Come on, did you pay to see this, or are you too ashamed to admit it? I regrettably spent a couple of hours last night watching this, and I have to say, it was one of the biggest loads of old guff I have seen in years. I love a bit of ridiculous, over the top action, me. Smokin' Aces, Shoot Em Up, Crank, The Matrix - suspend belief, and enjoy watching people do wacky things with guns and cars. This is like a bad impression of those great films... on bad drugs. In case you didn't know, the entire premise of the film is that random people can speed up their heart rate... so the world around them slows down. That's as much explanation as you're given for the various PlayStation style set-pieces that the characters pull off. And then they kill lots of people for no good reason other than a cotton loom, yes, an old fashioned machine for spinning cloth, tells them too. I take that back actually - very few people are killed in this movie, and what it needed was a massive body count. I would love to have been in the meeting where this crap was pitched. How did they pursuade Morgan Freeman, Jolie, and the English lad to get involved? It's not even cheesy enough, or action packed enough to pass off as trashy popcorn fodder - it's just plain rubbish, waste of someones millions and DVDs. It's like a movie project from the wet dreams of a half-wit video game design student. And am I the only person to find Angelina Jolie utterly repulsive? The irony of her constantly eating cakes and burgers was obviously completely lost on the director as she looked like an undead junkie.
I saw half of it in the cinema about 6 months back as I had time to kill in Birmingham. I walked out half way through as I had to meet somebody, but I really wasn't upset at all. As you say, it was a load of old guff.
someone told me it was the best film he'd seen this year, and i havnt even seen it and thought 'he can't have seen any others then'
I'd rate it a solid 'meh' (mostly due to the parts where they went way too far over-the-top, like that headshot through the sunroof thing), but I could come up with much worse ways of killing a couple hours too.
I agree on the Angelina thing, she isn't attractive, not in this film, not ever. And, the film looks whack from the trailers I've seen.
Tomb Raider, when she still carried normal-ish weight, she was very attractive. Now, she's disgustingly scrawny.
She'd make a good grim reaper I have to admit, for the sake of mindless coolness, some parts of the film were enjoyable. If you could turn off their voices, ignore the storyline and bad acting and skip the wordy parts you'd end up with about 30 minutes of fun and ridiculous bullet bending. But, yes, it was a terrible film.
Ahahahahaha As for the film, eh.. As has been said before, Jolie was far too scrawny and generally unhealthy looking in this film. I still totally would, given the option, though. I've seen bigger piles of crap (Doom for example) in terms of films, but this was hardly the shining star in the ****-sandwich that is most films coming out at the moment.
The film was based on a decent graphic novel. Unfortunately, they took all of the best bits of the original story line (i.e. the bits that explain why things are the way they are) and dumped them in the bin. From the explanations here, it seems that the only bits the two versions share is the title. Angelina Jolie has never done anything for me, even when she was in Tomb Raider.
The only film she ever did anything for me, was Hackers. That said, Lara Croft <3 The graphic novel worth reading, then?
i downloaded it a while back, enjoyed watching it. if it was on tv i wouldn't turn it off, but i can't say i would go out of my way to watch it again. there was definitely some pretty cool stunt sequences it it though.
Watched it as well... not in the cinema, though... it's one of those movies where i wondered why they didn't cast Jason Statham (as the good guy) and Vinny Jones as the opposition, cut the story BS, and show more gun-porn, flying-through-the-air-feet-first-to-giant-can-o-whoop-a** by Statham, and slightly less ridiculous bullet scenes.... maybe some pigeons taking off and some more slow motion. The basic premise was cool. People being able to curve bullets is cool (as was demonstrated byt he scene with the two bullets chasing each other 'round the corner), but the bad story and bad cast just peeved me off a bit... one of those "It's sunday and i'm bored, but i really don't want to watch anything of any intellectual value" type popcorn movies... Wouldn't call it "horrible" (there's much worse... watch Beowulf/Mummy 3/Scorpion King 2 for that), but it sure as heck wasn't anything spectacular.
I personally thought it was a good movie. sometimes, a couple of hours of not having to think real hard and analyze everything you see is what you need. it was a sunday afternoon naptime that i didn't have to sit through some insipidly pathetic chick flick. (you may have to be married with a small child to understand that) ya, so there was way too much "bullet time" - it was brilliant in the Matrix, but that was because it was new and therefore "arty" not everything was explained out in torturous detail - that isn't what the B action flick medium is for. it's not a documentary, i really wasn't expecting to learn anything. i have not read the graphic novels (read: big boy comic books) so i can't really comment on the comparisons i have read between the movie and them - and that's ok. as for bending bullets - I've seen and made paintballs do some crazy, physically improbable things. i'm betting most of the target audience's ballistic experience is probably as limited as mine. and i do have to agree that Jolie has gotten a bit more hideous in each film since hackers - but she wasn't really all that to begin with. and that english lad - he's really a scot. and made a better goat-dude.
