Loopholes you Could Drive a Truck Through
-
partridgestorm — 17 years ago(August 18, 2008 11:30 AM)
"Pet Peeve Alert!. I believe you really mean suspend belief. The other way makes absolutely no sense. Suspending disbelief would imply that you bought into it totally. Sort of a sideways double negative.
English Police Out."
Pet Peeve Alert! I hate it when people open their mouths and have no idea what they are talking about! Suspension of disbelief is a tried and true theory relating to movies, television, theatre literature, etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
Hand over your badge officer! -
Edren — 15 years ago(September 24, 2010 12:18 PM)
Pet Peeve Alert!. I believe you really mean suspend belief. The other way makes absolutely no sense. Suspending disbelief would imply that you bought into it totally. Sort of a sideways double negative.
The acknowledged phrase is 'suspension of disbelief', ie you supspend for the duration of the movie your disbelief in what is happening in said movie. You can say 'suspend belief' if you like, no skin off my nose.
As for the spoiler debate raging on I'll chuck in my tuppence worth. I have avoided the message boards of every film I want to see, for the simple reason that the message boards are littered with spoilers. Never mind when the thread title is 'Loopholes you Could Drive a Truck Through'. It seems so dense to think otherwise.
It is quite funny how this spoiler debate has hi-jacked the thread.
Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard -
melodyalice — 18 years ago(February 09, 2008 04:33 AM)
"and he also said that jodie foster looked like a lesbo here, and this was no role for a female "
How did Jodie Foster look like a lesbo?? How was this no role for a female?? Should it have been a man whose boyfriend was murdered? There's a million films about guys and guns and revenge etc. As soon as there's one with a woman fed up with everything and getting her own revenge people want to call her a lesbo, grow up. -
watchmefly — 18 years ago(October 22, 2007 12:37 AM)
I really don't think there were any major plotholes. My reason is that I've always taken plothole to mean an IMPOSSIBLE element of the story. Yours are all , to me, just implausible to happen (very different thing)
-
linda_mosh — 18 years ago(October 23, 2007 09:40 PM)
Yeah, well, either way guys, IMDB is pretty clear on this matter, you have to put "Spoilers" or "Spoiler Alert" if you're going to talk about relevant points of the movie's plot. Otherwise your account could get cancelled.
-
dogbacon2 — 18 years ago(October 24, 2007 05:40 AM)
Yeah, otherwise, wouldn't there be cameras all over the subway? or other people getting of the train? or cameras in the carpark?
I also didn't like how obvious it was that something bad would happen in the beginning. As soon as you see the dog run into the tunnel it's just stupidly blatant. I also felt no chemistry between Erica and her boyfriend nor Erica and the cop. With Erica's boyfriend not shown caring about their wedding, not wanting to go to the gallery.. then he dies and we're supposed to be attached to the revenge plotline? It was clear that Erica was smitten, i'll admit that.
The random comedy was strange. I'd get drawn in by Jodie's great performance then they'd have these weak one-liners. It was cute. Especially the whole scene with the sketch artist. But this movie wasn't going for cute.
Plus some scenes were very overwritten
Ex-wife: I'm your ex-wife.
I don't do pro-bono
Cop: You used to
Ex-wife: Yeah, well I grew up
Have I heard this before? Overall, I liked that they didn't go so far to put the cop and Erica together. Also when she was interviewing the cop, good scene. -
Gary-161 — 18 years ago(October 24, 2007 12:29 PM)
I did smile when she went down into a murky building on the say-so of a dodgy-looking stranger who could be intending to gang rape her.
And what on earth was she doing in the convenience store at four in the morning when she's supposed to be traumatised by nighttime?
Ah, cinema. Got to get from A to B, I guess. -
Gary-161 — 18 years ago(October 25, 2007 04:06 AM)
The guy she was with was too young for her.
It was an odd film. Sort of: "let's pretend it's still the Seventies and hope nobody notices."
It just felt like the wrong film at the wrong time.
The final shot was outrageously sentimental considering she was a serial killer. -
Stripeallspots — 18 years ago(October 27, 2007 12:59 PM)
i never pictured her as a serial killer. I just saw her as a woman who was hurt and scared and pissed off because nobody was finding out who murdered her husband? The final shot was sentimental but shes different from a man going around and shooting people, men and woman have different emotions and even though there were loopholes and yes some things felt akward it was a good story. Pure entertainment, i think people forget that is what movies are, too entertain. Not everything has too make sense and be so realistic (while i do enjoy movies that are realistic at times) movies tell a story and we are suppost to enjoy them.