3/5 Now, Let's Be Honest, Folks...
  by drkhimxz (Freehold, NJ, USA)
Now, Lets be honest folks. You're in what we used to call a record store, looking for a film with some mystery, some action, some suspense; you know few of the current group of stars and up-and-comers, few of the current (last 20 years) crop of movies, and you come on a DVD whose blurb on the front cover reads, "dangerous, sexy thriller" , whose back cover includes the words, " a sizzling, action-packed noir thriller that will leave you breathless" . Isn't it reasonable to expect at least a little bit of "dangerous", just a particle of "thriller", perhaps not a "sizzle" but certainly a sputter or two, maybe not packed with action but with at least some movement, and as for "noir", at least a bit of grey or a smidgen of charcoal. Did we get any of this, not on your life. At the end of the first hour of excruciating absence of even a whimper never mind thrills, I began to figure we were in for a very, very slowly developing Hitchcockian ordinary people find themselves in extraordinary circumstances type of film; by the end of the film, I was still waiting.
Forewarned, you might enjoy this mirthless romantic travesty. Don't get me wrong, There is almost no evidence the creators sought for comedy. I just want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps a mild ha (not ha! ha! ) would be elicited from some easily pleased viewers but, on the whole none of the players seemed to be directed to show some flair; no, I take this back, there were a few minutes at the very beginning in the dance studio where a rehearsal was briefly shown-that had a soupcon of sizzle, no more, but more than anything else in the film.
Now, being forewarned by the Amazon reviewers, knowing what you were to see, and wanting it, you might enjoy yourself. Perhaps, if you are familiar with one or more of the stars and live to see him or her perform in anything, you might enjoy yourself.
I am still waiting for some danger, thrill, or sizzle...but, I have given up on finding it on this disc.

2/5 Two really badly cast stars ruin any chance this film had.
  by RMurray847 (Albuquerque, NM United States)
If better actors than Josh Hartnett or Diane Krueger had been cast, WICKER PARK could have been a sleek thriller with lead characters we cared out. Instead, it's a glossy but fairly lifeless mystery that generates only academic interest.

Hartnett plays a young professional who seems to have it made. He's about to be engaged to a lovely young professional. He's helped land a major client, is about to globetrot to China in preparation for taking another leap upward in his career. Yet just as all these pieces are falling into place, he thinks he spies the woman (Diane Krueger) he had a passionate affair with 2 years ago...an affair that ended abruptly with her disappearance. He literally watched her walk away from him after a conversation in a restaurant and never saw her again.

He thinks he's moved on, but in truth, he is compelled to track down this woman who MIGHT be the woman he once loved (and clearly still does). His quest to track down this woman is interspersed with flashbacks of their relationship, from uncomfortable first meeting to hot, fiery passion to what sure seemed like love to Hartnett, at least. He follows the trail, and it doesn't quite lead him where he would have hoped.

He is assisted by his old friend, woman's shoe store owner Matthew Lillard. And he is drawn to another woman (Rose Byrne) who seems to somehow figure into all this.

The movie is a puzzle to be fitted together. And the puzzle is mildly, but only academically intriguing. In order to really care about this piece, we have to really care about the hot, steamy romance between our two leads. We need to FEEL a desire to see what happened to these people we care about, and we would then feel properly shocked, surprised, dismayed, joyful, etc. at all the events that unfold as Hartnett moves closer to the truth.

The basic plot of WICKER PARK is not too bad, but the script is not the best. It makes the mistake of assuming (as so many movies do) that if we see two attractive people making transcendent love in their chic apartments...we'll fall in love with them ourselves and dote on their every move. It takes a bit of sparkling dialogue or real chemistry between stars to do that. The script misses on the dialogue, and the two stars BADLY, REALLY BADLY miss on the chemistry part. Krueger hasn't really done too much on-screen work in the past, and with her accent, can perhaps be somewhat forgiven for coming across as a pretty airhead. Hartnett, however, is a more complex problem. For me, I am hard-pressed to think of a "star" in recent years who is less capable of acting. I guess "the chicks dig him" or something, because he kept landing big parts in PEARL HARBOR, 40 DAYS AND NIGHTS, LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN, HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE and this clunker. And in not one of those films was he even remotely convincing. In WICKER PARK, he's asked to smolder and look sad. His smolder makes him just look vaguely dim-witted and his sad makes him look like a 6 year old crying over a spanking from Mommy. He's truly, thoroughly dreadful, and utterly lacking in charisma. There are a number of "stars" who can't act very well (Dwayne Johnson springs immediately to mind) but they have charisma to burn. Hartnett is in the same category as Hayden Christiansen and Jessica Alba...singularly unable to be a human being an audience can care about.

Matthew Lillard is not a great actor either, but he at least musters ups energy and is mildly sympathetic. Rose Byrne is a dour creature...but at least something seems to be going on behind her eyes. I like her better in stuff like "Damages" where her slow burn has time to work. I wouldn't say she "succeeds" in WICKER PARK, but it is only as her character develops that any real interest in the film kicks in.

In the end, WICKER PARK aspires to be a mystery romance or perhaps a love-story / thriller. It neither thrills nor inspires romantic feelings. However, it does add another page to the "why Josh Hartnett" mystery.

I would avoid this PG-13 movie at almost all costs.


5/5 An intriguing romantic tale with a twist of ALFRED HITCHCOCK suspense!
  by Sylvia T. Bosarge (Mobile,AL. USA)
In spite of what some of the other stupid critics may have panned this
film for,it is quite obvious by those of us who not only watched it,but
also understood it and enjoyed it for what it is: a romantic-suspense
thriller on the same level with the Alfred Hitchcock classic,"VERTIGO"!
This is,without a doubt,JOSH HARTNETT at his very best from an acting
standpoint!And he certainly deserved a nod when it came time to announce
the nominees for the academy awards that year!!!!!!!Not only that,the rest of the cast inluding: ROSE BYRNE,MATTHEW LILLARD,and DIANE KRUGER
all certainly played and acted their parts out to the perfect T,and also
deserved nominations as well!These stupid critics don't know a GOOD MOVIE
when they SEE ONE!!!Every once in a while,the right movie may take home
all the gold.But that is TOO FAR,RARE,and IN BETWEEN!!!!!That is still the PERFECT REASON why I never listen to a STUPID,MOVIE CRITIC.Instead,I
go and be the critic myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1/5 Made me want to drop acid.
  by Mad Dog (Canada)
Possibly the worst film of the last ten years. Certainly the worst I have seen. When it was over I had to open all the windows (minus 15C here), disinfect my TV, and throw out my DVD player (lucky it wasn't on Blu-Ray!).

Ebert and Roeper gave this dog two thumbs up, proving that at least two people in the world are still doing Goofballs, or Mushrooms, or whatever laugh-a-minute cocktail you youngsters are into.

The good news is that if you do sit though this stinker, Pearl Harbour will play like a Charlie Kaufman movie.

3/5 Lots of eye candy, but...
  by Eduardo Nietzsche (Houston)
...lousy acting, bad casting, and incoherent story.

The two main leads, Josh Hartnett and Diane Kruger, are very telegenic but mediocre actors, with a very limited range which the script only highlights. Hartnett spends 90% of the film looking handsomely befuddled, while Kruger is the epitome of the deer-in-the-headlights.

Kruger is a fairly attractive young woman, but in the looks department she is overshadowed by both Rose Byrne who plays the film's villain, and Jessica Pare, the girl who Hartnett becomes engaged to. I.e. she is far too bland to really fit the role of Stunning Goddess The Hero Cannot Live Without, especially given the competition. I simply couldn't understand how our hero would've possibly chosen her over the other two women on his plate. Byrne is especially fetching, combining both irresistible vulnerability and intense sensuality.

The plot is hopelessly convoluted and improbable, strung together by one coincidence and near-miss-cliffhanger after another. Torturous, in a word. The ending had me laughing out loud, it was so ridiculous...mercifully diluted by the Coldplay tune that comes on during the last 2 minutes.

Yet what kept me watching was the visual beauty of this film...the sets, cinematography, and yes, the amateurish but quite attractive women.