The worst of Ton Hanks
-
david-3444 — 16 years ago(February 25, 2010 09:19 PM)
I'm not sure there can be a "worst" for Tom Hanks, because that would be equivalent to looking at 50 different pieces of black paper and trying to decide which was the blackest.
I find the source material for this movie to be utterly fascinating, but the movie itself is an abomination. Mainly because of Hanks, partly because of Spielberg. 100% artifice with absolutely nothing genuine, like most of their other work (individually and together). -
j-m-wurtz — 15 years ago(April 20, 2010 08:30 PM)
I would have to whole-heartedly agree with this poster. I'd put my life savings, which isn't much, but it's still my life savings, on the fact that he's both, but a little more of the latter as opposed to the former. In fact, he's probably the most retarded foreigner (I'm assuming he's a foreigner because of the way he talks about us Americans and the fact he can hardly write in English) whose writing that I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Utterly fascinating how dumb foreigners can be. You talk about how dumb Viktor Navorsky is portrayed, you make that idea true. In that sense, you're a hypocrite.
-
burninater10 — 15 years ago(May 02, 2010 08:38 PM)
Jesus Christ people, this is a light hearted film. I don't see why you people analyze it as though it's supposed to be the next
Godfather
. Sheesh.
Just enjoy it for what it is: a fun, feel-good film with decent acting, a catchy score (one of John Williams' best IMO), and an interesting plot. Even though it's not original (it's based off a true story), at least it's better than most of the crap Hollywood is producing today. Oh, and it's NOT A REMAKE.
You people
sigh -
koffeenkreame41-1 — 13 years ago(November 10, 2012 12:31 PM)
ROFL!
Ton Hanks haha!
Seriously, though, this film was actually quite good. To be honest, I don't think Hanks actually has a bad film or a worst film. Always gives 100%
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna*beep*wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens. -
j-m-wurtz — 15 years ago(April 20, 2010 08:24 PM)
Wow. This interpretation of the film and assessment of both Tom Hanks and Steven Spielbergs choices in making the film are the narrowest most ignorant conclusions I have ever seen made about any movie ever. Or close to it. That being said, to merit such a label, being the worst I'VE ever read about any movie, says a lot, because well, I've read a lot.
Nearly every single one of your points have no merit, and hold no water. Not only are they untrue, but nearly every single statement and conclusion you draw is illogical and completely and utterly outlandish. It flabbergasts me that a person can even conjure up the ideas and come to the conclusions that you do.
I hope you pride yourself on being a complete dumbass because that's about all you're good for. Maybe if the stupid Steven Spielberg makes another terribly terrible movie such as this movie, The Terminal, that you seem to hate so much, he can cast you as the lead as the dumbest man alive.
Wow. I'm still overwhelmed by the stupidity that your post emits. Gahhh, it makes me want to throw up just reading it.
But you know as they say, ignorance is bliss. -
Krokodilius — 15 years ago(May 17, 2010 12:03 AM)
A bunch of you guys really reinforce the OP's point by being dumber than a sack of pet rocks. Not speaking any of the languages he brought up and not having been to the US I can't entirely relate, but he has some valid points, none of which anyone in this thread has yet to actually address instead of just attacking him and stating he's wrong because you think he is.
-
Monkey-D-Luffy — 11 years ago(May 15, 2014 09:19 AM)
he has some valid points, none of which anyone in this thread has yet to actually address
That's what I was thinking. I mean to label him as the dumbest person itself is beyond belief. Let's see what the rest of this thread brings forth to counter the OP
Hey, this is the Sh*tty Restaurant would you like to make a reservation? -
PotassiumMan — 15 years ago(April 24, 2010 06:26 PM)
OK, this tendentious thread came from a viewer who thinks that movies should be like documentaries and always be factual or else they are a waste of people's time.
Sadly, I see this kinds of posts all the time on IMDB. But it doesn't get in the way of my own admiration for any film I like, including this one.
Quite the contrary. This is one of Tom Hanks' best roles. -
jajceboy — 15 years ago(June 27, 2010 02:45 AM)
I think that this one of Hanks best and interesting roles. I mean, he had to learn a language, thats something of the hardest things that exists. And then he had to "learn" English and speak it the way an older immigrant would speak it.
Not everyone could do that, but Hanks pulled it out wonderful. -
memorya-960-335257 — 14 years ago(January 12, 2012 12:03 PM)
First of all, learn to spell actor name when you blast him.
Second, it's very commun than somebody who don't know a language learn it when he passed a long time in a country where there is only this language who're spoken. The story of the movie is based on a long period, not only 3 days.
This movie is not the best of ToM Hanks, but it's certainly not the worst (Lady Killer is the worst) If you only see one or two movie of T. Hanks, do only a critic of this movie and not in comparison of all his movie (sorry but Green Mile is a great movie)
And it's supposed to be a light movie, not an historical one or language-history one I don't care that it's bulgarian or russian or gibberish that he talk I just know it's not english and there's language barrier in this movie.