This movie was boring and plain stupid.
-
choatelodge — 19 years ago(January 29, 2007 04:53 PM)
Do you really think that the movie shows you every one of those miles? Do you really expect readers to believe that men could stretcher carry crates of dynamite for over 200 miles, over hilly and treacherous terrain in a couple of days?
Did you stop to think before posting that ridiculous proposal?
The film shows the toughest parts of the drive. These parts are necessarily slow. The rest is fast, including the stretch where the tire blows.
Can you see men running 20 miles an hour, and I suppose blowing a running shoe?
Think, man. -
synapse256 — 19 years ago(January 29, 2007 07:07 PM)
Who cares how far it was, obviously if the road was smooth enough to drive then drive it. You cant tell me they wouldn't have been safer taking that beep out and walking it to the end of a tough section and driving the trucks up later, it would have been safer and SAVED time.
Anyways the whole movie was just dumb, watching a truck go .2 miles an hour for half the movie is boring as hell i don't care if it was necessary or not and there was definitely parts where it wasn't. -
Jericho_One — 19 years ago(January 30, 2007 03:23 AM)
Would it have saved time? Unloading the trucks and then loading them up again, having to take extra care with the boxes? Think, man.
If you don't like this flick, why bother posting about how dumb, how stupid, how boring it is?
Oh man, the beep piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it. -
synapse256 — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 12:59 AM)
Do i have to explain physics to you? No.. i'll just use your words think, man think, man. Yes think. If riding around in the back of an ancient truck doesn't blow them up then you'd have to try pretty hard to blow them up by picking them up by hand. How long does it take to unload/load 3 boxes???
And i love your last sentence, the signature of all people who have no argument. Obviously these message boards are only meant to praise a movie you liked. Actually i don't usually post on forums but after being drastically misled by this movies imdb page about the quality of this movie, i felt obligated to make at least some statement to how crappy it really was, and what a waste of time/rental it was for those who don't turn their brains off while watching a movie. -
Jericho_One — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 03:33 AM)
LOL, since we're using each other's sentences, and actually "you don't usually post on forums", since you've been "drastically misled by this movie's imdb page" about the quality of it - actually, so drastically misled that you "felt obligated to make at least some statement to how crappy it really was, and what a waste of time/rental it was for those who don't turn their brains off while watching a movie", ask for a refund, or better, since you feel so affected by this flick, why don't you sue Friedkin and the studio for damage?
Oh man, the beep piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it. -
synapse256 — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 09:05 AM)
Thanks for proving once again that you have no argument. Now the next step, recognition that you have no argument, this is the part where you refrain from posting pointless and really stupid comments like "sue the studio" and just choose not to post. I know you'll get there eventually.
-
Jericho_One — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 09:30 AM)
My argument is simply that this is a pretty decent flick. Although I consider it not as good as the original "The Wages of Fear" (One you probably haven't seen, since you are very easily bored, so you're more into renting something that provides you an immediate thrill), it's a pretty good remake with an excellent soundtrack and a nice plot. While the plot is simplistic and straightforward (something you're definitely not used to, since you're easily bored), it's actually pretty effective and solid. It's not that unbelievable, although we must keep in mind that this is a movie after all.
Now, again, if you paid attention to the movie, you should know that they first planned to transport the nitro by helicopter, but the vibration would be fatal.
You said that they took very little nitro in the trucks. Well, if you were paying attention, you should know that they were carrying more than enough nitro(actually, it is said in the movie that they only send two trucks in case one of them gets blown on the way, wich happens - and one box of nitro does the job on the oil wells).
Then, the boxes are placed in earth in the back of the trucks, in order to prevent them from moving.
I agree that realistically, there are a few incidents in the movie that in real life would probably cause the nitro to explode. But those incidents are there to increase the tension, wich is one of the main assets of this movie.
Pointless and stupid comments? Let's Put this stuff in a stretcher and run 200 miles with it! How's that for a stupid and pointless comment?LOL
In the end, It seems to me that the one with no argument at all is you.
Oh man, the beep piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it. -
choatelodge — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 12:16 PM)
As Jerocho said/wrote, it's a pretty decent flick.
Like any movie, you have to suspend your credulity a bit and just accept the premis.
When a viewer starts to get 'attitude' and pick away at a movie, then one wonders why he continues watching it. After all could Indiana Jones really outrun that huge round rock that was rolling after him? Can Arnold Schwarzennegger outrun an explosion for half a block before diving into water to escape the fireball? How could Judah Ben Hur survive in the water after that shipwreck after rowing all day, and still have the energy to pull Quintus Arrius out of the water onto that makeshift raft?
And how can Superman fly and turn corners in the air without any visible way of controlling his direction or speed? If he can just go wherever he wants by willpower then why does he have to lay flat while he does so?
See, you can pick any movie apart if you are having a tanrum. Wha does that accomplish? Give a movie some leeway so that you can just enjoy it.
If you didn't enjoy the second half of Sorcerer synapse256, then that is perfectly permissible and even understandable. It may not be for everyone. Inventing absurdities in the screenplay however, in order to justify your own short attention span and lack of imagination that cannot appreciate motor vehicles that are travelling at less than 20 miles per hour, is ridiculous and frankly just isn't working.
The plotline is just fine. The movie garners a high rating among IMDB fans, reflecting widespread appreciation among a sophisticated audience.
So if you don't understand it synapse256, then you need some different material, that's all. -
synapse256 — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 01:56 PM)
If i can watch movies like Syriana, 2001 Space Odyssey, or Barry Lyndon and come out with very positive sentiments on the films, i don't think my problem is attention span.
I enjoy movies like Indiana Jones, Superman, and even some Schwarzenegger flicks but with those there is a key difference; you have to set the mood for a film or any good story early on and stick to it.
This film started out with gritty realism, and human drama and then transforms into an Indiana Jones style film half way through. That doesn't work for me.
If the plot is so contrived and full of holes that anyone can spot them then you need something else to drive the movie. Some examples of this would be likable characters, drama, romance, comedy, or action. This movie had none of these things.
My point in what has admittedly turned into a rant was only to make 1 thread in a board full of "best movie ever" type threads that acknowledges that this movie was deeply flawed and isn't going to be enjoyed by a large number of people.
Anyways, I didn't think this movie was worth the time, and this argument certainly wasn't either. People can watch it for themselves and decide, I just hope they aren't mislead as i was by the very high rating on a movie classified as "thriller" that in fact had very few thrills. I'm done here. -
MannyBam — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 02:30 PM)
While i didn't think this movie was all that bad, it certainly was not all that good either. I agree with you the rating here is outrageous. Having watched it i would have expected something in the 4-5 range but certainly not 7.
I agree with you on the plot, it's far fetched and corny and at times very tedious. I also agree this movie had no likable character or anything else going for it.
If your gonna make a movie thats purely plot driven, don't expect people to not scrutinize the plot. -
CrunchCameron — 19 years ago(February 08, 2007 12:03 AM)
Oh stop being modest guys, this movie was frickin excellent. Tangerine Dream did a great score. Dick Bush and John Stephens did some really great camerawork, and although it doesn't call for much, Roy Scheider did a great job filling the role of a guy who has had the life sucked out of him due to extreme circumstances. By the way I love the scene where Scanlon hears that guy laughing maniacally and then looks down at him and he's dead, but the laughter keeps going on.
-
ClydeBickle — 19 years ago(February 13, 2007 05:37 PM)
Great beep suspense thriller from Friedkin and co., and I fail to see how the idea of trucks transporting nitro is illogical. Why not have a helicopter airlift it? Oh right, turbulence. They covered that. Well, how is a truck safer than a helicopter hitting some turbulence now and then? They covered that too, licensed helicopter pilots would not risk their lives like that for any kind of money, but a group of desperate lowlifes might. The trucks were also filled with dirt, and if you knew anything about physics you would understand that it absorbs the majority of the shock. Now stop trolling and go back to your michael bay films.
"Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!" -
obliv — 19 years ago(March 15, 2007 01:41 PM)
the reason they didnt carry the stuff was indeed because having two guys carry it on a stretcher would take a really long time, and the point was to get it to the refinery to try and blow out the fire w/the explosion set off by the dynamite. if they had to carry it, and be carefl and slow over akll that terrain, not only is there a greater chance for humnan error (one of them slips and falls, the stuff drops off stretcher - BOOM-, or any other numerous possible screw ups that could occur, but they would also have to carrry food/water and sleeping supplies for the trip, which i am guessing would take upwards of a mopnth,m at least, and there did ot seem to be any towns or outposts along the way, so they would have to carry what they would use to survive..thus, a big burden further slowing the down.
they used the trucks b/c in that part town theye were the oly vehiclees that could make the trip across the terrain. they demonstrated early on that the nitro was extremely volatile, hence the need to move slowlynot only that, but the oil company didnt give them any better vehicles b/c the drivers were considered expendablethats why they sent 2 trucks
yeah, they would have to blow up the log across the roadthey could nt move it any other way, and they did have this explosive handy , why not
i personaly thought it was veryh suspensefulnot in an action hero type way, but i really felt that 'slow burn' of knowing that the slightest bump might set off the nitro
tyou are entitled to your opinion, but i thought it was really good. not as good as wages of fearbut i doubt youd like that eitherm, as its essentiall the same story
yeah, i liked itthat doesnt make me an idiotto each his own -
nickt030 — 18 years ago(April 28, 2007 04:40 AM)
synapse256,
You were not misled by the "very high rating" that you refer to. You are just pissed off because you are part of the minority of viewers that disliked the film. Either that, or you are just being a troll! -
gayspiritwarrior — 18 years ago(May 26, 2007 04:50 PM)
My point in what has admittedly turned into a rant was only to make 1 thread in a board full of "best movie ever" type threads that acknowledges that this movie was deeply flawed and isn't going to be enjoyed by a large number of people.<<
But you haven't done that, because it HAS been enjoyed by the majority of those who've seen it. No movie pleases everyone. All you've done is demonstrate that you're part of a minority that doesn't like this "deeply flawed" one. I'm sorry for you that you had to sit through a boring movie. I hope that turns out to be the worst that ever happens to you.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."Oscar Wilde -
karv-1 — 17 years ago(July 16, 2008 02:36 PM)
If you take a look at the box office numbers that this film took in at the time of its release, you'll realize you're not picking apart a smash hit here anyway. So what is your point? I think that the people who did enjoy this movie are appreciating it now for its directing, acting, musical score and overall atmosphere because they don't make many movies with this kind of feeling and sense of tension to them anymore. You should spend more time tearing apart films that deserve it, like the last Die Hard or Indiana Jones movie. Films that people aren't going to acknowledge 30 years from now because they REALLY DON'T deserve it.