Best movie of this year hands down!

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

I struggle to understand how anyone can give this film more than (at most) two stars. The texts the actors have to speak are amongst the most stilted I have ever heard in a film (and I've seen a few shockers). Not only that, very little happens. There is no real story, none of the characters attract our sympathy in the slightest. And, as another reviewer has pointed out, stilted passages (which appear to be copied from slightly out-of-date guide books) are spoken by characters who appear here and there to give us some predigested geographical and historical information while the Acropolis, the Sphinx, Hagia Sophia etc. flit by.You may a better idea of what I mean if I mention (spoiler!) that the dramatic high point of the film occurs when we wonder if a small dog attached to a boat by its lead will get dragged into the water as the boat sways to and fro.Could it be that the bomb (sorry, another spoiler) at the end of the film is a cinematic metaphor for "bored to death"?

There are many opinions listed here about the film itself from technical or artistic points of view or about whether it is interesting or boring etc.. My reaction is not about any of that. I have serious problems with this film's naive Eurocentric point of view, which, seems to me, adds up to a very troublesome and dangerous crusader mentality that breaks the world into a 'civilized' 'West' and the 'uncivilized' Rest. Don't misunderstand me, the idea is certainly not put in these many words, the film does have a nice politically correct surface --but simply look a bit deeper below the surface to see the way Africa is referred to, the direct and indirect ways 'Arabs' are pictured (not to mention the deeply ignorant way in which a whole world of Islamic cultures and civilizations are grouped under this term 'Arab' at one point), or the way the notion of civilization, its origins and its trajectory is depicted, the way terrorism is understood or pictured, and one can keep listing. Had this film been made in 1920s, I would have had less of a surprise reaction to it, but I mean, come on, we are talking 2003!Consider the following excerpt for example. This is out of a scene where three main characters (three women, a Greek, an Italian, and a French -Papas, Sandrelli, & Deneuve, respectively) are having dinner with the ship's captain, an American man (Malkovich). You judge for yourself.(French): Greece is still the cradle of civilization, and will be as long as the world goes around.(Greek): It's a civilization that's been forgotten(French): And with it fraternity and human rights, and the Utopian ideals of the French Revolution(Italian): Which the United States later adopted(American): And has reinforced(Italian): Yes, but they're also being forgotten, as is happening on other continents, like Europe, not to speak of Africa!(Greek): No civilization lasts forever…That's how Alexander the Great saw it when, under the influence of Aristotle, he decided to found a universal library… But what I find most curious is the case of the Arabs, who, having spread Greek culture in Europe and beyond, were the ones to destroy it, burning all the books in the blindness of their religious fervor.(Italian): The beginnings of fundamentalism, which is everywhere today…(Greek): What haunts the Arab world nowadays is the development of the West, with its many technical advances and scientific progress. This creates religious prejudice, which is what divides us…PS, I know I said I won't explain, but for anyone who still takes seriously the story that the library was made by Alexander and then burnt by the Arabs, why not take a look at this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Library_of_Alexandria or better yet, at this article: http://www.bede.org.uk/Library2.htm

Um Filme Falado, devoid of any real action, is presented entirely through a series of conversations, mostly between a history teacher and her young daughter, who are on a cruise through the Mediterranean. Besides the teacher, we are instructed about life, ancient and modern, by three intelligent and beautiful women, each speaking in her native European language. Although the teacher, and others, are unfailingly polite and charming, reality prevails. Some editing of the view of the ship's hull would have been advisable, but it's a quibble. For a limited audience of educated, polyglot, and thoughtful viewers who are able to appreciate irony, and to correct some historical fallacies, this film features, among other gentle performances, the incomparable Catherine Deneuve; and has structure resembling a Greek tragedy, with a journey, guides, a chorus, and an act of violence kept entirely offstage.

During the dialog between Malkovich,Catherine Deneuve, Stefania Sandrelli and Irene Papas, Catherine Deneuve says that American Revolution took the inspiration from the French one...That's just ridiculous and I don't understand why it didn't create a diplomatic accident with U.S.A. It could have even been the best film ever shot(and It's not), but this mistake is just unforgivable. Its only merit is that it shows some picturesque views of Mediterranean Europe. I just wanted to speak about this aspect of the film but this site allows me to post messages longer than 10 lines only...Now I think I reached the point. : )P.S.:It can be just a subtitle mistake, either...I can't fully understand french.