MovieChat Forums > Knight and Day (2010) Discussion > 6.3, whats wrong with you people?

6.3, whats wrong with you people?

posted 11 years ago by XxbloodyhellxX
13 replies | jump to latest

This movie is so much better than 6.3...don't you agree, lets put a smile on that rating...

Forrest Gump: I'm not a smart man... but I know what love is.

[–] Concise_Statement 11 years ago

Yeah this was knowingly silly, harmless fun. And the film sagged a little when Diaz and Cruise were kept apart which is a testament to how much of their comedy shtick worked without the typical blockbuster cringe factor. I liked it. The movie knew all the things we don't care about in popcorn movies and spent little time bothering about them, so it could focus on bikinis and explosions. I admire the honesty. And Cruise was genuinely funny up until the film went oddly serious at the end. Mild thumbs up from me.

"I apologise for my appearance, but I have had a difficult time these past several years."

[–] Prismark10 11 years ago

6.3 is not bad for this movie.

Its that man again!!

[–] mustangguy809 10 years ago

Honestly, I was expecting a little more for how fun it was.

[–] sackofwhine 10 years ago

Wtf do you want a *beep* 7? Just because its entertaining doesnt make it good. The rating fits for a totally mediocre movie

[–] hka-3 10 years ago

Just because its entertaining doesnt make it good.

 Too funny. Entertainment is exactly why people watch movies.

Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.

[–] sackofwhine 10 years ago

Movies are art. You dont go to an art gallery to be entertained but to be lectured. Movies are art and not some sort of youtube video. Sure, some are made to entertain but those kind of movies dont define filmhistory. Thats why Knight and Day is not in the top 250 list. Because its mediocre.

[–] theCurlyone 10 years ago

Knight and day is a testament to the ridiculous nature of action movies and the 'odds favour the hero where necessary' theme. The prime example is, in the Spanish compound, where Tom walks non-caringly past a barrage of bullets to kiss the girl.
The movie was beyond self aware and it had fun with it, a lot of fun.
The cinematography was sublime, the editing was mostly superior to most action movies and the script was well woven, self referential and very witty.
This was, so far as big budget Hollywood action romps go, art.

"somebody used to live here"

[–] IMDBmurphy 9 years ago

Thank you, for explaining what art really means to one of those annoying pseudo-artsies.

I'm afraid they didn't see it ... but maybe some others did and will now think twice before judging.

[–] parknourie 10 years ago

Well, it's IMDb.

[–] userrrrr 10 years ago

no it's not. i have seen this movie about 5 times and will surely watch it again someday, but it's an average movie. nothing about it is great. it's not above average, which the current rating suggests. it's watchable and mindless popcorn fun but nothing more, nothing less.

the new york daily news review of this movie is exactly accurate. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2010/06/22/2010-06-22_ knight_and_day_review_tom_cruise_and_cameron_diaz_make_popcorn_flick_p op.html

[–] IMDBmurphy 9 years ago

Post's broken. Contradictions, you don't watch average movies 5+ times. Doesn't make sense.

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 10 years ago

I agree, it was really entertaining than it looks.

When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives.

[–] wakedemons3 9 years ago

I would guess two reasons why this movie's rating is lower than it should be:

1. Tom Cruise
2. For some reason many people didn't get that it was completely tongue-in-cheek

Are you not entertained?!