Is this movie even any good? - The Cars That Ate Paris (1976) Discussion

[–] Reiffeli 19 years ago

Are the cars alive?
No.

Do they eat people?
No.

Do they really eat Paris?
Kinda.

How good are the graphics?
Hmm?

Is it bloody or gory?
Bloody.

reply

[–] Momoreb 19 years ago

That kinda doesn't help...But thanks...

What I meant by graphics...

Do they even use computer graphics? Puppetry? Is it bad?

I eat Trolls!

reply

[–] Reiffeli 19 years ago

No CGI or puppetry.

Cars are real and real people drive them.

SPOILER: And real cars wreck real buildings. SPOILER

And for the actual topic question; Uhm, it's a medicore film. I didn't hate but neither loved it. And not really liked it. It was "okay".

reply

[–] Momoreb 19 years ago

Ok, thanks for the info. One last question. How bad is the blood? I'm kinda squeemish.

I eat Trolls!

reply

[–] Reiffeli 19 years ago

Typical 70's fake blood. If you know what I mean? Good thing is that it's red, not pink or violet. :p

reply

[–] Momoreb 19 years ago

Ah, I see. Well, thanks a bunch. I guess I'll rent it.

I eat Trolls!

reply

[–] johnmorley44 18 years ago

Don't watch it, you're not gonna like it, I guarantee.

Why? Because you're stupid, and it's not a movie for stupid people.

Why are you stupid? Because you're asking how good the graphics are on a 1976 movie.

reply

[–] Momoreb 18 years ago

Ouch, that hurt. I'm not stupid...Geez...Jerk. You know what? I might as well rent it, just because you said that.

...What?

reply

[–] JoltToday 18 years ago

haha

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Promontorium 17 years ago

You must be some kind of special, because you ask silly questions based on your presumption that this is a killer car movie based entirely on the title of the film. You get simple straight forward answers to your ridiculous questions, and then you complain. Why did you start a thread? Why are you even asking? No one cares about other people's opinions on movies, especially on IMDB.

reply

[–] srklondie 17 years ago

Good reply!

reply

[–] jimjamjames 16 years ago

haha good one.

i thought the film was dull; mise-en-scene, script, music, characters, plot... the lot. Maybe my mood was accountable for my negative response.

i had high expectations for this one but i was let down.

reply

[–] srklondie 17 years ago

Ever heard of the website IMDB.COM? Maybe you can get some kind of an idea about the film there>

reply

[–] Momoreb 17 years ago

Easy, now. Just because I asked those particular questions doesn't mean you have to go and jump at my throat. I get it. You have a right to bash me or anyone else. But did you even read any other posts? Someone had already kindly informed me about the movie, and someone else had already bashed me for my "stupidity". So, I say your efforts were a waste and you must have a lot of time on your hands to go around and criticize people for asking for an opinion from people and not just a website.

reply

[–] epeck01 17 years ago

Dont mind him, he is replacing Matthew Perry on the most amount of sarcasm ever used.... hes a twit, keep the thread going. Its definately an original movie haha!

reply

[–] Huskie_Jon 16 years ago

It is not a good movie. I would give it one star out of four. The one star is because at times it makes me say, "What the heck is going on here?".

It is like watching monkeys mate. Or as they would say in Australia, it is like watching monkeys, mate.

I just thought of that joke off the top of my head. That is probably how the script to the movie was made. It kind of reminded me of a John Waters flick.

_______________
A dope trailer is no place for a kitty.

reply

[–] gnolti 16 years ago

Maybe I'm in a minority here, but I thought this was a cool flick, a minor entry in the Weird 70s Australian Films Hall of Fame, and as has been pointed out, without this film we would probably not have Picnic at Hanging Rock. It has all of Weir's trademarks -- enigmatic landscape, the air of conspiracy, a central character who is in way over his head -- plus a healthy dose of humor. I was worried it would spill over into silliness, but Weir kept the chaos more or less under control.

Six stars out of ten.

There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] somemoviesilike 15 years ago

I thought it was pretty interesting, though it was about 2/3 through before I started thinking that.

And give the guy a break, it is called The Cars That Ate Paris After All... I thought it was a B-movie before I watched it.

reply

[–] namaGemo 11 years ago

I thought it was garbage from start to finish. So boring. It was nearly impossible, actually impossible to get involved in the story at all.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] billycan 9 years ago

I thought it was garbage from start to finish. So boring. It was nearly impossible, actually impossible to get involved in the story at all.

...but you think "Needle" and "Skyline" were good films? Your taste is in your arse!!

reply

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

^^^

Things a pretentious wannabe movie aficionado says.

reply

[–] billycan 9 years ago

I don't pretend to be an aficionado of any art-form. I like what I like and that's that, no matter what "professional" critics have to say. On the other hand, I try to steer clear of the "worst film of all time" style of comments that seem to be generated by imbecilic little dweebs like you without providing any reason for your statement.

You couldn't even decide if you found it nearly or actually impossible to get involved in the story. That level of indecision makes me wonder if you are even sure you actually saw the movie in question and not some other film.

TCTAP is deeply flawed and certainly not one of my favourites but it does accurately reflect the Australian attitudes of the '70s (that would be 35 years before you were hatched) and all on a budget that wouldn't secure 30 seconds of airtime on late night TV. It was good enough for both Roger Corman and Quentin Tarantino to steal from, though.

You didn't like the film? That is fine. You are entitled to dislike it and comment accordingly. I am entitled to call you on any comment you make based on the perusal of the high ratings you gave to films that cost a hell of a lot more but delivered a hell of a lot less.

Finally I doubt any pretentious wannabe movie aficionado would use the word "arse".

reply

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

NO, I CLARIFIED that it was impossible to get into. And I've NEVER stated "worst movie ever" in any of my comments. Thirty five years before I was hatched? I'm 50!
I didn't care for it, and I'm just giving my quick impression that this film can easily be missed because it doesn't leave a lasting impression.

Despite the film's you've chosen to chastise me about, I was ENTERTAINED, and to me, THAT'S what's important. You didn't obviously care for those films, and you know what I say to that? Great, that's your perspective

reply

[–] billycan 9 years ago

It was nearly impossible, actually impossible to get involved in the story at all.

If you are 50, you should have a better command of English grammar than this.

reply

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

Yeah, you're right. No spelling errors and proper punctuation. What was I thinking?

reply

[–] billycan 9 years ago

Go away troll. The billygoats 3 are waiting for you.

reply

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

TROLL??? You come here to to bash my OPINION of a movie that I made MONTHS AGO. Then make a shabby attempt at mocking my grammar and punctuation, which you failed at. Then you follow up with comment after comment that doesn't pertain to the film, and YOU have the nerve to call me a troll?

The irony is rich.

Maybe if you commented about WHY you liked this film, something RELEVANT that I might have missed on first viewing to make me reconsider on a second veiwing of this film. You came to insult. Lame!

reply

[–] billycan 9 years ago

What difference does it make when you stated an opinion on an online forum? Where can I find the rule that states there is a time limit on when you can be answered? Was this imaginary time limit not in effect when you made your comment nearly 4 years after the previous one and nearly 8 since the original post? Where is your reasoning as to why you didn't like the film other than your ungrammatical nonsense? What have you posted lately in this thread that related to the film, you hypocrite?

The only irony is that you still can't see that your very first comment was typical of a troll and almost guaranteed to generate the insults you so richly deserved. Ultimately, if you don't want to be insulted, best keep your opinions to yourself.

You found the film boring but still watched the whole thing! Why? I would have been surprised if you had liked it, given you chose to view a film that was 36 years old at the time of your post, from a country other than your own and that had failed at the box office in its home country not once, but twice.

As to why I liked this film? Third paragraph, three posts ago. However, you would be better served sticking to your usual fare. You know. Nothing that taxes your brain, even when it gets to the stop motion, comic strip animations at the end.

Don't bother to reply. I'm putting you on ignore where you belong.

reply

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

Say what you want when you want, but why be a dick? What would have been SO BAD that you couldn't express several reasons why you liked it instead of being an ass?

As to WHY I watch any film in its entirety, it's so I can give A REVIEW ON THE ENTIRE FILM as not to be criticized by idiots who complain about someone not watching the entire movie and giving a review about something they didn't finish watching.

Is THAT so hard to figure out?

You need to change your tampon, it's obvious you're a moody hole.

reply

[–] drunkbear 9 years ago

De gustibus non est disputandum.

That's Latin for "Everything YOU like sucks."

- You may have come on no bicycle, but that does not say that you know everything.

reply

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

What's the point of wasting time on a discussion board for comments like this?

reply

[–] drunkbear 9 years ago

That wasn't aimed at insulting you, mate; I was commenting on the typical level of discourse on these message boards.

Cheers.

- HOW kin I be so brainless, when I is so smart?

reply

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

Gotcha. The boards seem to be rough for no actual reason.

reply

[–] drunkbear 9 years ago

The ability to be an anonymous jackhole is one of the attractions of internet forums, for many people.

I don't like to advocate violence, but I do believe people are more polite about what they say when there's a chance somebody may bust them in the mouth for saying it.

- HOW kin I be so brainless, when I is so smart?

reply

[–] Druffmaul 10 years ago

I wonder if this dim bulb ever got around to seeing it. I'd love to sit next to him and observe the look on his face as he very slowly realizes it isn't some action/horror grindhouse flick about cars literally eating people.

reply