Wordiezett So much average

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

englishconversation Lame and boring. I had to give up at 48 minutes. Even worse than 50 shades of grey.

bronwood Have just watched this movie for the first ( and probably the last) time with my husband. We were drawn to the fabulous cast, Kevin Kline, Susan Sarandon, Rod Steiger, Harvey Keitel, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Alan Rickman & Danny Aiello. For most of the movie we enjoyed the intrigue and quirky story. It is billed as action, crime, mystery and there was plenty of that. Now here is the spoiler: why, oh why did they decide to change it into a comedy at the end! I know in the movies logic is not a big thing, but I was asking my husband why she didn't just leave the key in the door, or at least hand them to him. The murderer wasn't going to notice if she had them or not. It just became a total farce from then on. The movie did not need that. We were both very disappointed in the slap-stick element in the last 10 minutes.

Wizard-8 "The January Man" bombed both with critics and the box office when it was released to theaters. It doesn't take long watching it to figure out why. The script, for starters, is a real mess. It takes deadly serious elements and mixes them with broadly comedic elements. It might have been possible to balance them properly when it came to filming them, but the cast doesn't seem capable of doing so. Except maybe for Alan Rickman, the cast gives really awful performances (especially Rod Steiger), not helped by a number of instances of some really terrible dialogue. You can sense director Pat O'Connor's lack of assurance with this project, not just that he couldn't steer the cast properly, but with a screenplay that has a number of elements that feel half baked or unfinished. (Actually, there are signs that the original cut of the movie was more coherent, but got edited down to a shorter running time before being released.)However, I have to admit that the movie remains weirdly watchable. It's so odd in its changing tone, next to incoherent at times with its story, and packed with really bad performances by a normally talented cast, that you can't help but keep watching in order to see what next miscalculation will be displayed on the screen. It certainly doesn't make the big mistake of being boring. If you have an interest in major studio movies that go wrong in just about every way you can think of, this does deliver.

Kansas-5 So how could it have turned out so awful? How can you have Kline and Keitel, Steiger and Sarandon, Aiello, Rickman, Mastrantonio, and yet produce such a stinker? Start with an awful script. 1,000 monkeys couldn't have done worse.From there, proceed to unbelievably bad direction.I kept waiting for it to get funny, since it was never going to get serious. It was never going to make sense. But the comedic talents of many of the cast were wasted as well.I thought the actors might revolt, mid filming. I mean, after all, why have your name associated with this kind of a stinker? I kept thinking of "The Producers." The producers of this lemon must have sold 1,000% of the movie, right? They needed to have it go straight down the toilet so they could pocket the investors' money without having to account for it. There would be no "Springtime with Hitler" to save the day.But Norman Jewison produced this. He's made a dozen great movies! This doesn't belong in the vault at MGM. It belongs in a crypt at Forest Lawn. With a stake through its heart.