Take it up with IMDB plot summaries, and ever reviewer ever to write a review about the movie.
Or, check your glasses.
I like Will Smith. His movies suck!
Independence Day -So many things about this movie irked me. People raved about it so I went with high expectations. Fireball in the tunnel and the girlfriend’s hair weave isn’t even singed. Burnt out car that just happens to start for her. Aliens have mind control power but Will’s character can walk up to a spaceship and throw a knock out punch, and drag him home.
Wild Wild West - It was just so wrong. The TV show was my highlight of the week as a kid. How dare they?
**I, Robot ** - I’m a fan of Asimov - 'nuff said.
I walked out on that Pierce Brosnan disaster movie, “Volcano” or something to that effect…whatever.
So you haven’t seen the movie? Didn’t think so.
What you missed was the reason for the stunt. He had a much greater point to make than “fast food makes you fat.”
That movie’s first scene pissed me off. It’s set a few decades in the future and Will Smith opens a package he’s ordered to reveal a pair of vintage (i.e. 2004) Converse running shoes. That was the most jaw dropping blatant sickening ridiculous ‘should be ashamed of themselves and forced to do community service and get some lashes’ product placement I’d ever seen. Even by Hollywood standards that was just— I like Will Smith, but why he didn’t throw a primadonna fit and refuse to do that scene I don’t know. Brando, Penn and the other “difficult” actors would have, and for once I’d have been on their side.
What, you missed the part earlier, where I explicitly said I hadn’t seen the film? And gee, seems like other folks who’ve seen the movie agree with the assessment…
And I don’t care if his reason was to prepare the Earth for the second-friggin-coming. The premise is really, abysmally dumb.
That’s not the premise.
Technically, that’s true. The premise is “Fast food companies are evil because they sell a good-tasting product that, if you EAT NOTHING ELSE FOR THIRTY DAYS, will do deletrious things to your health. This decline is especially pronounced if you are already far more fit than the average schmoe (as the director obviously was).”
To be fair, your 12-second synopsis is indeed in the film; it takes up about . . . 12 seconds of it. There’s a WHOLE lot more going on.
I’m sure you’re pretty smart, CandidGamera, but I’m not necessarily so sure that you’re the very smartest person evar. The fact that Supersize Me was so hugely popular across such a wide variety of demographics and had a such an impact on the real world would suggest that, if your assumptions–without having seen the movie–were 100% correct, then NO ONE ELSE FIGURED THAT OUT. How likely is that?
Well, I tried to watch the movie, knowing the premise, and it was such a crappy documentary built upon such a flimsy premise that I turned it off less than halfway through. Some people like low hanging fruit and like to see big corps excoriated. That’s all I got out of it. Maybe he went in another direction later, but IMNSHO it wasn’t worth the wait.
L!
I think he means the mistitled Britney Spears thing.
Tho I’m sure that also involved a soul sold to Satan.
If that movie took itself seriously, I’d agree with you. But it was so over the top, I just can’t get pissed off. I guess I was just in the mood for something that stupid. Any excuse to see the Statue of Liberty with giant icicles on her is justification enough for me.
Not enough said. What great dishonor did the movie do to Asimov’s sacred memory? I thought the movie rocked.
I admit, perhaps I missed something. Care to illuminate me?
Wrong. The movie never says that and that’s a gross oversimplification of what the movie was about. For one thing, the McDonald’s stunt was only one part of the movie. The entire movie was a much broader documentary about Americans’ increasing reliance on processed and prepared foods, on predatory corporate targeting of children and encroachment on schools and on Americans’ own lack of responsibility and education on these things. The McDonald’s stunt was a symbolic way to illustrate what happens if you stop taking responsibility for yourself and trust the prepared food industry to take care of you. His point was that these kinds of foods are not intended or designed to be nutritious but are scientifically engineered to taste good, be addictive and keep people buying more.
Another point that often gets dismissed in a lot of knee-jerk, simplistic critiques like yours is that part of the stunt was that Spurlock would not permit himself to exercise more than the “average American” (which was very little). You also missed the point that Spurlock DID show a guy who had been eating nothing but Big Macs for years and was skinny as a rail (he doesn’t eat the fries).
The message of the movie is not “McDonald’s is evil” (which everybody already knows) but “Take responsibility.” Don’t trust the food industry to take care of you because they don’t CARE about you (this is particularly insidious when it comes to the way the industry markets garbage to children). If you consume McDonald’s the way McDonald’s would like you to, you will become sick and unhealthy and fat.
This is a movie about an entire industry, not just McD’s and not even just fast food. McD’s was just chosen as a recognizable symbol.
Yeah. You just took what I said, added 100 words, and ended up saying the same thing.
Appreciate the “clarification”. Really.
What’s the entire point of Asimov’s robot stores? The overriding theme? That robots aren’t inherently good or bad but, like toasters and fridges are tools to be used by the people that make and own them. He started writing them as a direct response to robots always turning evil in science fiction.
What was the movie about? Evil robots. Which isn’t surprising really when it’s actually an original screenplay originally called Hardwired with smatterings of Asimov’s characters and themes smeared across the top as Fox had aquired the rights to his work.
Actually, the premise is “America is the fattest country on the planet. Why?” And he used his stunt as one of his ways of exploring this, though contrary to what the ads might suggest it’s not the only focus of the movie.
I agree completely on Dick Clark. I though Moore’s cameo on Arrested Development to harass Lucille accomplished just as much as this stunt. Big, useless gesture.
While I’m not particularly upset of his treatment of Heston (if Moore asks to interview me, something tells me it’s not gonna be sunshine and lollipops), leaving the picture of the dead girl was an absolutely moronic ploy to tug at the heartstrings. Big, useless gesture.
If you’re trying to make a point, and you attempt to do so by making emotional but intellectually empty gestures and half-truths, it destroys the credibility of the point itself.
I’d keep going, but this is CS.
This I’ll disagree with. I was plenty familiar with SP by the time I saw BfC, and it never crossed my mind that Parker & Stone did that cartoon. (And after reading subsequent interviews with P&S, both regarding this and other things, I think they’re almost as idiotic as Moore).
I hope the Dark Lord kept his receipt. I’d exchange her for a nice unwed mother in Bangkok or a Brazilian shipping clerk or whatever- Britney will find her way to him free of charge.
Despite the grief it’s getting in this thread, I’d say that Bowling for Columbine shares this general theme. It surprised me that Moore, by pointing out that Canadians own more guns than Americans but have much less per-capita gun violence, ended up by emphasizing that it really isn’t about the guns per se, but about something more subtle in American culture. (Not that this excuses his Heston or Clark stunts.)