Anachronisms killed this movie for me
-
mfiskey55 — 14 years ago(March 26, 2012 02:35 PM)
I noticed many anachronisms in this film. The mobil phones were a big one for me as I know what those phones looked like in 1991 (kinda like the ones used in the Viet Nam section of the movie). It's logical to assume that Bishop is a Padres fan as he states he's from Hemet, CA. I kind of liked the hat he was wearing as the hats, and unis, the Padres did wear in the mid 80's were possibly the ugliest things I've ever seen on a ball field. That includes majors, minors, little leage & beer league softball.
I almost numchucked you, you don't even realize! -
dan6pitcher — 13 years ago(April 04, 2012 02:41 PM)
The hat was just so glaring to me because of how ugly the old Padres uniforms and hats were. It was like someone said "that hat is too ugly, let's just use the current one because it looks better". There were others, but I saw the film so long ago that the Padres hat is the one I remember most.
-
princethomas — 13 years ago(November 07, 2012 07:27 AM)
That hat thing bugged me too. It didn't ruin it for me. Not just the color and logo either but the style. Nobody had nice fitted hats like that in the 80s. If it didn't have a net style back, it would have at least had a pins and holes style adjuster.
Also not just what the cell phones looked like but use of the term "on my cell" jumped out as a little wrong.
Not big issues, but worth mentioning. -
goleafsgo27 — 13 years ago(March 24, 2013 12:20 AM)
The hat was sloppy, but I've seen worse: Some film I saw, title forgotten, parts take place in WWII in England, c.1943, and at a club there's a party for soldiers with 3 big flags part of the decorations, US, UK, and Canada. And they used the red maple leaf flag that flew for the first time in Feb. 1965. Oops. Only a couple of decades off.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much.
ALOTO -
avortac — 9 years ago(June 29, 2016 03:12 AM)
Late nineties small, 'stylished' sunglasses worn in the seventies and eighties, when it was the time of the BIG sunglasses, was another anachronism that bugged me a lot.
Then I realized this movie only pretends to be serious, and is yet another "we don't care about the details, believability, consistency, story, etc. as long as there's (injected) ROMANCE in it, and women flock to see it"-scenario.
What else is new.
I can see how it happened; "Um.. we can't use these sunglasses, this kind of style wasn't invented in the seventies/eighties. - Don't worry about it - come on, this movie has BRAD PITT! Do you really think these stupid audiences are going to NOT see it because of some stupid sunglasses? Just put it in the movie, no one will notice it anyway! People will flock to see it because of big names, no matter what kind of sunglasses we use. Never mention this again, or you're fired! -Yes, sir."
Again an interesting premise completely spoiled by hollyweird's agenda and greed for money and female approval.
There was again so much potential and intrique.. all down the toilet, because the whole main core focus and point of EVERYTHING is just some ugly hag. SIGH and GROAN. HOW many times do we need to see this crap? How? How much is enough? Can we do it that much, and then never do it again?
For once, I'd like to see a big budget spy/action/sci-fi/etc.-movie without -any- romance, and even without -any- women whatsoever. I wonder what the experience would feel like, since I am not sure I have ever seen such a movie.
(Actually, 'Bad Taste' comes sort of close, though it still has woman actors, but no female characters, and thankfully, no romance whatsoever - but it's kind of hard movie to take seriously. It's budget was also not very big.)
This movie does have some really clever parts, but it all gets diluted by the hag+romance-combo. This could've been a great movie, now it's just a 'typical hollyweird mess'. Sigh.
So much promise and potential completely wasted. AGAIN.