Pathetic
-
cfischer999 — 16 years ago(November 03, 2009 07:19 PM)
I agree. It takes a lot to make me write a scathing review that bashes a movie but this one deserves it. Emily Mortimer was totally miscast and looks like an absolute dog in this movie. Right from the start it was totally unbelieveable that any guy as good-looking as Eduardo Noriega could even become remotely interested and sexually aroused by someone who looked as bad as she did, even if he was some "alleged" rapist. (I guess that's the excuse they had to make up for his character to seem believable). The fake Russian accents got old really quick too, not to mention that absolutely -NOTHING- happens during the entire first half of the movie!
-
cableaddict — 16 years ago(December 05, 2009 06:31 PM)
Thank God I'm not the only one. I'm 30 minutes into this thing, and the writing is so bad I have to turn it off. Clearly this is a throw-away flick made for cheap, with no real care. No need to watch further.
Came here and was shocked to see a high rating.
Go figure. -
stephanyjml — 16 years ago(December 05, 2009 11:38 PM)
I just watched it and liked it. I thought Woody Harrleson's character was annoying - I would want to wring my husband's neck if he caused us to be separated in Siberia. I thought a lot of the characters were typical stereotypes - the CIA/embassy officials, for example. But, I thought the movie was interesting and different so I enjoyed it. I like Emily Mortimer and I found her character more realistic than most - she wasn't all good and she's not all bad.
-
PVarjak — 16 years ago(December 31, 2009 08:51 PM)
I disagree with some of your comments. I think Emily Mortimer did a good job and was not miscast. TS needed another good American or British actor to play her husband and not Woody Harrelson doing Woody from 'Cheers.' You criticize the way she 'looked' in the movie. Well, having taken a long train trip on a crude train like that across Russia, I can tell you she's not going to look like she looked in Bright Young Things. It was realistic. She wasn't going to be all made up every day. The toilets and sinks (as was shown later in the movie) often clog and stink.
And from my perspective, I didn't think Carlos/Noriega was all that good looking either. And Kate Mara's/Abby's bordering-on-Goth look was overdone. -
mrgogonyc — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 09:29 AM)
Everyone has a type, csfischer. Sometimes there's no telling who someone would be attracted to. Also, maybe Eduardo cunningly felt that Jes would be useful.
"If it is not in the frame, it does not exist!" -
TheBeardedWonder — 15 years ago(May 24, 2010 07:08 PM)
Better than taken? In what way? At least taken knew what it was and went for it full steam. This is all over the map genre-wise, with moronic and completely unlikable characters in every way, ASKING you to not care what happens to ANY of them.
The Mortimer character for instance, good god, she has to be one of the dumbest in history. Making bad choices, doing stupid things, over reacting, freaking out at a bad time, etc She dug her own grave, then we're supposed to care when it's time to pay for it.
It was just going from gag to gag like a bad sex comedy for adults who like thrillers most of the time too. Oh look, she tried to break them on the toilet! Oh look, she almost fell off the train (WTF?!). Oh look, Kingsley almost caught her! Oh look, they want more than the drugs! And so on and so forth for 2 hours.
The first 45 wasn't great character development or anything, let's be real here guys. With stupid enough characters and a silly enough plot, the build up can still be worthless. And there's a big difference between 'inane and worthless dialogue' and 'character development', something the director should learn before his next flick.
I, and everybody I was watching this with, just couldn't believe someone wrote a character like Mortimer's and said 'yeah, this is solid, this is good stuff.' Nobody cared what happened to her, or really anybody else in the flick, and we just couldn't wait for the end 5/10
"Layered. Like Nachos. Exponential growth yo." - Jesse 'Jackson' Pinkman -
markfilipak — 15 years ago(June 12, 2010 12:00 PM)
The first 45 wasn't great character development or anything
Seriously? You couldn't see "great character development or anything"? I saw wall-to-wall character development that pretty much tipped me off, 1, that there was something bogus about Carlos, 2, that Abby was hiding something, 3, that Jessie was attracted to Abby in ways that Roy probably would have been shocked to learn, and 4, that Roy was a babe in the woods. How much more character development do you need?
Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me. -
TheBeardedWonder — 15 years ago(June 22, 2010 04:50 PM)
Kind of answered your own question with your previous assessment of characters. You get all of this within 15 secs of seeing each character. They're right out of the cliche handbook, and stay as such the whole movie. Nobody is developed beyond their initial characteristics.
They don't develop the characters, they throw them at you and then keep them the same the whole movie
"Look, Hank. Have you ever seen such a beautifully punted baby?" - King of the Hill -
markfilipak — 15 years ago(June 23, 2010 05:21 AM)
You get all of this within 15 secs of seeing each character.
Don't turn this into a pissing contest, or did you mean 15 minutes?
Transsiberian
isn't a character study but it does establish the characters' flaws quite nicely and then uses those flaws to build a story. In that respect, it's character-driven. Then the story unfolds as a plot-driven thriller. We see how Roy's & Jessie's naivet leads them into danger. Roy is naivet and a little arrogant and domineering. We also see how Jessie's fear drives her to extremes. We see Grinko's ominous character unfold throughout. We see Carlos & Abby as first-class manipulators. Granted that Roy & Kolzak are rather static characters but they need to be static to establish the boundaries of excess found in the film - at least, I think that is their purpose. The real psychological action is Jessie v. Grinko and Grinko v. Kolzak and Jessie v. Carlos and even somewhat Abby v. Carlos. I honestly can't see how you can fault the film.
I gave
Transsiberian
7/10. It's not a great film, but it's a good film and quite entertaining.
Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me. -
java8462 — 15 years ago(August 28, 2010 12:40 AM)
THANK YOU! I looked it up on rottentomatoes and it got a 91%! WTF! I got bored halfway through, the character of Jessie was so cold-hearted it was unbelievable and the cinematography was adequate at best, relying too much on snowy "art" shots. This movie is totally overrated and I want the 2 hours of my life back!