This movie was boring and plain stupid.
-
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.
-
tonyvidal — 11 years ago(June 08, 2014 09:39 PM)
I don't know if anyone else on this thread has thought this through, but why in the world would you haul unstable, defective nitro through the jungle, taking at least a week or longer to rehab some nasty old trucks first when wait for it you could simply order some new, stable explosives, nitro or whatever,and have it airshipped in overnight from Miami. DUHHH!!! Despite this gigantic plot hole, I still loved the artistry of the movie. Friends used to watch it at the Nuart in West LA in the pre-video days. It was easy to get a contact high there, if you know what I mean.
-
obliv — 19 years ago(March 15, 2007 02:46 PM)
you know, you are welcome to your opinion, but i have long been bothered by the criticism of 'this is stupid" for movies that are clearly produced and made by intelligent people. maybe you didnt like it. maybe t could have been better. but it is ot "stupid", as in appealling to and produced by and for stupid people.
there are movies that are for stupid peoplenorbit, being a recent example. ace ventura anoother. ernest goes to camp. iron eagle 3. kickboxer. i could go on.
but not sorcerer.
and i know you didnt do this, synapse256, so its not aimed at you but the best is 'i didnt get itthis movie was stupid" YOU didnt get it and the MOVIE was stupid?
if you are reading this, please think about it before you use 'stupid' or 'dumb' as a descriptor in the futurei will continue to harp on it. hopefully, we can change it -
Byzantine15 — 18 years ago(July 09, 2007 02:44 PM)
To OP:
"I honestly was rooting for the damn trucks to just blow up so the stupid movie could be over"
If you want the movie to be over, turn off the player, get up and leave. No more movie! It ain't complicated. -
Huntauk — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 12:02 PM)
to obliv -
i wouldnt worry about the half baked opinions of the average viewer, most classics such as this receive poorly developed criticisms based on very little other than that the film wasnt as accessible to them as much as Highlander 2, Robocop3 and the films you listed. if you think the OP here needs pulling up go to Night of The Hunter forum and see the idiotic comments of a certain pleb im dealing with right now, people like this seem ten a penny right now. -
xanadu_dan — 11 years ago(April 14, 2014 02:48 PM)
Versace, you really need to be more careful with your spelling, grammar, and punctuation if you want to demonstrate an IQ in the 90th percentile. Other than that, "good" and "bad" are subjective opinions whose truth only extends as far as the person holding that opinion. Anyone can like or dislike whatever they want to, there's no correct or incorrect to that.
-
Strangerhand — 11 years ago(March 16, 2015 12:18 AM)
You have like a 90 I.Q.? Ah, boy! I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
I'm certainly no dumb or stupid
StrangerHand whistles to himself, eyes rolled up toward the sky, trying to pretend that he didn't just read that -
estcst-3 — 18 years ago(July 27, 2007 07:36 AM)
The whole time i am just thinking why the hell don't they just pick the crates up and carry them, it would be faster than this and safer too!
Actually, it wouldn't have been and since this is your major argument with the whole film your post means little.
They've only shown you the parts of the journey that were slow. Aside from these parts it's likely that the trucks were moving ten times faster then a couple of guys carrying crates.
BTW: Have you even bothered to consider that this would have required at least two dozen guys to carry this stuff? Two guys carry at a time just as one guy can drive at a time but it's easy enough to switch drivers if you need to. The guys carrying it would get tired and need rest. While they're resting they are falling behind the guys who would have to take over. They'd need to catch up or have other guys walking with them to carry it even further on. You would be talking about six guys per crate if you had guys following with them, at least six! They had a hard time finding four guys to do this job. Not to even get into the actual carrying of the crates. Have you ever carried 40 or 50 pounds for hours? Do you think this stuff is light?
If anything is full of holes it's your logic. -
HorodyskiJ — 18 years ago(September 04, 2007 07:47 AM)
"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?"?
Did you actually PAY ATTENTION to this scene? Nothing was said at all about turbulence, and the word was never even used. They talked about the lateral vibration from the rotors of the helicopter translating to the cargo being slung beneath. If you've ever sat in a helicopter, you can easily feel the constant vibration in your butt the whole time, and this would definetely start unacceptable motions in any cargo sling hanging from the helicopter. Delicate machines they ain't. Your entire point is based on something which was never said, and just assumed by you.