I guess I should trust the opinion of someone who loves the The Big Lebowski, and is a fan of Charlie Kaufman.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I read some really good reviews and I read some really bad reviews, but i just wanted to see it for myself. and i was pretty excited about it at that. And it didn't disapoint at all.
Sure there's some minor holes when you think about it afterwards, but there's also moments and ideas that'll keep you thinking afterwards.
there's some twists, some predictable, some not.
but it's a really cool movie that was done really well. And that's what I liked about it I think. It was a neat idea that was handled extremely well and made for a really cool flick.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. Everything I've heard about this film, from people I trust, is that it blows chunks. What did you like about it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of those movies that is so very unsettling, but so very good. The way it's filmed, the way the storyline unfolds, the way the mysteries are solved, the frenetic pace and erratic camera work -- all fantastically involving and (for want of a less cheesy word,) captivating.
I plan to write a movie review of it to practice for my future career of writing movie reviews that don't get published. Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was looking forward to seeing it, I was just waiting for someone to say they didn't think it stunk. But, given my newest vow to never spend ten dollars for a lousy ticket, I'll still have to wait until it's on video. Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read a lot of reviews that basically say "I really wanted to hate this movie because of Ashton Kutcher, but it was so good, I couldn't." I guess some reviewers were more successful at hating it than others, despite its goodness. I really liked it. Disturbing, though. Don't bring the kids.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband works a lot...there is never a matinee available when he is off work. I guess I could go by myself...but then I need a babysitter. Err....I don't know, it just never works out. We go bowling instead. Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad to hear it was actually a good movie, but I still love the review I read. To paraphrase, it said you have to appreciate a movie that has the very act of Ashton Kutcher reading be such a cosmically traumatic event that it rips open a hole in space and time. Just funny.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
No, these movies(or books) all have similar elements, but it's in no way a rip off of Lathe of Heaven.
Tom, to answer your question, I don't understand how anyone could think this movie blows chunks. you might not love it and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that's no reason to hate it. unless you just can't wrap your mind around Ashton Kutcher being serious, and then I'm sorry, because you're letting preconcieved notions get to you. Ashton Kutcher doesn't put on an Oscar worthy performance here, but he does hold his own. He's serious and believable, and very likeable.
Now, to the movie.
I really don't understand how you can dislike this movie. The cast is good. The filming style is very cool. The movie starts and within 2 minutes i turned to Kira and was like, "this is so cool". You know how some movies just have that air of cool and mystery surrounding them? Well this was one of them. The way they gave you the intro to the story and introduced the first of many mysteries kept you interested, but with what you already know about the movie coming in also kept you thinking. And even figuring out early on what the mysteries meant, just made it all the cooler cause i couldn't wait to see how they played out.
The movie takes some expected and some very unexpected twists and turns throughout the story.
But most of all it just brought up lots of interesting ideas in a cool manner. Sure, they aren't original ideas that no one has ever contemplated before, but they were presented in a maner not typically hollywood. I was struck during the film by thoughts surrounding not only how much we are effected by the events that happen to us, but even more so by *other* peoples choices. Or i guess more specifically how other peoples choices can lead to events that shape our lives and how we are.
I've got to say, I can't see why the critics didn't like it. If there was bad acting, it was below my threshold; I didn't notice it. About the only problem I noted--I doubt a pedophile could be scared into giving up his camera that easily. Still, it might've encouraged the girl to report him or something like that.
Extremely interesting concept. I think I did read a story about something like it, once, and this was just about as good.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
but yeah...i somewhat agree. he was talking pretty weird, and his voice was all distorted. i don't know if the father heard it that way though. in either case, the words alone would be enough to give someone pause i think. but maybe not quite so easily. i agree that it was pretty minor if it was an issue.
posted
Just saw it for the first time. I started with the director's cut, and then watched the ending of the theatrical version. And naturally, the director's cut has such a better ending.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, it looks an awful lot like a Sound of Thunder rip-off, no?
Not to mention dozens of other sci-fi movies that have already used the same device. What's so different about this one?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never watched the theatrical version...just the directors cut. How did the theatrical version end? I thought they did a good job with the directors cut...though it was very creepy
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw this last night and thought it was good, except for a few holes.
.....spoiler.....
The theater version, which I assume is what's on the VCR tape, has him using the home movies to go back to when he first met Kalie and telling her he hated her. They never became friends, she and Tommy moved in with their mother, and thus, were never abused by their father. It ends with him walking down the street years later and seeing her. She looks at him like she thinks "this is someone I know" and then keeps walking. He decides not to follow her.
How did the director's cut end?
Shouldn't all the brain hemorrhaging have killed him?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SPOILER SPOILER!! . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the version I saw which I assume is the directors cut, he uses a home movie of his birth to go back to the womb and strangle himself with the embilicle cord so he's never born. This is forshadowed by his mother mentioning earlier in the movie that she miscarried 3 times before he was born.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
