|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I'll save you the $3.00 - don't bother. It's a painful waste of time. Sort of like the Avengers meets the remake of Rollerball. Impossible to tell what's going on, since there's almost no plot and no rationale for anything. And my biggest pet peeve - poorly filmed action. There were about 6 climactic fight scenes - mostly involving random evil masterminds that the audience has never seen before. I kept thinking "wait, who is that guy? how could this movie possibly hinge on the outcome of this fight if we've never seen him before?" The best was the fight scene between TWO invisible men. I was rooting for the one on the right, I think.Anyways, I thought I would do my good deed of the day by warning you kind folks to spend your $$ elsewhere.
==========
Follow Ups:
Typical Sci-Fi action, special effects junk. What did you expect?I agree that it was disjoined and ended badly, but it was far better than 'Lost in Translation'. That got completely lost.
But it wasn't typical - it was incredibly bad with serious story problems. I was expecting something along the lines of X-Men meets Indiana Jones.I still haven't figured out why Sean Connery's character was there in the first place.
Roger Ebert (who gave it a rating of one star): "Just when it seems about to become a real corker of an adventure movie, [the movie] plunges into incomprehensible action, idiotic dialogue, inexplicable motivations, causes without effects, effects without causes, and general lunacy."
==========
A co-worker of mine was brought on towards the end as an additional editor. He said they basically put out an unfinished movie because they ran out of time and money. He said that many of the FX put in were no where near what would normally be their finished form and that story wise, they just never got it together.My question was/is, why bother?
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
was a very poetic movie, warm and amusing, about loneliness in a foreign culture. At the time, I enjoyed it, but was not impressed - then it got under my skin for a the next few days and resonated. But, I don't think it's nuances translate well to the small screen (DVD) - you had to see it at a theater. On the other hand, "Gentlemen's" only redeeming quality was Sean Conery. Uh oh, is this going to be moved to Critics Corner now?
Regards,
Mike
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: