i thought it was a good movie but i didnt get all the "omg best movie ever" hype surrounding it. is it because all the other movies out in the past few years have sucked or something? something that kinda ruined the movie for me was when dude who killed girl showed up at the fishes joint and without them even talking about killing dude, it pretty much told you exactly what was going to happen for the rest of the movie. maybe not ruin but it got rid of any suprises
What's funny is that I don't remember seeing or hearing about this movie at all. What made me curious was when I saw an advertisement for it in the SF Guardian (One of the best of 2007....this years Blade Runner).
i thought it was a good movie but i didnt get all the "omg best movie ever" hype surrounding it. is it because all the other movies out in the past few years have sucked or something? something that kinda ruined the movie for me was when dude who killed girl showed up at the fishes joint and without them even talking about killing dude, it pretty much told you exactly what was going to happen for the rest of the movie. maybe not ruin but it got rid of any suprises
Huh? What surprises would you mean? When white dread boy shows up, they do talk about what happened on the road which is why the leader puts the barrel to white boy's head "for breaking protocol."
From that point out, you know what the Fishes agenda is and that's what sets into motion the entire second half of the film.
BTW, I didn't think the film was "movie of the year" either. I did like it though.
I kind of wish they had ended the movie about one minute earlier than they did. Folks should know what I'm saying here.
So much of that movie is the stuff of nightmares, and I mean that in the best way.
The refugee camp really blew my mind. The subtle reference to GITMO was real wild (black sack over the head). I noticed how the farther the train went in it got worse and worse and worse. From interogations to torture to rows of dead bodies....and then when they finally entered the refugee city, all those people hoping to see their friends and relatives....crazy.
Where they burning the bodies to stay warm? or was it more religious?
In the book do they explain what happend across the world with all those other countries falling and Britian somehow being able to "soldier" on?
before they even started talking to dude it already clicked in my head that was going to happen for the rest of the movie. i mean, i guess it's better than some "omg suprise plot twist" at the end of the movie but i wouldn't mind SOME kind of unexpected thing to happen. closest thing was with the cop and that was whatever. i realize this is a pretty stupid thing to complain about but whatever
For those of you who really dug this, I HIGHLY recommend you read the book. SO much better IMO. And SO much more going on.
MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS below...[/b]
For one thing, Theo's wife was not part of the rebel group. And she doesn't get killed. Neither does Theo! Their son didn't die like that either. Theo ran over him with his car by accident, and that eventually led to their breakup. Theo's cousin also plays a much more pivotal role in the book and his connection to the other characters is rather interesting. Also in the book, the crazy white dread rebel was possibly the father of Kee's baby (as was Luke/Chiwetel, which added a whole other dynamic to the story which the film never touched upon). Jasper and his wife died in the book as well, but not at all like the way the film depicted it. Jasper's wife suffered a particularly horrible fate involving a mass suicide which she has a change of heart about at the last minute.
And the ending was completely different in the book. Much more effective I thought.
I well understand that the medium of film has it's limitations when trying to translate such a richly textured story. Limitations dealing mainly with time. I think if given another 45 minutes to an hour, they could've possibly pulled it off quite beautifully (ala the first two Godfather films). I never checked to see who adapted the book for the screen, but it's a completely different story IMO. Really a shell of the book unfortunately.
i saw this movie last night. can someone explain to me where they were trying to take the girl and her baby? the human project? did they ever explain what that actually meant? a society of people who could actually reproduce? a group of people with different ideals than the government who were living in a separate society, waiting for the rest of the world to die off? a team of scientists and doctors??
1. The script could have used some polishing. There was some really crappy dialog and the beginning dragged on a bit too much.
2. The casting. Some fine choices, but a few unfortunate sore thumbs. The mom-to-be being a big one.
Having said that, I hardly minded; which is a testament to the power of the visual storytelling ability on display. It's some of the finest use of a movie camera in recent memory. Not just a few select scenes, but throughout.
For those of you who really dug this, I HIGHLY recommend you read the book. SO much better IMO. And SO much more going on.
I'm actually gonna disagree.. I read the book right after the movie, and it was actually pretty boring. I enjoyed the very loose interpretation more then I did her convuluted book. Some things were outright superior to the book in my opinion (Quietus). Alfonso Cuaron, and Clive Owen were the ones who loosely adapted it for film, even though 3 other dudes got partial writing credit, even though they apparently didn't write anything.
i saw this movie last night. can someone explain to me where they were trying to take the girl and her baby?
The human project, a group of people with different ideals than the government who were a team of scientists and doctors that were trying to cure infertility.
Comments
I was thinking: you can jump-start cars in the future? Future cars NEED to be jump-started?
What's funny is that I don't remember seeing or hearing about this movie at all. What made me curious was when I saw an advertisement for it in the SF Guardian (One of the best of 2007....this years Blade Runner).
That scene really sticks in my head.
So much of that movie is the stuff of nightmares, and I mean that in the best way.
Huh? What surprises would you mean? When white dread boy shows up, they do talk about what happened on the road which is why the leader puts the barrel to white boy's head "for breaking protocol."
From that point out, you know what the Fishes agenda is and that's what sets into motion the entire second half of the film.
BTW, I didn't think the film was "movie of the year" either. I did like it though.
I kind of wish they had ended the movie about one minute earlier than they did. Folks should know what I'm saying here.
The refugee camp really blew my mind. The subtle reference to GITMO was real wild (black sack over the head). I noticed how the farther the train went in it got worse and worse and worse. From interogations to torture to rows of dead bodies....and then when they finally entered the refugee city, all those people hoping to see their friends and relatives....crazy.
Where they burning the bodies to stay warm? or was it more religious?
In the book do they explain what happend across the world with all those other countries falling and Britian somehow being able to "soldier" on?
and yo..the Quietus shit was crazy as well.
*mega SPOILER*
when Theo died or when the the "Tomorrow" ship arrived?
feel you on the last minute thing though
SO much better IMO. And SO much more going on.
MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS below...[/b]
For one thing, Theo's wife was not part of the rebel group.
And she doesn't get killed.
Neither does Theo!
Their son didn't die like that either.
Theo ran over him with his car by accident, and that eventually led to their breakup.
Theo's cousin also plays a much more pivotal role in the book and his connection to the other characters is rather interesting.
Also in the book, the crazy white dread rebel was possibly the father of Kee's baby (as was Luke/Chiwetel, which added a whole other dynamic to the story which the film never touched upon).
Jasper and his wife died in the book as well, but not at all like the way the film depicted it.
Jasper's wife suffered a particularly horrible fate involving a mass suicide which she has a change of heart about at the last minute.
And the ending was completely different in the book.
Much more effective I thought.
I well understand that the medium of film has it's limitations when trying to translate such a richly textured story.
Limitations dealing mainly with time.
I think if given another 45 minutes to an hour, they could've possibly pulled it off quite beautifully (ala the first two Godfather films).
I never checked to see who adapted the book for the screen, but it's a completely different story IMO.
Really a shell of the book unfortunately.
this is killing me.
1. The script could have used some polishing. There was some really crappy dialog and the beginning dragged on a bit too much.
2. The casting. Some fine choices, but a few unfortunate sore thumbs. The mom-to-be being a big one.
Having said that, I hardly minded; which is a testament to the power of the visual storytelling ability on display. It's some of the finest use of a movie camera in recent memory. Not just a few select scenes, but throughout.
I'm actually gonna disagree.. I read the book right after the movie, and it was actually pretty boring. I enjoyed the very loose interpretation more then I did her convuluted book. Some things were outright superior to the book in my opinion (Quietus). Alfonso Cuaron, and Clive Owen were the ones who loosely adapted it for film, even though 3 other dudes got partial writing credit, even though they apparently didn't write anything.
The human project, a group of people with different ideals than the government who were a team of scientists and doctors that were trying to cure infertility.
- spidey