Good Lord, what an awful film!
-
avortac — 11 years ago(May 07, 2014 03:05 PM)
"..second by Commando"
What do you mean by that? Do you mean to say "seconded by Commando", or "seconded only by Commando"?
Do you ever think what you are saying, or do you just spew words that seem to have a similar meaning or sound the same to you?
Anyways, I wouldn't go as far as consider this movie 'awful'.
I'd say that it's more like "unnecessary".
It doesn't offer the viewer anything he hasn't seen many times before already, it's extremely predictable, and all the potentially interesting stuff (the depiction of the future dystopia - how many such depictions do we need, anyway? Can't the future be happy for a change?) has been done much better in other movies already.
Basically, this movie is just a "poor man's Robocop", and even Robocop isn't all that great (it's kind of childish and boring at times, and filled with improbabilities - why would anyone remain alive after their body has been shot to pieces, and why would moving a physical brain from a skull to a robotic body mean that the soul incarnates in that robotic body, without a functional chakra-meridian system to keep it in place? I mean, where does the 'silver cord' attach to, and so on..? When the body ceases to function, the incarnation ends, no matter what you do to the brain (in fact, it can end even before anything is done to the body - sometimes the divine mercy lifts the soul out of the body -before- the body-mangling-accident happens. For example, you might find yourself diving off a cliff, and then realize you are falling 'upwards' instead of 'downwards', because it's not necessary for you to go through the trauma of the accident - your body would be dead anyway, so you can be transported from your body a few seconds earlier to spare you). It would be better if the soul was transferred into the robot, not the brain - and if they addressed the whole chakra-meridian-issue. But then the question of 'what IS a cyborg' would actually be even more difficult to answer. By the way, according to an old dictionary, 'cybernetics' means that the prices rise faster than salaries).
So why watch this, if you can just watch Robocop and some other, better movies instead? If you want Arnold action, there's no beating The Terminator (1984), Commando, Predator and the like. If you want Arnold AND a dystopian future, Total Recall is miles better (though not without its own problems). Future dystopia has been utilized in so many movies, that this movie is just not offering anything.
It's like offering 'an ok-tasting' meal in a high-class restaurant, where delicious gourmet and 'umami' food is offered. Who needs that mediocre meal that doesn't even fill the stomach, if you can have really good and more fulfilling ones?
Unnecessary Poor Man's Robocop <- that's what I'd call this, instead of "awful". It's passable, and you can watch it, but it's just so lacking in every area that the better movies actually offer something better, that I can't see the need for anyone to ever watch it.
Except so that they can write posts like mine. -
mstrege — 11 years ago(May 11, 2014 04:49 PM)
I enjoy this movie for what it is. They changed so much that it really should have been re-named to something else.
I would be first in line for an accurate adaptation of the original Bachman Book, including the non-Hollywood ending. Better yet, let HBO make a mini-series out of it.
The book is so good. The Long Walk is great too but I don't think that would translate well to movie/TV. -
vavamatazz — 13 years ago(July 14, 2012 08:51 AM)
This movie was great during the time it came out. I haven't read the original Running Man story but it sounds like a similar case to the Lawnmower Man. Nothing like the original story at all. But the concept of this movie seems a lot better than most of the sci-fi movies that Hollywood has dished out in recent times.
-
-
schwapj — 12 years ago(July 01, 2013 10:28 PM)
You forgot to mention that the guards all had gas masks that didn't seem to protect them from anything, since the prisoners didn't have them and were able to to speak/work/run/fight/steal guns/operate computers/survive.
-
DeRo64 — 12 years ago(October 27, 2013 08:52 PM)
I respectfully disagree. I like the lack of realism and the cheesy 80's take on the future. It would be nice if they ever decide to make a film that is more like the book though.
It's been over a decade since 9/11 so I think America should be able to handle seeing an airplane fly into a building in a movie.
Whether or not to have the protagonist call Killian the N-word in the movie is not a decision to be taken lightly though.
"There is no escape, John!" -
Mandingo609 — 12 years ago(January 31, 2014 07:12 AM)
I believe the purpose of this critique stems from some sort of inferiority complex. The O.P. Isn't strong in the intellect department, so he picks out little things from a film made in the 80's to prove to himself and others that he's not a candidate for Darwinism. I meanwhy attack a film from a few decades ago, knowing that these films are no more than junk food for the Mind. Unless the O.P. Actually took this film that seriously.
-
Kruleworld — 11 years ago(May 26, 2014 06:49 PM)
by Flightsuit
Never mind the fact that they changed so many details that it's not even the same story, not by a long shot.
They changed it just enough so they wouldn't have to pay any Royalties!
Gimli: You'll find more cheer in a graveyard.