林子祥
发表于6分钟前
回复
:里约是一个热爱生命的城市,但死亡和暴力却总与之行影相随.琳达•肯逖医生和他的丈夫知道住在里约的危险.但当灾难降临在他们身上时,他们没有任何准备.他们的未成年的儿子斯蒂法诺被人绑架了.有人认为他被藏在无法进入的迷宫一般的贫民窟的某个地方.琳达•肯逖即不能指望警察的帮助又不能指望她的丈夫,因为她的丈夫在一场车祸中严重受伤.她不得已向摄影记者本尼迪图请求帮助.本尼迪图的线人最终帮他们找到了绑架者的藏身地,但那让人诧异的结局使琳达明白任何人都不能相信,世上没有免费的午餐
马小郡
发表于7分钟前
回复
:Sam (Matthew Broderick) is the reasonable man in a crazy urban world, the man of thoughtfulness and refined taste in a landscape of Leroy Neiman paintings and beer commercials. The guy would sooner cook for an hour over a hot stove than say `supersize it.'By day he's a store clerk in an upscale gourmet eatery, and these scenes raise a smile, especially for anyone who's visited the actual chain in New York City -- the portrayal isn't far off from the reality. Our man is besieged by hoards of customers who want their imported French cheese cut to impossibly exact standards. His efforts to remain outwardly polite (while you know he'd like to take the cleaver to the relentless clientele) are pretty funny, and will warm the hearts of clerks everywhere. In general, Broderick is in good form and provides the movie with most of whatever lightness it possesses.Sciorra's lovelorn dental hygienist, Ellen, is fine enough, too, and her unknowing interaction with our cheese-slicing hero shows some hopeful chemistry, and you may begin to feel you want to see these two get together.One of the main competitors for our lady's affections, a stockbroker (Kevin Anderson), is played as caricature he's the beer swilling frat-boy whose idea of after-sex sensitivity is flipping on the football game. He's kind of funny at times, but the movie might be stronger if he was written or acted for us to like him more, instead of having us merely recognize him as the flat-out `wrong' guy in comparison to Broderick's sensitive man. Think of John Candy in Splash, taking a cigarette and beer can to the racquetball game; we know his lifestyle is not the one our hero should emulate, but we can't help but be charmed by the likeable goon. Whereas this character is merely a goon, and pretty unlikable all around.While it's a nice enough light movie for the first half, for me the story was somewhat derailed by its unbelievable (Hollywood) presentation of sex and adultery. (SPOILER AHEAD, skip to next paragraph.) When Ellen returns home after an evening's misadventures, she is naturally faced with the questioning husband (Michael Mantell). Quickly admitting her own indiscretion, she then immediately turns the situation around, demanding to know why the guy had gone ahead and bought a house without discussing it. Granted, it's a valid issue, and granted, many people use this countering maneuver in arguments. What's unbelievable is what happens next the guy starts responding to her question, addressing the house-issue in a quiet, thoughtful manner. WHOA. You'd be hard pressed to find a married person in the world who, when faced with hisher partner's totally unexpected adultery, would be ready to address anything so calmly. The guy would surely be bouncing off the walls, or else crushed into silence and tears - but see, then we might actually feel for the poor schnook, and we'd see Sciorra's character in a poor light. And since that particular audience reaction doesn't serve the romantic comedy, the story tries to sneak around it. You may start to feel that, like the husband, you're being taken.Further dissatisfaction is just around the corner in the ending. We realize this is where misunderstandings will get sorted out, and our couple will finally see a clear path to one another. We want the satisfaction of rooting for them. But it's marred by another unbelievable character reaction, followed by an abrupt conclusion that feels rushed and forced, too easy and unearned. You may feel as though the movie's cheating on you again...
陈仁丰
