Tops and Flops of 2002
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 5:01pm
Post 1 of 76
So, another year of movies is over.
This is the place to list your personal and individual tops and flops of 2002...
- THE TWO TOWERS
Simply a fantastic movie
- ROAD TO PERDITION
Beautiful Cinema at it's best
- BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
A very funny and clever documentation
Sam Raimi does it again. A funny, smart and great tale of a very believable Superhero
- ICE AGE
Scrat has gained a place in my heart. Absolutely hilarious.
- JOHN Q
An intense drama that made me cry. I haven't cried since the death of scorpion in Mortal Kombat...
- STAR WARS EPISODE 2
In my opionion an absolutely stupid and plump film wich proves again: Good effects don't make good movies.
An absolutely unbelievable script with loads of logical errors and a pretty strange ending...[/b]
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 5:07pm
Post 2 of 76
sollthar i love you.
i thought i was the only to notice those stupid things in signs..
( spoiler don't read more )
they visit a planet that is covered with water, and then find out years after the first visit that it rains
i agree with your topten
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 5:16pm
Post 3 of 76
Yeah, I really thought that the construction of Signs was pretty stupid.
Imagine a very advanced alien race that can be destroyed simply by water. They travel to a planet that is 70% made of water (!) with technically advanced spaceships, but they travel without protection against all the water and can be stopped by wodden doors...
And they use HUGE and obvious markings to coordinate their landing points. Markings that everyone can see... uh... okay...
And the best thing was the television. EVERYONE knew that there are aliens. But noone did something. They were all just afraid. Noone was evacuated, the government didn't do a thing. All were just afraid... Even Independence day was more realistic in this aspect...
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 6:31pm
Post 4 of 76
you're right, but when we saw the alien for the first time on tv walking on the street, that was cool
and add "Minority Report" in the Tops movie please.
Last edited Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 6:33pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 6:32pm
Post 5 of 76
"The Two Towers" tops my list
I was never a LOTR fan, even after FOTR. But TTT has really converted me: I consider myself now well and truly "fanned"
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 9:34pm
Post 6 of 76
Yep two towers conquers all...
My opinions for what they are worth.
28 DAYS LATER
Shows what can be acheived with a Canon XL-1 and some DV tapes, good spin on the zombie genre and nice big chunks of brutality. And it's British
More top notch brutality, back to the good old days of horror slasher pics. And it's British too
REIGN OF FIRE
Mainly because it was completely different to what I was expecting. And it was set in England which kind of makes it British.
BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF
It only got to our cinemas last year, top notch period drama kung fu, wolf thing. It's not British but it is French, which is close enough.
More cheapo gore and exploitation with a proper zombie film ending.
That's all I can think of at the moment. As for flops, can't think of any, I can always find something good about a film.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 9:52pm
Post 7 of 76
Speaking of Brotherhood of the Wolf, did any of you who watched the film figure out what the creature was at the end? I know a lot of people didn't get it
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jan 2003, 10:09pm
Post 8 of 76
Erm, Gerbil if I remember right....
No sorry Hamster, they look so much like Gerbils I get them mixed up sometimes
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 6:35am
Post 9 of 76
not to start a argument here but, who said in the movie signs that the alien race was more advace ? As i recall the goverment did do something about it but they didnt show it. I remember seeing them hear on a radio or tv (sorry cant remember) that military forces have been assembled.
you know i could be wrong
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 8:34am
Post 10 of 76
otteypm wrote:Erm, Gerbil if I remember right....
No sorry Hamster, they look so much like Gerbils I get them mixed up sometimes
Hmm, you may be right! A giant, mutant Hamster... wait, no , that was 'Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps', wasn't it?
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 8:51am
Post 11 of 76
We have a Canon XM2 and if we ever make a film as bad as 28 Days Later please shot us.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 9:00am
Post 12 of 76
Don't forget Bourne Identity, that was good.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 10:37am
Post 13 of 76
AOTC: A lot better then the critics slate, but should have been more Palpatine screentime.
Resident Evil: Great gore, great Zombies, great soundtrack.
24 Hour Party People: Good to see a movie that has events I have personally lived through myself.
LOTR: I saw this on a plane so it may have some negative affect as to why I found it boring.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 10:44am
Post 14 of 76
LOTR a low point? FOTR is one of the greatest films of all time and TTT is nearly as good. I think....
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 10:56am
Post 15 of 76
- favourite film of the year.Donnie Darko
- joint favourite film of the year. Spider-Man
- jolly good fun. Captured the comic well.Dog Soldiers
- first film to scare me since I saw Aliens when I was 12 years old. Oh, and it's really funny too. Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Version
- even better than the original cut.Middling
- nice non-kiddy sci-fi.Attack of the Clones
- I enjoyed it when I saw it...Reign Of Fire
- much better than it has any right to be.Eight Legged Freaks
- funniest film of the year.The Bourne Identity
- great fun, great cities.Panic Room
- good tense little thriller.Austin Powers in Goldmember
- surprisingly entertaining considering the terrible second film.Lows
:28 Days Later
- appallingly made (in every respect) and very boring.Star Trek Nemesis
- less badly made, but even more boring.xXx
- the worst film I have ever seen, as far as my memory serves.Orange County
- horrible, horrible film.Die Another Day
- a complete malfunction of a film.
Last edited Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 12:32pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 11:01am
Post 16 of 76
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me as well.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 11:04am
Post 17 of 76
What, we agree?
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 11:18am
Post 18 of 76
Don't make me slap you
(schwar grabs his spade)
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 11:25am
Post 19 of 76
I would grab my iron, but you're not enough of a girl.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 11:29am
Post 20 of 76
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 1:58pm
Post 21 of 76
Just out of interest what is it that people hate so much about 28 Days Later?
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 2:08pm
Post 22 of 76
I disliked several things about 28 Days Later:
Appalling visual quality. If it is an example of what those kind of digital camcorders end up looking like when projected on film, then dear god is it to be avoided! Worst compression artifacts and general smudgy print I've seen for ages. I couldn't make out half the shots. Looked like a badly compressed movie in the alamdv cinema!
Cinematography. The crappy visual quality aside, the cinematography was generally muddled and inconsistent. I've never been a fan of 'wobblycam' in action sequences, and it was particularly poorly used here. And the shot of Manchester burning was just plain bad - looked more like someone had smeared red vaseline on the lens.
Terrible script. Seriously, worst script of the year that I've encountered. Pacing was totally off. Dialogue was atrocious. It kept breaking its own reality. It seemed to think that using the word 'c*nt' was a good way of telling the audience a guy was a bad dude. Sheer stupidity in some of the plotting.
Generally poor acting. The young girl was atrocious. I mean, she can't act. Not at all. The rest were OK, but nowhere near as good as they all have potential to be - Chris Eccleston I usually think is great, and the lead is superb in Disco Pigs.
It's two main crimes, however, were that of being boring and wasting a good concept.
Oh, it also seemed to be ashamed of its zombie movie heritage, and tried to insist that it was saying something Deep, Important and Profound.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 2:35pm
Post 23 of 76
Crikey, that just about overs it... I was very worried about how the film would look when projected as I had just sat through a bunch of people films projected on our screen at Uni so I, they did look terrible.
I saw it on quite a small screen, not that it makes much difference, I didn't think it looked terrible, I just though it looked rough, which I quite liked. There were never any shots that I couldn't make out.
I never got the impression that it was trying to say anything profound, it had the usual hokey sci-fi disease story and used it as an excuse to massacre some people.
The main reasons I liked it though were certain elements.
The scene at the start where the girl hacks up the guy when he is injured, that actually shocked me.
The fact that throughout the film we have been told the disease has gone worldwide then we find out the rest of the world has quarantined us, I thought that was great.
the scene at the end where we see the upside down landscape with HELL written on it made me chuckle.
I have only seen it once, and when the DVD comes out I will have to get it and watch it a few more time before I make any firm decisions. (It might look right on TV)???
I am just glad it didn't end up like Blair Witch, I'm also glad we don't agree, it would be boring if we did, now I'm going to watch my favourite film, Delta Force 2: Operation Stranglehold, yeah Chuck Norris rules!!! Only joking
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 3:25pm
Post 24 of 76
Resident Evil: Great gore, great Zombies, great soundtrack.
I forgot Resident Evil, one of the worst movies of the year! this film was bullshit
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 3:43pm
Post 25 of 76
I thought it was okay... but surely not a "top" film...
And I forgot "die another day".. I thought it was one of the best Bondmovies I've ever seen. Seeing them going new ways - Bond captured, turtured and filled with revenge - was veeeeeeery interesting to see in my opinion. Bond became almost believable in this film for the first time ever...
Noone "said" they were technologically advanced. But they have to be. They travel in space further than we do... So if they can build spaceships, I'm pretty sure they can build umbrellas or coats too
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 4:49pm
Post 26 of 76
Sollthar - Yeah the start of Bond was good, but soon after the titles it became just silly and pathetic.
This was the least realistic Bond I have ever seen, if it had remained gritty like the opening and the titles I would have loved it.
Forget stunts done by real people (like classic Bond) this was just a load of TERRIBLE CG and some of the WORST bluescreen effects ever. The surfing bit at the end was worse than the snowboarding in xXx. The oneliners were rubbish as was the script in general.
A bad story, a bad film.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 4:52pm
Post 27 of 76
Big Trouble (most enjoyable film all year)
Road to Perdition
Catch me if you can
Attack of the Clones
Master of Disguise (eewwww)
Truth About Charlie (a little haunting aswell)
Die another day
Gangs of New York
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 5:16pm
Post 28 of 76
Right. They could have done more with the Intro. but still I kinda liked it. I expected storyless action and a cool score by David Arnold. That was what I got, maybe thats why I wasn't disappointed...
I didn't think the effects were "terrible". Ive seen worse.
Oh yes. Minoritiy Report. That filmw as okay. If the story wouldn't have suffered of logical errors and if spielberg wouldn't have put that silly happyend out of nowhere it would have been a topfilm... But now it's just average.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 5:23pm
Post 29 of 76
It wasn't a silly happy ending it was the whole point of the film! Whether you can really change your future if you know it.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 5:23pm
Post 30 of 76
Well, here go my picks.
Kissing Jessica Stein (funny, touching, brilliant)
Donnie Darko (best film of the year, even if it is technically from 2001)
The Two Towers (another great installment in the trilogy, someone give Sean Astin an Oscar)
Eight Legged Freaks (brilliant, funny, spiders)
The Bourne Identity (Franka Potente you rule, and Europe looks stunning)
Goldmember (funny, like the first one)
Panic Room (not quite Fight Club, but you get Jodie Foster)
Reign of Fire (surprising, I hate these films usually)
Star Trek: Nemesis (how far can Trek fall?)
Road to Perdition (Tom Hanks, please make a decent film, bad Sam Mendes)
Sum of All Fears (Ben Affleck, return to comedy and drama)
Dog Soldiers (meh, didn't do much for me)
Orange County (moralistic teen trash)
28 Days Later (madly made crap)
Die Another Day (Bond, die or get replaced)
Attack of the Clones (Luke, Han, please come back)
xXx (piss off Vin Diesel, you're banned)
There's loads I've forgotten, but eh, who cares?
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 5:42pm
Post 31 of 76
Forgot one really, really, REALLY bad movie:
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever
embarassing for everyone involved, including bandares (sp)
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 5:54pm
Post 32 of 76
Has anyone else noticed that Banderas is only good in Robert Rodriguez films?? Desperado, SK1, SK2, The New Desperado (which is gonna kick @$$) and SK3 which will attract the kids.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 5:59pm
Post 33 of 76
Well i'm glad at least one of you feel the same about the new bond. True the effects wornt the best but the opening was the best i've seen in a long time, well expect mabye TTT.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 6:04pm
Post 34 of 76
Two Towers has perhaps the best opening I've ever seen to a film.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 6:16pm
Post 35 of 76
Its great for the film but not the best start ever - there are loads of films with better starts in my eyes.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 6:25pm
Post 36 of 76
Don't make me hurt you.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 7:03pm
Post 37 of 76
The opening in TTT was a very good idea and fit perfectly for the story and how it was being told, but i would never say it was the best.
Bond for instance, had better credits. The ones in Panic Room were very interesting, and i personally love the opening credits in Antitrust. Those are my favorite and in my opinion, best executed. I actually had a topic on opening credits a while ago.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 7:11pm
Post 38 of 76
The story of minority report doesn't work... That's my point.
How do you plan that the Precogs see a murder that wouldn't happen if they wouldn't foresee it? Simple logic.
Anderton runs away BECAUSE the precogs foresee the murder he will only be able to do BECAUSE he escapes. So the whole plan is logically impossible.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 7:21pm
Post 39 of 76
I'd say definetly The Two Towers is up there, it barely squeaks into the 2002 list with it's December 18 release, helping us to forget the other good movies that came before it in 2002.
Some other movies that I thought were good:
A very weird plot and storyline but very complex and interesting nonetheless. Gore Verbinski did a good job directing in this I thought. He may be a creepy movie director, but I really like his style, and while this movie was pretty good as far as eerieness goes, I think there is more to come from Verbinski.
THE BOURNE IDENTITY
It was very complex and at times the storyline seemed far ahead of the action in the movie, but I thought it was a very good movie and had a lot of good locations and stunts. Was a little bit unrealistic, but was still very good.
ROAD TO PERDITION
As Sollthar mentioned earlier, a marvelous piece of cinema work. Really liked seeing Tom Hanks play this role.
I agree mostly with all of you about the other films, most of the ones mentioned above I agree with either being a top or flop, but just wanted to reiterate the ones I thought weren't given quite enough credit.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 7:36pm
Post 40 of 76
Its only logically impossible because you make assumptions. Its these assumptions that the movie explores and makes you think about.
There are lots about paradox's which is the same old thing.
The most important question is
Can circumstances cause us to act in a way we would never think possible?
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 7:48pm
Post 41 of 76
We Were Soldiers
AOTC (Great action, but where's the humor and joy?)
Windtalkers (too cliche)
Goldmember (all downhill after the great opening sequence)
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 7:56pm
Post 42 of 76
Yeah, i got that...
but the point is... Anderton just came to the chance of killing this man because of the fact that the precogs have foreseen the murder. Wich cannot be planned by Burgess.
Still I thought the movie was pretty entertaining and well done as well as the moral and philosophical questions kept me thinking. But I think too that spielberg could have done much more with that... Especially after the cheesy "and now they live happily ever after"-shot...
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 8:13pm
Post 43 of 76
TARN !!! You did'nt like Orange County ? OK.. well.. i've yet to see it but I went there twice last Summer and i'm returning again next week.. to celebrate another Christmas day
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 8:34pm
Post 44 of 76
Sollthar wrote:but the point is... Anderton just came to the chance of killing this man because of the fact that the precogs have foreseen the murder. Wich cannot be planned by Burgess.
Ah but we don't know what would have happened if the precogs hadn't have seen it. Maybe burgess was gonna tip him off originally.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 8:57pm
Post 45 of 76
Hmm... Yes, given.
But with the character of Anderton and the way the whole scenery is done this is more than just unlikeley.
But given, could be possible. Allthough thats not what the movie tells us.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 9:16pm
Post 46 of 76
The whole point of the precogs seeing the murder was because Burgess found out that Anderton had a suspision about Ann Lively. Burgess needs to cover that up at all costs, for many reasons, which evidentally include the "framing" (though u can't really call it that) of his best man, Anderton.
There are some parts that are a bit odd, and unlikely, but this isn't one of them.
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jan 2003, 10:14pm
Post 47 of 76
Well yes obviously, but how did he prompt the precogs to see the crime?
Otherwise its just self fullfilling which wouldn't be part of the cover up and it wouldn't make any sense.
I am suggesting that he intended to tip him off somehow but then didn't need to cos of the precogs seeing it.
Posted: Sat, 4th Jan 2003, 2:17am
Post 48 of 76
didn't "unbreakable" teach us anything? this guy has crap stories.
i think "the sixth sense" was a fluke.
man! unbreakable should have been called "unbearable".
Posted: Sat, 4th Jan 2003, 2:24am
Post 49 of 76
I though Unbreakable was fantastic. One of the few good comic book films.
Best comic book films, in a rough order:
Signs, on the other hand, I thought was pretty poor.
Posted: Sat, 4th Jan 2003, 3:38am
Post 50 of 76
unbreakable is amazing. Everytime i see it, i love it even more.
Signs was a good film overall, very suspenseful and i found it entertaining. Isn't that the point of a film, to be entertaining?
Posted: Sat, 4th Jan 2003, 4:31am
Post 51 of 76
Sure, but it is different what entertains us.
I for myself couldn't be entertained by the stupid story that signs had. Other people didn't really care. On the other hand, I was very entertained by Mortal Kombat for example, and others thought it was too stupid (and they're right)
Posted: Sat, 4th Jan 2003, 10:47am
Post 52 of 76
I love Mortal Kombat, I also love the sequel, they actually filmed part of the sequel 50 miles from where I live, the girls in the mud pit fight, which strangely enough is my favourite part of the film
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 3:38pm
Post 53 of 76
schwar wrote:We have a Canon XM2 and if we ever make a film as bad as 28 Days Later please shot us.
just want to comment on this comment!
You a nut! This film was a stroke of genius! And only certain portions of the film were made with an XL1, and 14,000,000 quid isn't really what id mark as a low budget flick!
There isn't anything bad about the way this film is made. Danny Boyle is one of britains best at bringing gritty realism to his films and it works a treat in this one. And i dont know if it was something about the cinema, but the quality of the film was perfect as far as i could tell...
Terrible script tarn? Its a brilliant script, a little cheesy at times but remember you are watching a Zombie flick which aren't renound for their classy scripts, and as far as i can remember this is without a doubt the best Zombie films script ive ever heard! Alex Garland isn't exactly a bad writer!
The shot of manchester burning is the only shot i'd agree with, it did look a bit pissy.
Is tarn english... if he is then he should get out more and realise that the word c*nt is one of the best words to possibly use under extreme circumstances...
This isn't a Deep, Important and Profound film either, its a simple film about human integrity as well as funny Zombies running around...
Your idea of the way they should act follows cliches and stereotypes from previous films. The whole point of this film is to attempt to challenge a genre, and i don't think i am alone when i say it is very successful. It hybrids Sci-fi and Horror which granted has been done before but at the same time injects the genre traits of a road movie.
anyway - have you ever been involved in an apocalypse? The beauty of this film is no-one can condemn the reations to the situation because we have no idea how we would react.
Anyway thats enough from me!
Last edited Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 4:03pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 4:03pm
Post 54 of 76
Firstly, I'm not a nut.
Secondly, I think you'll find this film isn't a "stroke of genius" and that, in fact, Danny Boyle was stroking something else when he should have been sorting this god-awful film.
Did you read any of the interviews with Danny Boyle where he said it wasn't a simple zombie flick?
If you look at the film as a fairly boring Zombie film which was very badly made (for 14million he could have used HD) then I can see why some people would like it. But this was meant to be a new look at horror - an insight into one of the possible futures of humanity, both profound and disturbing. It failed.
The script was full of confusion and bad dialogue, and the movie was full of bad acting. Most of the film (apart from the end) was done on DV cameras of one kind or another and it really shows. The film is just bad, I can't think of one good thing about it.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 4:18pm
Post 55 of 76
Dont make me get out my cane and thwap you one.
some good things: (I snatched these from empire because i couldn't be bothered to write them down and i agree with their review)
1. Depopulated London, stunningly achieved by snatched digi-cam shots of empty streets and abandoned landmarks, is a resonant location. It strikes chords with anyone who has ever wondered what the place would be like without people, and is embedded deep in the psyche by everything from H.G. Wells’ War Of The Worlds to Daleks: Invasion Earth 2150 AD.
2. An American film on this theme would start with the survivors gathering guns and using them as if they’d been fighting wars all their lives; here, even the toughest character — hardboiled chemist Selena — isn’t that skilled at fending off zombies.
3. Survivalism is better represented by a tower block rooftop covered with a pathetic array of bright plastic buckets, basins and bins to catch rain that hasn’t fallen. It proves that, even after the apocalypse, the weather will still be a national obsession and the scene sets up an unforgettable sudden thunderstorm to accompany the fast, gut-punch, brutal third act.
4. The power of the film is not that it hasn’t been done before, but that it hasn’t been done recently. Since the early 1970s, British movies have narrowed their focus to the problems of small groups of people, gnawing over microcosm genres like the gangster heist or romantic comedy.
5. Here, we look at a bigger picture, intensifying the situation for a typically Boyle-like knot of antagonistic, uncomfortable characters. Headlines about Tony Blair and talk about The Simpsons insist that this future is just a step away, but forget the rave scene that might theoretically embrace such anarchy — here, the whole of Manchester is on fire and the only use for mood-altering drugs is to numb the mind to literally unbearable realities.
6. This may be a stylistic break with previous Boyle movies, but it has a similar structure (he likes games of two halves, with a collection of anecdotes setting up a more concentrated narrative). It even falls back on the essay topics of The Beach, as alternative society turns out to be flawed by reliance on brutality and vulnerable to sudden shark/zombie attacks.
7. Shot with Dogme-like camcorder veracity by Anthony Dod Mantle, the film has space for lyricism as the survivors briefly make it as happy campers in green, damp countryside. But it also pulls daring tricks with speeded-up motion and blobby bloodbursts to make the horror sequences genuinely jarring in a manner that marks a break with the more traditional effects style of, say, Dog Soldiers.
8. There is also room for the subtle, character-based chill: the scariest line is Eccleston’s whispered, “Slow down,” a pregnant phrase overheard just as we realise how bad things really are.
9. If you look for flaws, they’re there. Any film as rough-edged as this flirts with seeming amateurish. But the powerful, broad-strokes performances recall an observation made of 1959 nuclear war movie, On The Beach: that it’s impossible to judge the acting since what constitutes appropriate behaviour in this situation is anybody’s guess.
Summary: The best purely British horror/science-fiction film in decades. And the first great apocalypse movie of the new millennium.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 4:35pm
Post 56 of 76
I watched Minority Report and it went like this:
The girl was talking to Cruise and suddenly screams "RUUUNNNNN!!!!!!'
Cruise turns around and the cops are there.
My brother mumbles "Some great pyscic! She couldn't give him more than .5 seconds warning?"
I laughed so hard I was glad we were watching at home and not at the cinema.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 4:37pm
Post 57 of 76
you're right X, Minority Report is a amazing film!
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 4:41pm
Post 58 of 76
The whole film was shot on DV, except for the very end, which shifted to film.
This suggests that the choice to use DV was more an aesthetic one than a budgetary one (backed up by the absurdly huge £14 mill budget you mentioned). Personally I've never seen such an ugly film. I don't tend to appreciate cinematography that gives me headache ten minutes in.
Cinematography does not have to be unpleasant to watch to be gritty and ugly. Check out Minority Report for example. In fact, no, check out Trainspotting - a demonstration of Boyle's skills, all of which seemed absent from 28 Days Later. We saw it on a large, high quality screen at one of the top cinemas in the UK. The picture was what I can only describe as being 'smudged'. As if vaseline had been smeared over the reels. Essentially, it looked like what a badly encoded divx movie might look like, after someone had applied some kind of smoothing filter to try and cover up the digital artifacts.
People talk about 28DL as having 'gritty realism'. For a start, 'gritty realism' is a horribly overused and overrated term. Secondly, nothing is realistic about 28DL. Character developments made no sense, neither did plot developments. Which leads me into the script.
The best zombie film script you've ever encountered? Dear god. Have you not seen Braindead (aka Dead Alive)?? Now there's an intelligent script. Witty, exciting, horrific, all in equal measures. And it has more emotion in 10 minutes than 28DL had in its whole running time.
This film constantly tried to cover up its zombie roots, as if it were ashamed of them. In fact, Danny Boyle has stated that 28DL "is not a zombie film". This is the only writing by Alex Garland I have encountered but, based on this one occurrence, I do not wish to experience anymore. It truly was a script of the kind that can only be rivalled by such Hollywood heavyweights as Akiva Goldsman.
I'm not arguing that the word 'c*nt' isn't an extremely effective word. I'm just saying that it is incredibly lazy writing to use it to establish that a character is Pure Evil. It's clumsy. He was the only character that used the word, and he used it repeatedly in incongruous ways. Clumsy, clumsy, clumsy.
There's nothing I love more than funny zombies. But by taking itself so damned seriously, 28DL removed the humour and just made them stupid. They were a laughing stock. It was embarassing to watch.
Nobody is saying it should follow cliches/stereotypes from previous films. That's the last thing I want to see (I'd go watch xXx again if I wanted that).
But saying that 28DL is a challenging new entry to the genre? Don't make me laugh. I can only presume that people who think 28DL is doing something new and daring have never seen any other films. It's a hack movie. It stinks throughout as being a bad student effort. In fact, I've seen student films with more originality and technical competence than 28DL.
As for the usual excuse "nobody can say this is unrealistic, because nobody has been attacked by zombies". Please. We don't have to have been in a concentration camp to understand and empathise with Schindler's List. We don't have to have been as secret agent to enjoy The Bourne Identity. We don't need to have full astronaut training to watch Star Wars. We don't have to command an army and accept our destiny as King of Men to watch Lord of the Rings.
True, it may be impossible to predict how you would react in such situations. But you certainly know how you would not react. The lead character in 28DL is told repeatedly for the first half of the movie "don't go anywhere alone". This is hammered into him repeatedly, finalised with a strong full stop when the woman hacks her partner up (actually an effective scene, as I recall). Later on, he wanders into a deserted gas station. By himself. Alone. Even though he until then had been terrified of doing such a thing. And, to add insult to stupidity, he even tells her of his intentions before wandering off, and she nods and goes "yeah, ok".
It's just plain bad writing.
When you couple bad writing with bad acting, it gets even worse.
The lead actor just about escaped from the film, but it's such a shame he was involved, after his superb and very memorable performance in Disco Pigs. Brendon Gleeson was actually pretty good. Christopher Eccleston, always a favourite of mine, was totally wasted. As for the women...well...the less said about them the better, really.
Would you like me to go on?
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 4:50pm
Post 59 of 76
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 5:02pm
Post 60 of 76
I've said it before and I will say it again. "Darn it but don't that Tarn guy write pretty!"
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 5:05pm
Post 61 of 76
Well, they sure don't pay me for my good looks or my choice of hair styles.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 5:25pm
Post 62 of 76
There are some interesting view points there that you've decided to take... though i personally think they are a load of bollocks...
ive gotta go home now and i can't be bothered to argue this, but obviously youve got your mind made up as have i that this is close to the best film of the year as many many other people would agree... I don't know what screen you saw this flick on that was one of the best screens in the country, you sound like a very priveledged person. Its a shame how one of the best screens in the country sounds as though it is inferior to the screen i saw it in since the picture quality was damned near perfect when i saw it. Just as a note as well, if you ever get a chance to read the full review of this film in Sight and Sound magazine you'd know that the sections involving Zombies perspective, certain POV shots and atmospheric shots where filmed in DV...
Since you would know how to react in the event of an apocolyse ill leave you to it, as those soldiers in Vietnam who happened to break down in a hopeless despare of rape, drug abuse, murder and violence obviously knew how they would react if all hope is lost.
Anyway enjoy being negative
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 5:35pm
Post 63 of 76
Last edited Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 5:36pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 5:36pm
Post 64 of 76
I know lots of people liked the movie but I don't know anyone that would say it was one of the best of the year. I also don't know anyone that didn't think of it as a funny old style zombie film which it wasn't meant to be.
Every review I read said it looked blurry and out of focus which is what generally happens to PAL Progressive DV when projected at over 12 feet - I went to see it so we could tell how well our XM2 would perform projected large. You really have to move to 720p to project even on small cinema screens (12-20 feet diagonal) and on large screens nothing less than 1080p will look ok, even then on none digital systems 1080p can look inferior to film.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 6:07pm
Post 65 of 76
Wow, its like a war in here.
*decides NOT to air his opinion*
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 6:12pm
Post 66 of 76
Hey, all it is are our opinions. Don't be scared.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 6:36pm
Post 67 of 76
schwar wrote:I know lots of people liked the movie but I don't know anyone that would say it was one of the best of the year.
Just like two towers...
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 6:41pm
Post 68 of 76
Tarn wrote:Hey, all it is are our opinions. Don't be scared.
My opinion was that Labyrinth is a fantastic film and so is Dark Crystal.
Films like that rule. I would much prefer to go and see something which is pure beautiful and Henson'd then a terrible film (my opinion) like 28 Days Later.
I wish I had gone and seen it 28 days later, and then 28 days later... forever.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 6:44pm
Post 69 of 76
I know this was released ages ago in america but we Brits only got Donnie Darko in 2002. I must say that this film amazed me. The plot was surreal yet touching, camerawork was amazing and the acting superb. The visual effects were quite brilliant. But then I tend to like those sort of films (being john malkovich, for example).
Also good : Bowling for Columbine, Lassiez Passer, Spiderman and Talk To Her
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 8:11pm
Post 70 of 76
Yep, no need to be scared we is all friends in here.
I only asked the original question as my filmgoer friends and I enjoyed the film and I wondered why other people did not.
The fact that they didn't like it doesn't bother me at all, infact I prefer it when there is a bit of disagreement. I don't think 28DL did anything new, and I don't think it said anything profound, I just enjoyed watching it...
I have to say my biggest dissapointment of the year was Time Machine, I had re-read the book just before I heard they were doing the film and I got really excited. Unfortunately they have changed just about everything that made the story good.
It was so distressing to see such a poor film that I must have blocked it out of my memory until now. But the moon collapsing was quite good, but that was all.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 8:57pm
Post 71 of 76
Having never read the book, I enjoyed The Time Machine emensly! (sp)
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 9:00pm
Post 72 of 76
Ohw yeah... The Time machine... forgot that one...
Cool effects and a great score... But I thought the movie itself was rather boring. Liked the beginning, where he tries to save her life all the time... but later it got pretty confusing...
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 9:32pm
Post 73 of 76
It wasn't boring or confusing at all for me. If there is one thing I can complain about in the movie was that it was actually TOO SHORT.
Yup, Time Machine does have a great score, and the bit where he is going even further into the future (all the ice etc) is one of the few moments in cinema that i found to be "magical" (as there is a related discussion in a differernt topic here)
I think Orlando Jones was perfect, Guy Pearce was great, and overall, I was entertained throughout.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 9:39pm
Post 74 of 76
Yeah the end was just daft although I liked the moon bit and the computerised librarian and stuff. Oh and also the fact he couldn't save the girl at the start, that was a nice look at time travel and paradoxes and things.
Al that said, I much prefer the old version with that guy who looks like Robin Williams. Not so pretty but a better story.
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 9:46pm
Post 75 of 76
i agree.. The film was too short... maybe it was because of that... A little more length would have helped the film a lot I think...
Yeah! That scene was fantastic! I loved it too!
Posted: Mon, 6th Jan 2003, 10:33pm
Post 76 of 76
It was all wrong.
They turned it into a simple action chase type film, the hero saves the day. The pretty future girl loves him, he teaches the future people to be just like him.
In the book the Eloi can't even feed themselves, let alone build cities on cliffs. They get eaten by the Morlocks and they deserve it because they are the priviliged upper classes, evolved into weak and ignorant creatures who are simply farm animals. It was too clumsy, instead of being clever and having the characters communicate with signs and expresions they called English the 'old language' horrible nastiness...
The setting in the book was huge ruined cities, with vast libries of knowledge that had been abandoned by both races. The film makers turned this into a comedy sequence. And then they go and refer to the book within the film
I just hope they never get their hands on War Of The Worlds. They'll probably give the hero a thwacking great vintage brass machine gun, and get him shouting catchphrases like. GET YOUR DAMN, DIRTY, TRIPOD OFF MY HOUSE....or at the end YOU'VE BEEN GERMINATED...