MovieChat Forums > Tabbycat > Replies
Tabbycat's Replies
You're right: I watched 57 minutes, right up till the "No place else to go" speech. I hadn't enjoyed one minute till then, and that ridiculous line for me spelled Game Over. A movie can ask too much of the audience as far as suspending disbelief. This one did, and then some.
Just caught Penn Jillette talking about Scorpion and his involvement with it. I'd never heard of it before last night (being CBS, it's not on hulu), but had planned to give it a go. Will certainly keep your warning in mind. If true, you're right -- I won't like it. Plus I'll have to watch the commercials.
To avoid looking like a mouthy fool, you might take care next time to reply to the right post.
You ended up sending your puerility Sandoz's way.
So in fact your reply was, itself, a swing and a miss.
And for the wrong team.
It's a threefer:
1) Social status (financial, fame)
2) facebook/twitter sense ("check-in")
3) General: How is Brad doing?
That said, it *is* an ungainly title that probably worked much better in a producer's head. Can't see any VOD browsers stopping dead at that title.
Haven't read that since sixth grade (you?), but at least Mr. Jones didn't let the boars, pigs and dogs into the house while telling his wife, "They have no place else to go, so I told them come on in and invite your friends."
I did and found nothing about a free pass to create a ludicrous premise.
Allegories still have to work.
This one didn't.
Having a film like this open anywhere is evidence of cinema's demise.
The fact that it's the work of the once-great Aronofsky compounds the letdown.
I don't usually respond to obvious trolls, but there might be a valid question beneath the gratuitous insults. I can't really tell.
Are you saying that in a movie where everything sucks, it's ridiculous to single out a premise for criticism? If so, I would disagree. A movie lives or dies, at least initially, by its premise. A ten-second pitch to a producer -- the seed from which many movies sprout -- is nothing *but* a description of that premise. The Barden character's statement 57 minutes in may not be considered the main premise, but it is the fulcrum on which the movie depends. If you don't buy it, the whole movie crumbles.
There's a big difference between a preposterous premise and a preposterous reaction by characters *to* that premise. In fact, some of my favorite films have absurd premises made believable by characters' reactions. The original Stepford Wives makes a good example: the physical reality of the wives' replacement is impossible (at least in 1975), but *given* that, the actions of the nerdy, insecure men are completely plausible.
Your complaint reminds me of a writing class I once had in which a student read aloud his composition only to have the teacher call it "boring." His defense? "Exactly! Boring was just what I was going for. Don't you see?" Your claim that I have no right to criticize a character's preposterous reaction in any movie that is unworldly or otherwise strange makes no sense to me. Every movie has to earn its audience after the first ten minutes. Expecting me to stay with it after rules of known human behavior are clearly violated is not reasonable, and that's where I head for the exit.
As Roger Ebert once said, "In a movie where anything can happen, who cares what happens?"
After more than 25 years of searching, I can find no evidence that an unrated version was ever released or even exists. The rumor may have started with an entry in Leonard Maltin's movie guide mentioning one -- plus the fact that all of director Stuart Gordon's films were originally released unrated.
I used to sell rare, collectable VHS releases and kept looking but never found an unrated edition nor any listing for one anywhere.
The trailer is a godawful piece of shit that makes this look like Runner Rumner or 21.
Ignore it.
A doe killed by a passing car is not nature.
Absolutely.
You probably didn't like the Sopranos ending either.
As in ... guinea.
And you find those ... where?
Almost never see better than herky-jerky 720p.
Hollywood is also a cult.
One that overpays makers of crap movies and looks the other way while fat executives jack off into potted plants and molest children.
Should we just boycott the whole damn town?
I'm down.
I can't do what you did.
You saw it in IMAX while that was still possible.
Now I never will.
The movie came and went under my nose before I even noticed.
I'd gladly pay $22 to see it in IMAX just for the flying scenes.
True ... but then Blow is probably the best movie ever made on the subject.
It got a theatrical release because Universal rezlized -- to their credit -- it was too good for TV Movie of the Week.
Absolutely infuriating that a well-liked, genuine theatrical release like this (from the hands of the great Joseph Sargent, no less) is not available from any legitimate source -- let alone Blu-Ray orveven VOD. Why do we all put up with this insanity? The film can be seen for free at pirate sites, but we can't pay to watch it. And it's hardly the only one. I'vevgot a long list.
The whole industry deserves a big middle finger for this sorry situation that leaves everyone unhappy -- even the studios.
Please.
Apparently you are unaware of marketing and distribution costs, which -- for a wide release of over 1600 theaters -- often come to many times the film's original budget.
Exist forever it will -- somewhere.
The Netflix-type revenue streams to which you allude pay pittances compared with the home video, broadcast TV and cable rights of yore. There's also no "international market" for two-hour-plus cerebral American political films starring women.
This film will never turn a profit.
Not in a year, not in a hundred years.
Never.