Terrible Movie
-
Hemorrhage911 — 15 years ago(April 29, 2010 03:26 PM)
She saw her husband get brutally murdered, and you think she is going to sit in her apartment crying over her dog for months? Come on.
Also, it didn't start because they wanted to "steal the dog". They were out, drinking, and looking for a fight, and it just so happened to be them. The movie is about random attacks of violence, and it has a very cynical view of the world. The attack was supposed to be random, showing that it could have happened to anyone. -
rick-220 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 01:20 AM)
Surprisingly good movie, with a great Jody Foster - who I usually don't like.
The story and the theme were handled pretty well, and some serious questions were dealt with in a very mature way.
Yes, there were a few indiscrepancies, but they were easily forgotten in a very solid, uncompromising, provocative movie.
I also liked the cinematic style, with more than a couple of touches of Noir.
voting history:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013 -
Steve Crook — 13 years ago(September 30, 2012 06:35 PM)
The most unconvincing part was
New York is the safest city in the world.
riiiiight
Yes, I laughed at that as well. NYC isn't even the safest big city in NY state. But I suppose if your "world view" only encompasses the US of A then NYC is one of the safest of all the mega-cities
Steve -
TheBeardedWonder — 15 years ago(July 26, 2010 10:45 AM)
Agree with everything you said. It started a serious/reality 'this type of stuff happens in NY!' kind of thing, only to spiral into full movie mode with the overly caring cop, and the revenge fantasy. I'm all for a good revenge movie, female or male, but this is not one of them.
And when she just happens to see a shooting in a store randomly? C'mon now, I've never been there but I know NY isn't THAT dangerous - that your husband is beat to death, your put into the hospital, then when you get out you see a shooting ASAP. Lazy and weak, ham-fisted I believe is the best word for it.
Or when Foster says to the cops 'why doesn't it feel like you're on my side?' How would they know? They're trying to help you revisit it to try and gain some clues, and for that you assume they're not on your side? What? Clearly the director did NO development of Foster's character towards that direction - so they had to SHOVE in a scene like that. And to fade out after that quick scene? Indicating that you shot that scene MONTHS later because you know the development was lacking. Again, lazy is a proper word for it.
Also, Howard has to be one of the worst actors in the industry today. No emotion, no facial subtleties, just wooden acting from someone clearly reading a shoddily written script.
And as someone else said, to have the plot start over the dog, then have him disappear ENTIRELY from the film? What a waste of time, money, effort, basically everything. The dialogue was laughable, the characters not developed, and the whole movie just middle of the road in every way. Did ANYONE out there find the dialogue well written? I'd love to meet that person, but i'm assuming they don't exist because this seems to have been written by a 14 year old girl while on her period
PS: Did she really shoot a guy because his FRIEND stole an ipod on the train?! Trains/stations have cameras by the way. Of course it can't be his ipod according to the movie, he's black and there's white people music on it! Good lord, what a terrible movie this was. If you were able to finish it, you deserve some kind of award
"Look, Hank. Have you ever seen such a beautifully punted baby?" - King of the Hill -
lemner — 15 years ago(August 18, 2010 08:14 PM)
- According to the extras on the DVD, the script was written by two men. Leave out the female bashing and you'll have more credibility.
- The dog was only the hook that kept the heroine and her fiance from trying to run away from the punks. The punks were out to rob, with beating and killing thrown in for fun.
- She shot the guy on the train because he had a knife on her face, neck and chest and was threatening to rape her with it. As far as shooting his companion, when someone is involved in a felony, they are personally responsible for all the crimes that occur in connection with it as for example being charged for murder if anyone is killed. Accessories provide moral support if not physical support, and it could be a little difficult for a victim to distinguish the exact motives or threat level of each attacker, so they deserve what they get.
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
-
TheBeardedWonder — 15 years ago(August 21, 2010 10:45 AM)
"1. According to the extras on the DVD, the script was written by two men. Leave out the female bashing and you'll have more credibility. "
-Where exactly did I bash women? Care to point it out from my post, because I can't find any. Were you referring to the period joke?
'2. The dog was only the hook that kept the heroine and her fiance from trying to run away from the punks. The punks were out to rob, with beating and killing thrown in for fun. "
-That's exactly my point. They're so attached to the dog that they go after him instead of leaving the dangerous situation. Then the dog disappears and she never mentions it again. So was she attached to it or not? The movie doesn't know so how are we supposed to?
"3. She shot the guy on the train because he had a knife on her face, neck and chest and was threatening to rape her with it "
-Interesting, my version just showed them taking the ipod, talking to her for a second (no knife or rape talk or anything) then she shoots them both. Must have seen a weird version or something.
"Did you mean for all those words to come out like that or did they just fall out randomly?"-H.H. -
lemner — 15 years ago(September 08, 2010 07:23 PM)
- Yes the period "joke," and FYI PMS is a lot more dangerous, so be warned, O Bearded one.
- Unless you saw a completely different movie, the dog re-appears and she is delighted to see it, but can't make a lot of noise about it because of the dangerous situation. As far as her talking about it in between, people might find it odd that she was torn up over the dog when her fiance has just been murdered. She might also be a little ambivalent about the dog, since it was the reason they didn't try to escape.
- Again, you must have seen a very edited version, because the guy pushed the knife against her face, then ran it down her neck to her chest, and then asked,"Have you ever been raped with a knife?"
Except for the final revenge killings and the guy the detective told her about who was ruining people's lives and getting away with it, the other killings were done in self defense.
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
-
MrCottonsParrot — 15 years ago(October 31, 2010 08:31 AM)
'2. The dog was only the hook that kept the heroine and her fiance from trying to run away from the punks. The punks were out to rob, with beating and killing thrown in for fun. "
-That's exactly my point. They're so attached to the dog that they go after him instead of leaving the dangerous situation. Then the dog disappears and she never mentions it again. So was she attached to it or not? The movie doesn't know so how are we supposed to?
I think compared to losing your fiance the dog takes 2nd place.
"3. She shot the guy on the train because he had a knife on her face, neck and chest and was threatening to rape her with it "
-Interesting, my version just showed them taking the ipod, talking to her for a second (no knife or rape talk or anything) then she shoots them both. Must have seen a weird version or something.
Your version? Oh please!
Your version didn't say "Ever been f!cked by a knife?"?
Well if your inferior "version" missed stuff out, you shouldn't be commenting on it until you have seen the proper movie.
"I have pills for everything. Some make you taller some make you forget " -
hitman_1980 — 15 years ago(December 04, 2010 09:57 AM)
I really don't get all the bashing. This was a really good movie.
I mean, put yourself in her situation for a second. You wake up from a coma and realize that your fiancee was killed by a bunch of thugs who are still out there somewhere, free.
You're life is entirely screwed up. You're too scared to even leave your house for weeks. Then you see thugs in the subway and you snap.
Does that harm society, as long as you only kill thugs? Don't think so.
Those animals didn't deserve to live after what they've done, since they didn't act human in the first place.
If I would have been in her situation, I would have done the same thing, but put all of them through hell first. I mean, what's there left to lose?
I don't intend to sound like a psycho, but I really think that most of the reviewers never bother trying to put themselves in her shoes for a second.
They just shoud out "don't take the law into your own hands!"
If that would have happened to YOU, would you REALLY listen to that advice?
I seriously doubt it. -
heathrow14 — 15 years ago(December 24, 2010 02:36 AM)
just because you can put yourself in a person's situation doesn't make it a good movie! that has nothing to do with it, that just suggests that the basis for the story is a good one. The acting was hammy, the situations were extremely unlikely - so many crimes in one week?! and jodie fosters face and husky voiceover did my head in all the way through - I walk the streets blah de blah! the only bit that was even slightly interesting was the clever use of the dog to drag them over and attack them, although any sane person would have run away when they had the chance! seriously though, i think it needs to be looked at as a movie, not just as a story, it doesn't make it good just because you can relate to the characters motives. It was still rubbish in my opinion!! plus i kind of agree with the 14 year old girl on her period thingand i'm a woman!
-
Edren — 15 years ago(February 11, 2011 03:39 AM)
"just because you can put yourself in a person's situation doesn't make it a good movie!"
No but it helps.
"The acting was hammy"
yes, in your opinion
"the situations were extremely unlikely"
It's fiction dear. Just because the situation is unlikely doesn't make it a bad story.
"it was rubbish in my opinion"
And we've done a full circle.
"plus i kind of agree with the 14 year old girl on her period thingand i'm a woman!"
I didn't read that comment but I imagine a women who had her boyfriend murdered by thugs might be a tad pissed off.
"I'm a hero with coward's legs." - Spike Milligan -
heathrow14 — 14 years ago(June 11, 2011 01:57 PM)
"No but it helps"
It might help sometimes but if you read the original post i was replying to you would see they were using it is a reason for it being a good movie and i don't think that is enough of a reason to call a movie good.
"it's fiction dear. Just because the situation is unlikely doesn't make it a bad story"
it was fiction based in reality, therefore it has to at least be possible or likely in real lifein my opinion!
ps i think we should never watch movies together -
Edren — 14 years ago(June 12, 2011 02:46 PM)
ps i think we should never watch movies together
I dunno, I think it could be quite an interesting experience. It would certainly make for some interesting conversation.
"A lot of people say to me get out of my garden" - Stewart Lee -
Eightythreeyearoldguy — 14 years ago(August 22, 2011 09:34 AM)
I liked it but could understand somebody calling it mediocre. "Terrible" is an overstatement imho. I had the same thought of the number of crimes she came acrossn being unrealistic, but then it was as if she were deliberately placing herself in those situations. And I did have a time in my life when I got ripped off three times in a week's time, so it can happen.
Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies