I've never felt so strongly about a film that I contributed a comment, but The Tailor of Panama is so thoroughly terrible that I couldn't resist. If my comments can save just one person from seeing this film, then I will have done a good deed.
How is it that such a bad film is garnering such positive reviews? What film are these reviewers watching? Surely it's not the one that is so sloppily edited that at times it makes no sense at all; so cheaply produced that a shot of the airplane on which Pierce Brosnan flies to Panama looks like a model airplane against a background of sky and clouds that was painted by a third grader in art class; so badly directed that Pierce Brosnan looks uncomfortable playing a British spy.
Granted, the film has some nice scenery. But, although I like Pierce Brosnan and Jamie Lee Curtis and thought Geoffrey Rush was tremendous in Quills, I thought they all stunk this one up. And the story reflects how desperate some spy writers became after the end of the Cold War took away their supply of stock bad guys and forced them to try to find new enemies and new stories to tell. Too bad that we've all met the bad guys in this movie before - standard-issue South/Central American druglords. And forget about the story, which is completely hokey and unsubtle.
Thank goodness that at least one person agrees with me about this film: whoever's in charge of marketing at Columbia. Their failure to promote the film is truly a gift to the movie-going public. In appreciation, I pledge to find a Columbia-distributed film that I like and write a positive review. I only wish that they would give me my eight dollars back from this one.
How is it that such a bad film is garnering such positive reviews? What film are these reviewers watching? Surely it's not the one that is so sloppily edited that at times it makes no sense at all; so cheaply produced that a shot of the airplane on which Pierce Brosnan flies to Panama looks like a model airplane against a background of sky and clouds that was painted by a third grader in art class; so badly directed that Pierce Brosnan looks uncomfortable playing a British spy.
Granted, the film has some nice scenery. But, although I like Pierce Brosnan and Jamie Lee Curtis and thought Geoffrey Rush was tremendous in Quills, I thought they all stunk this one up. And the story reflects how desperate some spy writers became after the end of the Cold War took away their supply of stock bad guys and forced them to try to find new enemies and new stories to tell. Too bad that we've all met the bad guys in this movie before - standard-issue South/Central American druglords. And forget about the story, which is completely hokey and unsubtle.
Thank goodness that at least one person agrees with me about this film: whoever's in charge of marketing at Columbia. Their failure to promote the film is truly a gift to the movie-going public. In appreciation, I pledge to find a Columbia-distributed film that I like and write a positive review. I only wish that they would give me my eight dollars back from this one.