Develiker terrible... so disappointed.

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

nandy-rinki The movie's poster attracted me, seemed dark romance and I got much less than what I expected. The wealthy businessman played by Banderas is dumb and stupid who doesn't care if his wife is not what he thought of during their letter writing period. It also, doesn't matter to him that his wife vanishes with his money and is found with a chain of men. Jolie is in the movie to play the sex card from Banderas to Thomas Jane both had a nice time with her. Aside from her super pout and intimate scenes there's little she brings to the screen. I have never liked her acting aside 'girl interrupted'. The dialogs are stupid and immature and the ending is far more than disappointing.Watch it if you are an admirer of either one of the leading actors or for the nude scenes. There's nothing much to say here.

Samiam3 I find it difficult to pass judgement of films based on novels when I have not read the novel. (unless of course the novelist was the screen writer like Michael Blake with Dances with Wolves) Original Sin feels like somewhat familiar territory. I cannot quite pin point a film off the back of my head which used this idea. I suppose though, that if labelled an erotic thriller anyone can name fifty films off the back of their heads. I think I can see Original Sin working as a novel. As a movie though, it has some storytelling problems, which depending on your attention span may weaken the experience. I am reminded a bit of Basic Instinct. What we have here a sexy and erotic game which sort of goes in circles. Original Sin is the superior movie in part because it is more beautiful, the sex is less distracting, Banderas and Jolie are a better screen couple, and the ending of the movie is a nice touch.Set in Havana, in what looks like the late 19th century. The curtain rises on the luxurious home of Don Luis Vargas. He has recently mail ordered a bride from the states, who shows up the next day. Her name is Julia. They are married in the sunshine of a beautiful afternoon, and they are happy. A few days later however, Julia disappears. Not only that but Luis' bank accounts have been cleared. Not only that, but he finds out that the girl he married is not the Julia Russell he has been sending letters to in the months leading up to their wedding. Oh and not only THAT but the real Julia may have been killed at this woman's hand. suddenly Vargas is in the middle of a very dangerous game, once he goes looking for his apparent wife.The film is sprinkled with several contrived twists and turns, which are typical of almost all thrillers. It is not inventive in the least, but it IS aesthetically evocative, and fairly engaging. In the same way Titanic was a contemporary love story set a hundred years ago, Original Sin is a contemporary erotic-thriller set around the same time (give or take a couple of decades) It turns out to be not bad, there is certainly room for improvement, but it's watchable.

Paul0 I was expecting a good story, good character development, excellent acting from Jolie & Banderas, and some great erotic scenes.What I got was a very implausible story that zigzags from love to murderous revenge and back again, no backstory, unsympathetic characters with erratic behavior, and a weird sadistic bisexual boyfriend/pimp (Thomas Jane's character). The sex scenes seemed passionless and were barely erotic. The acting by Banderas and Jolie was good, as were the sets, locations, and lighting, but it didn't rescue the film.Don't waste your time on this movie.

Mike Legentil Very few people seem to know (perhaps apart from Roger Ebert) that this is a remake of a 1969 François Truffaut film called «Mississippi Mermaid» ! Both films are based on a Cornell Woolrich novel -- yes, the very same author whose short story was masterfully enriched and used as the basis of Alfred Hitchcock's «Rear Window». Also a reminder for those who'd want to brush up their knowledge of the French language. As you may (or may not) have noticed, the «C» in François should have a little «tail» under it : in French, it is a «cédille», a punctuation sigh that makes that letter sound like a «S» -- not a «K». And so, as I may say -- in a paraphrase : «Suis-je en train de jeter des perles à des p... ?». This saying seems very appropriate since the little «tail» under the «C» somewhat looks like... a pig's tail, doesn't it ?