Comments on: From Paris with Love

By: Stacy

Stacy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:59:21 +0000

I am an avid reader of Eric D. Snider but I have to say I agree with your review more this time. Although, I didn’t find Jonathan Rhys Meyers to be grating or irritating. Actually, I thought he was the best part of the movie because he was the only character who I felt for in any way. The movie also wasn’t completely terrible, but definitely below average. I was forgetting it before it was even over. I think it is best described as the Travolta train chugging through Paris mowing people down randomly with a dual message of never date Palistinians and never ask questions before shooting people in the head. It would have been a credit to the movie if Travolta’s character could have been wrong about killing random people at least ONCE!

By: Tim Irwin

Tim Irwin — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:03:26 +0000

Thanks for the comments. It is more fun to write reviews when the films are either dreadful or wonderful. I appreciate movies that are polarizing: make the audience feel something, whether it is revulsion and hatred or wonderment and awe. These are the films that are remembered decades from now (though I probably wouldn’t include “From Paris with Love” in that list).

By: Paul Nethercott

Paul Nethercott — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:17:39 +0000

Glad you liked it so much Tim!

Great job, you are at your best when a film really irritates you.

By: Wombat Colborn

Wombat Colborn — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:48:58 +0000

Mr. Irwin:

Thank you for posting the link to your review blog on Eric Snider’s page for CINEMATICAL. Whether or not one agrees that the movie is good, bad, or ugly, one might at least opt for an in-depth review that can speak to more than just fans of the genre.

Snider goes for the “If you don’t like this movie, you just don’t get it”, hit you over the head review. You explain the politics behind the bad guys, how the movie rates against other movies LIKE it, and how the movie rates if you have a brain but don’t particularly feel like dismissing it for the sake of a bad (though possibly entertaining) movie.

Thanks for holding even a movie that is supposed to be “over-the-top” to some semblance of minimum standards.

After all, just because a movie CAN be a total mess and get away with it doesn’t mean it should.

By: Everett Engbers

Everett Engbers — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:06:49 +0000

By looking at the trailer it can easily be discerned that Travolta is bloated. I wish this tired hack would quit the business.

By: Tim Irwin

Tim Irwin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:35:38 +0000

Thanks, tmoney. I’ve been very surprised at the large number of positive or mediocre reviews the film has received. I thought its awfulness would be apparent to everybody.

By: tmoney

tmoney — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:28:25 +0000

The first accurate review of the film I have read yet .

By: Tim Irwin

Tim Irwin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:50:20 +0000

His height is not the problem; I wouldn’t doubt that he’s 6’2″. It is rather that he is more rotund than most action stars, and appears a bit chubby. He is always covered in multiple sweatshirts, so if his girth is due to massive muscles he doesn’t get a chance to show them off.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:54:16 +0000

Not sure what you mean by “It doesn’t help that his physical size drastically lessens his credibility as an action star, especially when he’s running across Parisian rooftops.”

Travolta, according to IMDB is 6’2″. Assuming that’s not complete BS, are you saying he is too large or too small? Or is he just fat?