In Honey I shrunk the Kids, the expanation for how the shrinking machine works is it simply reduces the space between existing atoms resulting in shrinkage.
My friend and I in the front row of the theatre both realized at the same time that this might decreace the volume, but not the weight of anything shrunk.
When the kids were shrunk to the size of boogers, we anxiously awaited for them to plunge through the floor since they now exacted 100+ pounds on such a small aria.
The Roger Rabbit short preceding the feature was more intellegent.
I’d agree with Double Jeopardy, but don’t they say at some point in the movie that Ashley Judd’s character (or at least, the fellow convict who tips her off) is incorrect? I’ve never seen it, just because the premise is so stupid, but I remember hearing or reading that they do at least acknowledge that the premise is bogus.
THe most memorable one in a movie I’ve actually seen is in Die Hard 2, where Bruce Willis guides a jumbo jet in for landing during a low-visibility snowstorm using oily rags he’s set on fire. Volcano was another bad one, although the insignicficant action movie “plot” wasn’t as big a deal as that lame “Everyone looks the same!” ending.
Lets get a bunch of old farts and send 'em up to space.
Better yet, lets strap Tommy Lee Jones to booster and send him to the moon. As improbable as that is, he somehow survives impact of god-only-knows how many thousands of miles per hour, and is in the last scene laying down admiring the view.
A.I. I really wanted to like that movie, but it lost me during the expositional prologue when it’s explained that the robots don’t create any waste or use any natural resources beyond what it took to build them. So what do they use for fuel? How do they keep running? It’s never explained.
Then there’s the spinach eating episode. Wasn’t it short sighted of the designers to not make a bag or canister for stuff to go into in case something is accidentally ingested? Why would the robot even need an esogphagus? Shouldn’t the throat just be closed off to prevent mishaps like that?
And if the robot’s system isn’t spinach-tight, then how can it be water-tight? Wouldn’t chlorinated pool water have had an effect on his system?
That’s before we even get into all the blue-fairy nonsense.
I liked the teddy bear, though. Forget the robot kid, I’d have settled for the teddy that could walk and talk and call me mommy.
Might I suggest Murder at 1600? W. Snipes and D. Lane were really good - I mean that – but an unguarded/easy to open access tunnel that leads into the White House?
“Gramps will create a diversion whiole we jump over the White House fence” would be a more believable plot device.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie and I’m not about to rent it again for fact checking, but is it ever established that he didn’t die on impact and symbolically wind up with his space suit facing Earth? I can’t remember any shots of his face in that scene…
I don’t think that was extraordinarily implausible since
it didn’t work. The pilots didn’t see him in time and the plane crashed.
It’s silly that he was standing in the middle of the runway and wasn’t killed, but action heroes ALWAYS survive explosions by running away and diving to the ground (or, better yet, into water).
The Atlantic ocean is nice and warm when it flows into the sinking vessel, and it doesn’t matter how long you’re submerged/wading through it. That whole hypothermia thing only becomes an issue when you’re in the water outside the ship. Of course.
Dead Calm with Nicole Kidman and Sam Neil. Sweet jesus, what a stupid movie. Again with the ridiculous amount of time spent trapped in a sinking vessel… Completely submerged and breathing through an improvised 15ft snorkel? That’s not what was insulting, though. It was the ending:Okay, even if you accept the unexplained survival of the baddy, who apparently resurfaces days (weeks?!) after he was supposedly speargunned, poisoned, and knocked overboard, when the Mr. and Mrs. are seemingly quite over the trauma of rape/brutal physical assault, near death from exposure, all that, and are swimming happily and about to enjoy a haute cuisine breakfast. Psycho shows up again and begins strangling the Mrs-- Hubby sees what is happening and shoots a flaregun across the deck, through a canvas sail, and into the bad guys mouth, where it explodes with enough force to knock him overboard. It could have been a decent movie. I liked the premise. A nautical Michael Myers didn’t help, and a flaregun that’s half rifle and half RPG in the last 30 seconds of the movie left me feeling angry.Crap!
I think we had a whole thread on this one movie a year or so ago.
Why didn’t the planes land at another airport. There is many more than one airport in the DC area.
All the radios on the ground were out. How about the radios in the planes parked at the gates?
Planes’ altimeters don’t work that way.
Starship Troopers. Oh, stop whining. You knew it was going to happen sooner or later.
The short list (things that really bug me, pun intended):
If it takes 5 or 6 people to kill one bug and you’re outnumbered by 100-1 get better guns! Even the idiots who ran WW1 weren’t stupid enough to arm their soldiers with air rifles.
Why isn’t there the kind of memorial service they had for Dizzy for every one of the 500,000 odd people that die over the course of the film? Could it be that if you spent that much time over everyone that died you’d spend all your time mourning and no time fighting? Then what did Dizzy do that was so special she deserved her own little service other than be the hero’s unrequited love for 3/4 of the movie?
She did that topless shower scene towards the beginning of the movie.
Speaking of Dina Meyer, I thought of another movie that insulted my intelligence: Star Trek: Nemesis.
Okay, sure, you’re trying to end the series, which means killing off one or more characters and/or blowing up the Enterprise. But when you telegraph Data’s death so far in advance, down to CONVENIENTLY PRESENTING A FULL BACK-UP OF THE CHARACTER, that’s just insulting. And half-assed.
OK, I just saw this movie again last night, so it’s fresh in my mind. A portion of the Mel Gibson version of Maverick left me puzzled. You know the scenes where he visits Graham Greene, his Native American buddy? And how Greene talks Maverick (Gibson) into “faking” being hunted down by a bored and idle visiting Russian hunter (for a fee, of course)?
Well, the Indian camp where they are staying was located in Yosemite Valley. I mean, they make sure that you notice the very recognizable landmarks, so it’s obviously in Yosemite. (And it’s gorgeous photography, by the way.) When they arrange for the Russian hunter to hunt and “kill” Gibson, they travel all the way up to Glacier Point to do it!
What is this about? It takes about an hour or so to travel from Yosemite Valley to Glacier Point going about 35 - 40 MPH on a paved road. How long would it take in (whatever year Maverick takes place) when there were no paved roads and no cars? At least a day? More? Why not set up this “hunting” party in the Valley? It makes no sense, and even though I love seeing the beautiful scenery from Glacier Point behind Gibson as the Russian guy tries to blow him to kingdom come, I can’t help but wonder why did they go to Glacier Point? I seriously think that the filmmakers wanted to fool us into thinking that this hunt took place the same day, but anyone who has a passing familiarity with Yosemite will know how far the Valley and Glacier Point are from each other.
Ishtar - I know, I know, before most of your times…but in this film the audience is supposed to believe that Dustin Hoffman is the babe magnet and Warren Beatty is the nerdy comic foil.
It was like trying to imagine Martin and Lewis or Hope and Crosby trading roles, somethings are just too impossible to be believed.
You know, TV, I was wondering if they stole that plot device from White Christmas, where we are told to believe that Danny Kaye is a ladies man trying to fix up an unassuming Bing Crosby. Not that Crosby is the sexiest thing to hit the first half of the last century or anything, but… Danny Kaye?
My first 57 thoughts on seeing the headline were ‘The Core.’ It’s not that the plot is especially implausible, it’s the way they say ‘The Core of the Earth has stopped spinning!’
Shade, I discussed this with AudreyK (roomie, for those keeping track at home), and I have several issues with the premise behind The Core.
It’s not that the core has stopped spinning (or that it was spinning in the first place). That, I can live with. The earth will split in half or something, right?
No.
The spinning of the core protects us from cosmic radiation! What the logic is behind this (yeah, I know) is beyond me.
But, fine, a non-spinning core will leave us open to being barbecued - I can almost accept this.
But, no. The cosmic radiation will cause massive kinetic-energy-lightning storms that can/will destroy monuments and other buildings. How the hell that works is beyond me.
The Core makes Fear-dot-com look like frickin’ Shakespeare.
That movie came out when I was in elementary school – I remember finding their explanation for the shrinking procedure an insult to my intelligence even then. I don’t know why they felt they had to explain the procedure at all. They could have just left that line out and had it be a mystery.