More public service contempt of parliament
10 hours ago
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogs of awesome
-
-
Wait did Generation X win??2 weeks ago
-
Publishing! and a big change…6 years ago
-
Jane Austen Society Talk in Wellington8 years ago
-
-
Creepy crawler (7 months)12 years ago
-
Fun at the beach14 years ago
8 comments:
Oh yeah, it was bad. My reasons are manyfold:
1. The stupid, pointless strobe-lighting scene that went for about 1 1/2 minutes and made me nauseous. It was just Samantha Morton staring at the camera vacantly with strobe. Why? Did it represent the fact that Tim Robbins character was going insane thus tenuously justifying most of his actions for the film?
2. The horrendous and often inaudible dialogue. Why did Samantha Morton have that stupid accent when noone else did?
3. The really mind-boggling disturbing and offensive mummy rape scene. Tim Robbins, having recently found out that she is a young clone of his mother, absconds with Samantha out of a medical clinic. She has been given a 'physical aversion virus' to ensure that any contact with him is abhorrent to her physically to prevent inbreeding between the two. What happens? She asks him to force her to have sex with him to 'overcome' the aversion virus. He ties her to the bed and ew, ew, ew! Her mouthing 'I love you' as she squirms with pain and discomfort is pretty san wrenching. What is worse is that I suspect this scene/relationship between the two, which presumably is some scriptwriter twisted little Freudian fantasy, may actually have been the central premise of the whole plot as most of the surrounding SF elements didn't make sense. Why was fingerprinting one of the main forms of identifying people when there are so many clones/genetically identical people running around? Why did people on the 'outside' wander around the desert selling food from baskets when there didn't appear to be anyone to sell to or any farms where they could have actually produced the food? Did anyone actually thing a an audience would buy that Road Runner would be taught in college in the future and it would be how kids on the 'inside' would learn about the desert?
4. Poorly thought-out and inconsistent SF elements.
5. Just about everything said or done by the main characters was terrible. It was impossible to understand their motivations, and was Samatha Morton's character supposed to be mentally impaired. On learning that her actions had killed several of her friends she smiled simply and blathered about how people wanted to go to dangerous places? I don't understand.
6. If the audience is meant to buy into the 'forbidden love' element which is pretty gross and not helped by the complete lack of chemistry or signs of any kind of affection at all between the leads, why make their relationship further repugnant by having Tim Robbins character married with kids?
7. Any movie I watch and can't remember, or be bothered trying to find out, the names of the characters 10 minutes after seeing it is very bad indeed.
-Debbie
Also, the film appeared to have about 30 - 40 minutes worth of plot (as in 'things happening'). The balance of the time was made up with bad 'art film' direction and shots of buildings.
And there was some terrible voice-over.
Did I mention pace? This film had serious pace issues. Chunks of story blurted out in voice-over, disjointed scenes, and incredibly poorly handled passage of time (you had to guess how much time had passed based on what happened several scenes later - like "Oh, it wasn't the next day when he went back, despite the seemingly continuous action. Some number of days/weeks must have passed a few scenes ago?"
so neither of you liked it then? :)
Must be a generational thing, I had to check the comments to find out if 'balls' was meant as good or bad.
Which generation doesn't use 'balls' to mean bad? Older or younger than me? It is firmly planted in my vocabulary by a Fry and Laurie sketch, talking about Charlotte Bronte:
"'Reader I married him?', absolute balls!"
I'm 19... Think the movie Bring It On, "Missy is the poo," and "Missy is the shit," or something along those lines. I thought it could be like that.
British tv has left me saying things are pants.
Oh, and please ask DC to let us know what she names the baby's star, and whether it actually gets to play with the toy calf or she keeps it for herself!
Marian.
Ah, it all makes sense now.
I think I've heard 'X kicks balls' as a positive comment before.
And 'balls to the wall action'.
It's all a confusing quagmire, but I think the comments cleared it up :)
I will report news of star-nameage and cow-playage as it comes to hand (for now, the cow lives next to an awesome Tollo dragon, and Sir Bounce A Lot, a medieval tigger toy we bought over in Japan, on a toy-themed shelf of junior's bookshelf).
Yaaay, geeky toys for a geeky baaaby.
-Marian.
Post a Comment