(Untitled)

Mar 03, 2005 03:37

So, Jamie Foxx got the Oscar for best actor the other night. That's a good call, in my opinion. Shit, it's one of the most accurate performances ever. To the extent that I've had genuinely cliched conversations along the lines of "Shit, he really looks and sounds just like Ray Charles" with responses like "...you mean that WASN'T Ray Charles ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 4

rissa333 March 3 2005, 12:16:47 UTC
I was having this talk yesterday with the person I saw this piece of shit with in the theatre. It's amazing to me that people that like this film say that the horrible acting didn't detract from the film. Or the script full of holes. I don't even care about Cary Elwes and his bad, bad acting, I mostly blame that guy who wrote it for sticking himself in a lead role and being one of those guys on screen who is so bad I was hoping he would get killed before it was over. Painful death.

And yes, Shawnee Smith didn't get *nearly* enough screentime, though I'm sure I would still hate this film regardless.

Reply

whiterussian3d March 4 2005, 03:33:37 UTC
It's one of those movies that people either REALLY love or REALLY hate. I was really apprehensive about seeing it for a while. I thought it looked so awesome, yet I've heard many people I trust slam it down in disgust.

It was done on a pretty shoestring budget... and it shows. But for what it was, I liked it a lot. But the group I watched it with were quite divided. Saw 2 is on its way now, and unfortunately, I think I can pretty comfortably say that that one is going to undoubtedly suck.

***SPOILERS, should anyone else be reading this***

I didn't spot any plot holes that couldn't be explained. The only thing about it all that I found really implausible was that a terminally ill old guy could overpower all those people so easily.

***END SPOILERS***

Either way, this was a movie that overflowed with potential. It could of been a much better movie, had it had a sharper script and better actors... but you could say that about anything.

Reply


mezdeathhead March 3 2005, 22:04:40 UTC
i loved that movie. in fact, i believe that if the acting had been better, i wouldn't have been able to handle it.

fucked up movie.

bruce campbell should really be in everything, so it's almost a waste of time to mention that he should be in something. that's like waking up in the morning and thinking "i should really do some breathing today."

Reply

whiterussian3d March 9 2005, 03:39:41 UTC
It was one of the best movies I've seen in the last few years, that's for sure. I'm sadly expecting Saw 2 to suck though. I can't see them following up on what they did. Partly because the loose ends worked well as loose ends. I don't particularly want to find out if the doctor lived, etc.

Still, I generally welcome sequels. The original remains, and nothing can change that.

You're right. But really, Bruce would make any movie better, it's a fact. I might even have vaguely expressed an interest in seeing one of those shitty-looking Jude Law films if Jude Law were actually Bruce Campbell.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up