Films

[bmags]

hahaha, awesome article.

[Milkman delivers]

Just got back. Lucky Number Slevin...quality.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I don't like going to the movies and I just got my new digital...umm..."black box" back after the previous one I had...umm..."stopped working" in December after a good 7-month run, so bear with me, I'm very behind...

 

I saw saw yesterday...all-around bad movie with horrible acting, kinda an ok twist ending

 

I went for the double-header tonight and saw fever pitch...not good

 

And Crash...didn't like the first hour so much, could have done without the Don Cheadle and Jennifer Esposito characters (wasn't she meant to be Hispanic??? Isn't she Italian??? If making a movie about race, why not cast a Hispanic actor to portray a Hispanic character???), but I really enjoyed from about where the little girl is "shot" to the end where it all comes together. If that was the Best Movie of any given year, movies must be going downhill as I've suspected. Good but not great.

Edited April 13, 2006 by SleepyWhiteSox

[LosMediasBlancas]

Just got back.  Lucky Number Slevin...quality.

 

 

I fell asleep for about 20 mins. during this film, but what I saw seemed good. I WILL go back and see it again.....of course now I know the ending, so all the twists are ruined for me.

[TheBlackSox8]

I fell asleep for about 20 mins. during this film, but what I saw seemed good.  I WILL go back and see it again.....of course now I know the ending, so all the twists are ruined for me.

how do you fall asleep watching a movie in the theatre??

you go see it late?

[bmags]

how do you fall asleep watching a movie in the theatre??

you go see it late?

 

i fell asleep during the hills have eyes

 

 

more like passed out but still

[Kyyle23]

i fell asleep during the hills have eyes

more like passed out but still

 

because of the movie? Or because of some other reason?

[LosMediasBlancas]

how do you fall asleep watching a movie in the theatre??

you go see it late?

 

 

The cozy seat, it's dark, it's warm.....and I'm getting old.

 

Saw 'Inside Man' and 'Tsotsi', both are good rentals, neither is worth the $9.00 I paid.

[bmags]

because of the movie?  Or because of some other reason?

 

something else.

[Flash Tizzle]

Yesterday, I rented perhaps the worst movie I've seen in recent memory, "A Sound of Thunder." The special effects featured in this movie rival Tron. And atleast Tron had an excuse, since they happened to be the best available in the early 80's.

 

The plot itself is based upon time travel theories featured in Simpsons, Butterfly Effect, etc. An eccentric millionaire finances the creation a device capable of sending its wealthy clients back into time. Specifically, several hundred million years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Purpose of such an expensive trip is to merely shoot and kill a dinosaur before it falls within a tar pit.

 

Summarizing the supposed physics involved, which aren't too complicated--you can't bring anything back, leave anything behind, or disturb the order of the past world. Any small difference creates a ripple effect with drastic consequences. In this movie, stepping on one butterfly creates havoc beyond comprehension. Not exactly what happened to Homer when he crushed the mosquito, but still a noticeable difference in the world.

 

Its story is what drew me to renting it. Interesting enough, I thought. Yeah, I was wrong. The effects are so bad, it just's too hard to take anything seriously. I've never considered special effects alone to decide a movie's merit, but since we're in 2006, I expect more from a major motion picture. Especially one where SE are critical to the storyline. I never intended to rent the movie for it's insight into the discussion of time travel. I was just looking to be entertained. Which it failed miserably at.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[mr_genius]

Yesterday, I rented perhaps the worst movie I've seen in recent memory, "A Sound of Thunder."  The special effects featured in this movie rival Tron. And atleast Tron had an excuse, since they happened to be the best available in the early 80's.

 

The plot itself is based upon time travel theories featured in Simpsons, Butterfly Effect, etc. An eccentric millionaire finances the creation a device capable of sending its wealthy clients back into time. Specifically, several hundred million years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Purpose of such an expensive trip is to merely shoot and kill a dinosaur before it falls within a tar pit. 

 

Summarizing the supposed physics involved, which aren't too complicated--you can't bring anything back, leave anything behind, or disturb the order of the past world. Any small difference creates a ripple effect with drastic consequences. In this movie, stepping on one butterfly creates havoc beyond comprehension. Not exactly what happened to Homer when he crushed the mosquito, but still a noticeable difference in the world.

 

Its story is what drew me to renting it. Interesting enough, I thought. Yeah, I was wrong. The effects are so bad, it just's too hard to take anything seriously. I've never considered special effects alone to decide a movie's merit, but since we're in 2006, I expect more from a major motion picture. Especially one where SE are critical to the storyline. I never intended to rent the movie for it's insight into the discussion of time travel. I was just looking to be entertained. Which it failed miserably at.

 

 

haha

 

i read this review for the movie on rottentomatoes.com

 

"Have you seen the trailer? If so, then that's as close to watching the movie as you should get."

Edited April 17, 2006 by mr_genius

[Flash Tizzle]

haha

 

i read this interview for the movie on rottentomatoes.com

 

"Have you seen the trailer? If so, then that's as close to watching the movie as you should get."

I should have known something was wrong when yesterday was the first time I've heard of the movie.

 

After reading it's back cover, I assumed entertainment would consist of senseless distruction and violence. Basically, a typical action movie where you can turn you brain off for nearly two hours.

 

I also noticed earlier IMDB members haven't been too kind. Really should have held up renting the movie. Definitely an impuse move. Only alternative (or so I thought), since King Kong, Chronicles, and Wolf Creek were unavailable.

[Kyyle23]

Yesterday, I rented perhaps the worst movie I've seen in recent memory, "A Sound of Thunder."  The special effects featured in this movie rival Tron. And atleast Tron had an excuse, since they happened to be the best available in the early 80's.

 

The plot itself is based upon time travel theories featured in Simpsons, Butterfly Effect, etc. An eccentric millionaire finances the creation a device capable of sending its wealthy clients back into time. Specifically, several hundred million years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Purpose of such an expensive trip is to merely shoot and kill a dinosaur before it falls within a tar pit. 

 

Summarizing the supposed physics involved, which aren't too complicated--you can't bring anything back, leave anything behind, or disturb the order of the past world. Any small difference creates a ripple effect with drastic consequences. In this movie, stepping on one butterfly creates havoc beyond comprehension. Not exactly what happened to Homer when he crushed the mosquito, but still a noticeable difference in the world.

 

Its story is what drew me to renting it. Interesting enough, I thought. Yeah, I was wrong. The effects are so bad, it just's too hard to take anything seriously. I've never considered special effects alone to decide a movie's merit, but since we're in 2006, I expect more from a major motion picture. Especially one where SE are critical to the storyline. I never intended to rent the movie for it's insight into the discussion of time travel. I was just looking to be entertained. Which it failed miserably at.

 

 

Actually it was written by Ray Bradbury in 1952. (excerpt) I read about the production of this movie, and started to think it was going to suck when darkhorizons.com started making fun of it. It actually was in the theatres for about 10 seconds, I read the cnn review and I dont remember cnn giving to movie even 1 star.

 

The book has a great premise too, just bad follow through on the movie.

[Brian]

Actually it was written by Ray Bradbury in 1952. (excerpt)  I read about the production of this movie, and started to think it was going to suck when darkhorizons.com started making fun of it.  It actually was in the theatres for about 10 seconds, I read the cnn review and I dont remember cnn giving to movie even 1 star. 

 

The book has a great premise too, just bad follow through on the movie.

 

 

I am tempted to rent it cuz I liked the Bradbury short story, but remember a lot of criticisms when it first came out in the theatres and I have stayed away. Maybe it'll be on HBO someday.

[LosMediasBlancas]

I had high hopes for this film but after viewing this trailer, I'm not so sure. Mel, I hope you did it right.

 

http://apocalypto.movies.go.com/

[bmags]

I had high hopes for this film but after viewing this trailer, I'm not so sure.  Mel, I hope you did it right.

 

http://apocalypto.movies.go.com/

 

decemeber 8th...ha...losers.

[Yoda]

Last night I watched Cheech & Chong’s: Up In Smoke and Next Movie for the first time on DVD and man was I laughing like I had never laughed before! I don’t know why I didn’t pick up these films before so that I could watch them. Definitely got some good laughs out of me.

[GoodAsGould]

I am tempted to rent it cuz I liked the Bradbury short story, but remember a lot of criticisms when it first came out in the theatres and I have stayed away. Maybe it'll be on HBO someday.

 

I saw it in theaters.... and its just horrible. One of the worse movies Ive ever seen.

[Brian]

I was not going to go see it when it comes out, but "United 93" is getting GREAT reviews everywhere. It supposedly doesn't exploite anything and is extremely powerful and a movie that should be seen. I'm gonna have to check it out Fri afternoon.

[Brian]

Went and caught "United 93" this afternoon. Very well made. The majority of the film is 9/11 from the view point of air traffic control which I thought was interesting. The first hour is them edited with United 93 boarding, waiting on the runway, etc.

The film only contains events that we know happened on the plane based on phone calls and such.

For the first hour, I had an uneasy feeling in my stomach. Just the suspense building up from what inevitably was going to happen.

I agree with all the critics in that it is well done, does not exploit anything, and is a movie, if you can handle it, should be seen.

[bmags]

Went and caught "United 93" this afternoon. Very well made. The majority of the film is 9/11 from the view point of air traffic control which I thought was interesting. The first hour is them edited with United 93 boarding, waiting on the runway, etc.

The film only contains events that we know happened on the plane based on phone calls and such.

For the first hour, I had an uneasy feeling in my stomach. Just the suspense building up from what inevitably was going to happen.

I agree with all the critics in that it is well done, does not exploit anything, and is a movie, if you can handle it, should be seen.

 

thanks, at first i thought it would be a stupid propoganda piece making money off of the emotions of the American public...but then i saw Greengrass was directing it and all worries were arrested. Bloody sunday was magnificent! Great director/writer

[LosMediasBlancas]

Went and caught "United 93" this afternoon. Very well made. The majority of the film is 9/11 from the view point of air traffic control which I thought was interesting. The first hour is them edited with United 93 boarding, waiting on the runway, etc.

The film only contains events that we know happened on the plane based on phone calls and such.

For the first hour, I had an uneasy feeling in my stomach. Just the suspense building up from what inevitably was going to happen.

I agree with all the critics in that it is well done, does not exploit anything, and is a movie, if you can handle it, should be seen.

 

 

Is it just a re-enactment on a time line? If so, how is it different than say a Dateline piece? I haven't seen the film and I'm not challenging you to defend your liking it. I'm just curious.

[LosMediasBlancas]

I can't wait to see THIS!

Warning, sensitive topic.

 

http://hardcandymovie.com/

[bmags]

Is it just a re-enactment on a time line?  If so, how is it different than say a Dateline piece?  I haven't seen the film and I'm not challenging you to defend your liking it.  I'm just curious.

 

Greengrass filmed it to be like it was a documentary being shot in real time, supposedly it makes it feel like even the camera doesn't know whats gonna happen next.

 

Greengrass is a great director so i bet he makes it work. Seriously check out "Bloody Sunday"

[Brian]

Is it just a re-enactment on a time line?  If so, how is it different than say a Dateline piece?  I haven't seen the film and I'm not challenging you to defend your liking it.  I'm just curious.

 

It is almost real time, ending with the crash in Pennsylvania so we never see the towers collapsing.

This may sound stupid, but I don't want to give anything away. It is mostly taking place in air traffic control as the day develops than they show United 93 boarding and being stuck in the runway. It is not a documentary. We are there observing as the day unfolds. Hard to put into words but all I can say is it is done the right way, and does not exploite anything.

Obviously we don't know what happened on that plane except for the phone calls and some stuff in the film may or may not have happened, such as the terrorist flying the plane tapes a picture of the Capital building in front of him. I never knew it was confirmed that is where that plane was suppose to go.

 

I'd be more skeptical of Oliver North's movie coming out in August than United 93.