommend "Original Sin" or not. It's an exuberant example of what it is--a bodice-ripping murder "meller"--and at that it gets a passing grade. Maybe if it had tried to be more it would have simply been watering the soup.


Basically, i think that he gave it 3 stars because he got a hard on for the first time in years.... He had no real reason for recommending it....I guess thats evidence that hes being bought off.

max
08-07-2001, 12:32 PM
Isn't a hard-on a good enough reason to recommend a movie?

jejones
08-08-2001, 06:11 PM
I just want to point out that I've never found Jolie very attractive. She has an odd structure and her lips aren't that amzing. They look dry and hard, not kissable at all. Just wanted to add in my opinion, was all.

And the movie was horrible. I thought I'd be a little less upset because I went to a matinee showing, but I still felt robbed paying only $5 to see it.

theINSIDER!
08-09-2001, 10:32 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by max:
Isn't a hard-on a good enough reason to recommend a movie? </font>theINSIDER! says:
I'll say max.Especially seeing Ms.Jolie exposing her puppies after 3 long years.

so says theINSIDER!