Cheap Entangled (Video) (Max Fischer) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Entangled

Entangled
Watched Entangled. I must type quickly for I am going blind. I saw what was meant by softcore porn. Plenty of female nudity plus Judd Nelson nudity. Ewwwwwwww!! Ewwwwwww!! Ewwwwwwwww!!
In spite of this, I must say that I always think the male nudity should equal the female nudity just because I hate double standards.

The soundtrack bites big time. It actually pains me.

The lead actress does little acting. Her hair does seem to have a substantial role vigorously tossing about. I was amazed that the director chose to feature a big, dripping, hanging boogie in her crying scene. Interesting decision,eh?

In fact I blame the director and writer for most everything wrong with this flick. They (allegedly) created the above crap. The plot is disjointed in a couple of spots. The dialogue can be weak in others. It's like they became tired or ran out of time and/or money and decided to throw it together to be done.

The acting in general was fine. Though, as has been pointed out in another review, the idea of Mr. Nelson's character with a supermodel pushes credibility.

I gave this movie three stars because Mr. Brosnan is the best part. I believe this character is totally convincing especially given the shortcomings of the material. He has real presence. I cared about the ending. I could watch this repeatedly.

Also the overall impression of this film invites watching with humor. This picture is ripe for B-flick treatment via Mystery Science and friends.

This movie is best viewed by hardcore Brosnan fans and/or people with a warped sense of humor. I am both.

---

What an embarrassing web they've weaved
"Entangled" attempted to be a cryptic mystery, but instead achieved "what the heck is going on" status. Punctuated by nudity and sex scenes, one gets the feeling that someone added the "storyline" AFTER they conceived the great idea to film a softcore porn flick.

Characters are thin, motivations are thinner, and you never actually get the full story.

Since there aren't any other comments for this movie, I'll give a brief synopsis: American author wakes up hysterical in the hospital, fully covered in casts and bandages. Flashbacks ensue, and we learn that he has written one previous novel that was killed by the critics, his lover is a french supermodel who is up to something fishy, and he has just finished his second novel, which he eventually enters in a literary contest under temporarily anonymous authorship. Somehow he ends up mangled in the hospital, but how? We spend the rest of the miserable movie wondering not that, but, why do we care?

During the course of the movie, we find out about murder, deception, lust, power plays, double crossings, greed, and betrayal. Sounds interesting, but don't be tricked. It is forced, but worse, completely unlikely and highly contrived; the plot twists are not intriguing, but banal. A murky movie does not a mystery make.

Judd Nelson is completely pretentious and uncharismatic. He appears to have some intellect, but doesn't really lend believability to his lines (did he really understand some of the words he said?). Also, he can play the bandaged, mangled, be-stitched gimp to perfection, but the lover of a supermodel? I don't believe it.

Why did Pierce Brosnan agree to do this movie? I know it was in his pre-007, post-Remington Steele days when he wasn't too hot a commodity, but this was truly an awful script, and his role was farcical.

Run. Run far away from this movie, before you waste 90 minutes of your precious time getting Entangled.