Maybe the absence of the unfailing moron (Ashton Kutcher), this movie could have been at least a one and a half star rating. But no, the director had to go and make sure that it would have appeal to high schoolers instead. Can I have the last 2 hours of my life back?
Posts: 211 | Location: 97X, Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll! | Registered: 02 August 2004
This sounded like a pretty awesome premise. It could also be a vehicle for Ashton Kutcher to show he is more than "that guy who dates Demi Moore". Too bad Ashton has absolutely zero depth as an actor and too bad that the original premise was worked so many times that it turned into balls-out comedy!
Kutcher recently read for a part in Cameron Crowe's new film. After he was done, Crowe told him that he didn't get the part and that he needed acting lessons. Thank you Cameron!
Posts: 211 | Location: 97X, Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll! | Registered: 02 August 2004
you HAVE to see the director's cut of this movie. It's sooo hilarious at the end. He goes back into his mother's womb and chokes himself with his own umbilical cord. I'm not joking when I say that has to be one of THE funniest ends of a serious movie or any movie that i've ever seen. It's worth renting the movie just to see that.
And besides that, the movie is just soo obscene and disturbing for NO REASON AT ALL except for the movie trying to reach out to all the masochists out there that like to see babies blown up, dogs torched, children molested, and watching ashton kutcher act.
The premise had a lot of promise. The project began to go wrong when they attached Ashton Kutcher to the film. From then on you knew this film would be a lame, poorly acted film directed towards teen stoners and young girls who just wanna see Ashton. I'm not sure what the director was thinking here, instead of the visual effects he used, he should take some time to watch a film like Mystic River, to see how solid filmmaking can take place without computer technology. The onion a.v. club said it best: "A bad-movie-lover's heaven, and a good-movie-lover's hell."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,
quote:Originally posted by Mike: It wasn't that bad. I am no fan of Kutcher, but the idea was good and I thought that the movie was decent. Certainly not the worst of the year.
I gotcha back on this one. O.K., so Keutcher is a bust as an actor. Still, and all I was totally intrugued by the premise, and the "nasty" bits helped give the movie a sort of "street cred" that a more wishy-washy appraoch would have enveloped completly. I will defend this movie, so come an' get me.
Posts: 406 | Location: The fifth level | Registered: 05 December 2004
I don't think its the worst movie of '04 either..wasn't that bad! The movie was able to keep me in suspense and kept my interest..so, i'd say it was good...
o-<-</ thats me, skateboarding!
Posts: 158 | Location: under my (bed) blanket | Registered: 16 November 2004
I think you can pull any movie to pieces if you so choose, and this movie is a sitting duck because of the involvement of Keutcher. However, I would think, for myself, that the measure of a good movie is how much thought it stimulates, and this movie ticked over in my mind for some time after I viewed it.
Posts: 406 | Location: The fifth level | Registered: 05 December 2004
I agree with Burning-Man on the whole Kutcher being involved so its a sitting duck aspect. People are obviously going to be bias against a goofball like Ashton in a movie that takes him halfway serious. So when he showed he lacks ability to play this character, it was no surprise. However, I disagree with Burning-Man in that the movie doesn't stimulate any purplexive thought. Movies like this play through and give you one key notion to play with. A movie that qualifies as good in my opinion can still be "stimulating" after a second or third viewing. Plus, in a movie like this' case, it should be one that has mysteries unlockable after one viewing. One of the notably bad movies this year.
I enjoyed the show and I've not really followed or been interested in Ashton Kutcher, though I am jealous of him because of his love interest. I was glad to see him in another role rather than the dumb-shit is plays on television. He did ok in my mind.
Posts: 956 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Originally posted by burning man: I think you can pull any movie to pieces if you so choose, and this movie is a sitting duck because of the involvement of Keutcher. However, I would think, for myself, that the measure of a good movie is how much thought it stimulates, and this movie ticked over in my mind for some time after I viewed it.
I think the film, taking out the "Kutchner effect" is filled with issues related to our humanity. There is the issue of regret; of desiring to revisit yesterday and "fix everything." It also reveals that when we try to play god with the lives of others the consequences are dire. The movie was also interesting in that Kutchner's character, on the surface, appears to care so much about his friends that he wants to correct the mistakes of the past. In reality, he is selfish. His character is really more concerned with ridding himself of HIS PAIN. Yes he cares that his friends suffer, but he wants to fix it mainly because he can't bear to watch. Therefore, he is like us all. No one is truly altruistic. Even when trying to help another it can be for motives related to our own inability to deal. The ending also was quite revealing. There are no magic ways to remedy regret, other than burning the past and moving onward. This movie had great promise.
Boy, you got to carry that weight a long time!
Posts: 401 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 14 October 2005
I think the film, taking out the "Kutchner effect" is filled with issues related to our humanity. There is the issue of regret; of desiring to revisit yesterday and "fix everything." It also reveals that when we try to play god with the lives of others the consequences are dire. The movie was also interesting in that Kutchner's character, on the surface, appears to care so much about his friends that he wants to correct the mistakes of the past. In reality, he is selfish. His character is really more concerned with ridding himself of HIS PAIN. Yes he cares that his friends suffer, but he wants to fix it mainly because he can't bear to watch. Therefore, he is like us all. No one is truly altruistic. Even when trying to help another it can be for motives related to our own inability to deal. The ending also was quite revealing. There are no magic ways to remedy regret, other than burning the past and moving onward. This movie had great promise.
This post is one of the most revealing, educational, and substantive post I've read about movies on this forum. Give this person a star!
Posts: 956 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Oh so not many movies have dealt with these issues before apparently. And they do it in such an original way don't they. I mean forcing us to watch as horrible event after horrible event occurs, that enriches our humanity and teaches us lessons about regret. Yeah, basically a terrible horrific movie, not the worst of 2004 maybe, but certainly up there.
Oh so not many movies have dealt with these issues before apparently. And they do it in such an original way don't they. I mean forcing us to watch as horrible event after horrible event occurs, that enriches our humanity and teaches us lessons about regret. Yeah, basically a terrible horrific movie, not the worst of 2004 maybe, but certainly up there.QUOTE]
If you understand what Rikard Posted on 28 October 2005 08:15 AM than you would have a better grasp of what the movie is truly about and perhaps a better appreciation of the importance of what this movie attempted to convey. By focusing on the horrible event after horrible event you missed the really important concept of this movie.
Posts: 956 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
