robert-temple-1 This film is so terrible that everything about it vies for the distinction of being 'the worst of …' Is it the worst directed film? The worst acted film? The worst screenplay? One could go on and on. Every character in the film is despicable, and every actor and actress is at his or her worst, with the men and women equally disgusting in every respect. How is it possible to make one of the world's worst films from an interesting novel by a distinguished Spanish author, Arturo Pérez-Reverte? Well, these things happen. Just think of all the terrible films made of classic novels ever since the cinema began. Perhaps most offensive of all in this film is the performance of Kate Beckinsale, who looks like she is about ten years old, and the director is always making her take her clothes off so he can have another look at her breasts, and when they are covered up, the tight little garment over them keeps them well in view because the director is apparently obsessed with her and her sexuality. Nor does she seem any less obsessed with herself. We get great gory close-ups of her slobbering kisses with some of the most disgusting men one has seen in a long time, one young blond fellow in particular whose mouth is larger than her face is wide, so that one wonders how she avoids being swallowed. The arrogant vanity of all of these people, who clearly believe themselves to be the most beautiful creatures on earth when they are in fact extremely ugly (except for Beckinsale who qualifies as cute but disturbingly vain and rampant), is nauseating in the extreme. Only one performance in the film has any merit to it at all: John Wood as a lonely old queen who is the lifelong protector of Beckinsale manages some genuine pathos, and as that is the only wholesome emotion visible in the entire film, one notices it. The story could and should have been made into a really interesting film, a film as compelling as, for instance, that of Reverte's novel THE FENCING MASTER (1992), which was a triumph of film-making. But the story is thrown away and the horrible screenwriter starts using the word 'f…' as soon as the film commences and continues to do so throughout, obviously thinking that it will make him popular with some imaginary 'youth' or 'trendies' who he thinks might watch the movie sometime. But the idea that one is somehow going to be in the vanguard of popularity because one can say 'f…' a lot is a tired and outworn notion which never had the slightest credibility to begin with. Sinead Cusack is terrifyingly horrible in this film in every respect, and I expect she wishes she could destroy every print and DVD of it in existence to eliminate the evidence of her greatest folly. Michael Gough and James Villiers also disgraced themselves. No one was safe in the hands of that director. The original story itself is intriguing. A Flanders panel painting comes to light in Spain after 500 years in the private hands of a noble family who live in an ancient castle. The title of the film, UNCOVERED, does not really relate to Kate Beckinsale's juvenile form, but rather to the Flanders panel itself. Kate Becksinsale (aged ten or whatever she really is, as who can tell with her hair cut like a boy and her tomboyish figure) is the unlikely picture restorer hired to clean and restore this valuable painting, and if you can believe that you can believe anything. People hire ten year-olds to restore valuable paintings every day, surely. She commissions an infra-red photo and discovers that a mysterious inscription had been painted over, which says in Latin 'Who killed the knight?' Two men in the painting are playing chess, but one of the men himself is a knight, and it turns out that he was killed as part of the intrigue portrayed in the painting. Meanwhile people start getting killed all round Beckinsale, and these killings seem to be related to those of 500 years ago and follow the pattern of the same chess game which is portrayed in the painting (the next moves of which predict who will be killed next). Well, there is no point in going on, because who cares, when a film is so terrible, what the original story was.

bernie-122 Without Kate Beckinsale in it, there would be no reason whatever to watch this piece of mindless drivel.I haven't read the book, but I can well imagine it was a rollicking good, unputdownable page-turner. It should have been easy to make a good movie from it. So why didn't they? I don't think Jim McBride is a bad director, so let's not blame him. So I guess it must be the screenwriter, and maybe the producers, if they agreed that the finished product was what they wanted in the first place.Anyhow, as I said, there is absolutely no point to watch this other than to marvel at Kate. She seems to have been a top actress from the word go. If you're a fan of hers, you'll like this. Otherwise, don't waste your time. Especially don't watch it if you know anything about chess. You will be frustrated and enraged. Did you know that experts call rooks "Castles"?

cutedoggie I felt this was a nice flick,a very different concept from what i've seen so far,of thriller movies.And the mood of the movie in spite of it being a thriller,was very light which made it all the more enjoyable with funny scenes aplenty in between.and the most surprising thing was that Kate Beckinsale kind of looks nice even with the ultra short hair,very unexpected i should say.Nice performance by Kate Beckinsale,and the rest of the crew.Two of the nude scenes could've been done away with and one in particular,where she stares at the picture naked.There was really no need for that i felt. But it was that casual theme of the movie that you wouldn't really say it doesn't fit in.Thats about it,overall an enjoyable movie.

vandino1 This one is for that small coterie of Kate Beckinsale fans. She's quite young here and, with a tomboyish haircut, looks and acts like a post-Disney Hayley Mills. And a little obligatory nudity from our heroic pixie helps her fans put up with the mediocre goings-on before and after. The film itself has an interesting core idea, but I frankly thought it would be more about the ramifications of the painting's ancient mystery (ala 'Da Vinci Code') than an excuse to pile up present-day murders via a chess game associated with the painting. Of course, I didn't realize that this film is from 1994, before the 'Da Vinci Code' phenomenon. But the chess game routine is quite old hat, 1994 or otherwise. The music score is also far too lighthearted and bouncy for what is supposed to be a thriller. As always, the carnage accumulating around the heroine doesn't seem to faze the cops who appear to wait for the next killing, show up, then calmly survey the damage and ponder why it just keeps happening around our female lead. This one is a time killer for those who have way too much time on their hands.