Rush Hour is a good movie except for the scenes with Chris Tucker.
Dang it, that should be Rush Hour 2 is a good movie except for the Chris Tucker scenes.
I like that idea. Han is to Chewie as Bush is to Cheney!
Look, I got two pages in then ran out of patience, okay? I may be doubling some replies here…
But firstly I have to complain about Hollwyood’s depressing insistence on EVERY FREAKING THING turning into a love story. Something messed-up inside me has a real problem with love stories, probably jealousy and self-hatred, so making me sit through such drivel every time is a little less than helpful. I really enjoyed Enemy at the Gates because I really like snipers, but my fast-forward button will need replacing soon. Ditto Titanic, incidentally… I know most of the movies have sucked but were the filmmakers so unsure of the inherent coolness of the real story that they had to make me sit through hours of “Come on, Rose! There’s water here, Rose! I’ll SPOILER DELETED soon, Rose, and then you can have a great life, Rose!” What was that about, Rose?
And secondly. Se7en. The ending was just nasty. Unpleasant. Sick for its own sake. Not like in The Usual Suspects where you’re on Kaiser Soze’s side when he shoots his wife and child. But just irretrievably evil, as if its only purpose was to show how evil evil could be. What was the point? That evil is evil? WE KNOW THAT, dude. Or perhaps we were supposed to be shocked by the inevitable conclusion to our half-enjoying the voyeurism of watching the other deaths… hey, that kinda makes sense. Sorry I mentioned it.
I still wish Kevin Spacey had just turned good and married Widow Twankey, though… ::sigh:: someday…
I saw a documentary recently on BBC called What the Romans Did For Us wherein it was pretty conclusively proved that the Romans did at least have rapidly-reloading crossbows, so that one didn’t have to spend a minute shoving in another bolt. Not too far to a rapidfire mechanism. May already be proven; worth checking out.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ross *
**
Sorry, for “crossbow” read “ballista”. But the ballista in this case was just a big crossbow.
I’ve seen plenty of tankers in PA. They are certainly around. Heck, once a road in Philly was closed for hours when a tanker carrying liquid CO2 flipped on its side.
Of course, does LA have that kind of heavy industry in its local area? (namely the foundry they were fighting in.)
Also, if the tanker did crack open, you would see nothing but fog, even in dry LA air.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ross *
**
There’s actually a big difference in metalurgy between ballistae and crossbows. That hand held job was a bit much to take as compared to Ballista (which I know they’ve had for ages.
Its not too horrible, though, it barely plays a part in the movie.
Now for just plain awful, have a look at the bad movie “First Knight” where the director/scriptwriter is so unable to get away from firearms that he arms the bad guy knights with one-hand crossbows. All they needed were fucking cowboy hats to be done with it.
All right: why wouldn’t it be useful?
Goldeneye…
The return of Bond: Okay.
Introducing Brosnan as Bond: Okay.
Keeping Bond legendary, yet bringing him up-to-date: Okay.
Introducing a new M: Okay.
Giving Bond a new car from a different manufacturer: Okay.
Advertising the fact that this is Bond’s new car: Okay.
But having Q spend five minutes introducing the car, going through the weapon systems, pronouncing the damned name right…
…then having it used as pleasurable transport for three minutes of screen time JUST TO HAVE HIM TRADE IT FOR A PLANE!!!
Why was the car even there in the first place?? It seems to me that the need for a car was never in the cards in the original script, so they had to try and ‘fit it in’ wherever possible. The scriptwriters couldn’t even come up with a reasonable use for the car at all, so they just tacked a few scenes in. It was SUCH a tacky push by BMW and the scriptwriters, making me wonder why they even bothered to deal with BMW in the first place!
The Saint was Volvo’s advertising vehicle, but at least the car was USED!
…sorry, I just needed to get that off my shoulder…
It’s called “product placement.” BMW paid mucho dinero to get the car in the movie. At least the car was used well in The World is Not Enough (aka “TWINE”).
Or, to quote Harrison Ford, who told Lucas: “George, you can write this shit but you sure can’t say it.”
Because:
A) Toilets work through gravity, not through any sort of vacuum power. You can’t just keep flushing them and empty more and more water from the room. If you’d like to test it, run a garden hose into your toilet bowl with the water on all the way, keep flushing your toilet, and count how many minutes until you really need to mop the floor. You can’t just hold the handle down and watch water flow out of the room;
B) Toilets refill with water from the tank when you flush them anyway, and I seriously doubt Mr. Crazy Killer was dumb enough to put the shutoff valve inside the little room; and
C)Even if it could work, you couldn’t start flushing to empty the room of water until it was high enough to be a danger anyway. The flow rate into the room would most likely still exceed the flush rate.
Just some nitpicks, in the ALIEN trilogy, IIRC, they only went to that planet in the 1st and 2nd movie. And at the beginning of the 2nd film, they had no reason to not know to go back there.
And as for Pearl Harbor, and this leads to another film I recently saw, here you have a real life true-story event about a major turning point in American History. That’s not exciting enough though, you know what would spice up an action movie about a surprise attack? A love triangle! Buy a clue, screenwriters.
This leads me to Enemy at the Gates, which I recently rented. It is the true stroy of a Russian sniper and German sniper playing cat-an-mouse during the Battle of Stalingrad during WWII. Sounds interesting and suspenceful enough, doesn’t it? No, you know what they decide the film needs? A LOVE TRIANGLE! Stop it already. Love triangles do not automtically make a film more interesting. The scenes invloving the girl slowed down the film and interupted the suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse the two snipers were playing with one another. And on top of which …
SPOILER FOR ENEMY AT THE GATES
IRL, the Russian sniper pinpointed the German sniper by a glint of light off the German’s scope. The Russian fired, and they later found the bullet had gone through the scope into the eye of the German sniper (so says the History Channel, a documentary of which promtped me to rent the film). The filmakers decide to twist the ending to resemble a Western showdown with the two of them standing, fully exposed to enemy fire in a trainyard.
Knowing the real life ending to the story spoiled the film version for me, since it didn’t follow.
SPOILERS ABOUT ENEMY AT THE GATES
Crunchy, you’re being too kind to the ending of Enemy at the Gates. I had no problem with the love triangle (didn’t like it, but was able to dismiss it), but the ending really grated at me. Not because it wasn’t like the real life ending, I couldn’t care less about that, but beacuse it was soooooooo idiotic. The master German sniper had confronted the Russian sniper four times during the movie. Each of the four times, the Russian had a partner, three of whom the German killed. In the final confrontation, Russian partner reveals himself, drawing fire from German. Good ending: Russian fires back a split second later, killing him. Nope. German immediately leaves his bunker, apparently forgetting that Russian always works with a partner, exposing himself. Logical ending: Russian kills him from cover. Nope. German leaves cover also, so that he can sneak up behind German, both of them exposed in daylight to hundreds of possible sniper positions.
Neither had ever done anything other than take cover and wait for a target to reveal himself, and suddenly they’re John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. I hate it so much because the movie had me until then.
MORE SPOILERS ABOUT ENEMY AT THE GATES
The bolded part above is my correction and what I’m guessing you meant to say.
Yeah, I was going to get into that, but I figured my post was long enough, but that’s what I was getting at with:
“The filmakers decide to twist the ending to resemble a Western showdown with the two of them standing, fully exposed to enemy fire in a trainyard.”
It’s like the filmmakers suddenly forgot the characters are two exceptionally well-disciplined snipers. The bad ending was made that much worse for me knowing how Vassali actually got his man.
Crunchy: Yeah, that’s what I meant, thanks for the correction. I realize I was just repeating what you said with a bit more detail, but I just had to chime in with a “me too” because I hate nothing more than a movie that really has me in its grip until the very end and then blows it so spectacularly. For me, this ranks up there with the endings of “Other People’s Money” and “Revenge”.
Let me rant a bit:
SPOILERS FOR REVENGE:
Kevin Costner is a retired fighter jock vacationing on close friend Anthony Quinn’s Mexican ranch, and has an affair with Quinn’s beautiful wife. Quinn finds out, and has his minions do all sorts of nasty things to Costner and his wife. Costner barely escapes with his skin, and proceeds to try to extract some Revenge. He makes with some nasty things himself, and finally confronts Quinn. Time for a showdown, a great exchange of dialog, or for one or the other to do something really, really, nasty, either physically or mentally to the other.
What we get is certainly a surprise. “Revenge” is a true shaggy dog story (a shaggy dog story is a long, elaborate joke with no real punchline told for the amusement of the teller whose real goal is to keep listeners hooked for as long as possible without any payoff). Here it is, the big payoff: Quinn asks for an apology from Costner. Costner apologizes. I sincerely beleive that the filmmakers were playing an elaborate practical joke on the audience. I hate this movie more than any other I’ve ever seen.
In Jurassic Park.
Timmy, who knows much about dinosaurs, Lex, and Grant are watching the dinosaurs stampede toward them. Grant asks Tim what kind of dinosaur they are, and Tim replies, “Galimimus.” I mean, Grant is a paleontologist. He should be able to figure it out for himself, right? They already emphasized Tim’s love of dinosaurs, and later on, in the kitchen scene, Lex asking Tim about the raptors is even more chilling and emphatic. It just always bothered me. Nothing else, just that one.
I don’t think Grant was asking Timmy out of ignorance of the dinosaurs’ names. The tone of his voice when he asked seemed more like a teacher asking a student to me.
I thought Traffic was okay but I couldn’t believe that while it was winnning all of those critics awards nobody complained of that huge contrivance of a plot. I mean c’mon, the drug czar’s daughter is a huge druggie?!?!?!?! WTF!
This is another example of a screenwriter/director making a point with the sublety of a sledehammer. Among edgy and creative direction and several excellant performances is the kind of plot that makes you cringe on several occasions.
Give me a little credit for being able to figure out that the war on drugs is a complicated issue with many nuances. Geez!