Pathetic
-
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!
-
west3210 — 14 years ago(February 26, 2012 08:00 AM)
Such a terrible taste in movies on this board. This is one of the best thrillers in the last couple of years. Even critics love it considering it has 91% (95% top critics) on RottenTomatoes.
My Top 50 of 2011. -
f2039 — 14 years ago(March 11, 2012 09:05 AM)
one of the most stupid movies i've seen recently seriously, arent AT LEAST some americans fed up with this, same kind of st for years? two innocent americans (only doing bad things accidentally, but good in nature) travel across a foreign country where all people look and act weird, scary, and brutal. they get into trouble in this nightmarish country and things happen blablabla
btw how the hell you tell your life story, your problems with your partner etc to someone who you just met few hours ago? and how on earth can a woman gets closer to carlos, with that stupid smile on his face and whose eyes almost scream as "dont trust me, i'm an ah*le"
another thing i hated about this "movie" was jessie and her stupid camera. wtf? she takes photos of people without even bothering to ask them. are they monkeys or something? thanks to that old woman in bus who didnt let her to do so!