PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: SwifDi on January 24, 2004, 01:23:19 AM
-
Naturally before I go see a movie I check on its reviews, well, this movie got some pretty lousy reviews. However I will not aimlessly make my decisions upon the the opinions of others, and from what I saw in the previews, my gut instinct was that this movie had potential to be great.
It was awesome from beginning to end. Oh, and Ashton Kutcher can act, I almost forgot that he was that same character who starred in Dude Where\'s My Car and Just Married. However throughout the movie, most notably in scenes with comic relief, the Ashton we\'re familiar with does flash his true colors momentarily.
Furthermore this movie is very suspenseful and has a "Final Destination"/"Donnie Darko" feel to it. However I\'m going to say that my favorite thing about it was the premise of the movie and how Kutcher goes back trying to fix one problem only to have another be created. And this movie is not sugar coated at all, even I was surprised by some scenes that just made me think, "wtf?".
It\'s one of those awkward "you love it or hate it" films, and I loved it. My only gripe was that it seemed longer than it needed to be.
So thats my very vague review on the film. I\'ll go more in depth when I\'m not feeling sleepy.
*hears the cynics coming*
-
You know I didn\'t go last night because of the reviews. Hmmm....
-
The reviews I read blasted it for being utterly unrealistic among other things, but said it was enjoyable.
Just because they don\'t give it 3/4 stars doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t see it. :)
-
A dude that changes the course of time is unrealistic? Go figure.
-
Holy shit, vapor almost used the word "cynic" correctly!
(now THAT\'S cynical....)
-
Originally posted by videoholic
A dude that changes the course of time is unrealistic? Go figure.
It is kind of strange, but its a really awesome concept. Its not like he is using a time machine in his basement.
-
if i don\'t remember incorrectly, someone once had a picture comparison of aston Kutcher and (e) Spudz?
-
I was gonna read the book... so I\'ll wait to see the movie.
-
Unrealistic in the sense that there\'s absolutely no explanation, that\'s what the Boston Globe reports.
He just sits there, reads about his past, and bam.. a great concept with mediocre execution unfolds!
-
Originally posted by Paul2
if i don\'t remember incorrectly, someone once had a picture comparison of aston Kutcher and (e) Spudz?
Yes. You can find it, but its not really funny.
-
You are right spudz. Nothing is funny about you other than your penis size.
-
Zing!
-
The previews looked good, and I was happy to see him p,ay a serious role but from the sounds of this thread it sounds like its one of those "...wtf?" movies....
-
Originally posted by Capcom
You are right spudz. Nothing is funny about you other than your penis size.
Nice one.
Oh and The Butterfly Effect looks craptacular. I\'ll wait \'till DVD.
-
Originally posted by Blade
He just sits there, reads about his past, and bam.. a great concept with mediocre execution unfolds!
Well he had blackouts as a kid, and now that he is older he is able to go back and fill in those memories to his liking. The fact that there isn\'t some logic-filled explanation on how he does it doesn\'t really bother me. Thats why movies are movies.
And Hamster, I think I thought to myself, "wtf?" at least five times. Just because some scenes were pretty shocking.
Basically its the only good thing in theaters now, definitely beats the snot out of Win a Date with Tad Hamilton.
-
I watched it tonight. Lic shut your mouth. Desperation. It is not that bad of a movie.
-
Yea, I saw it, I thought the movie was pretty damn good, it had it\'s moments where I thought damn was that necessary, and well yea it was, so even though it was long I still thought that all the beginning stuff needed to be there.
-
I talked to four of my friends after they saw it tonight. They\'re the type that like anything, including stuff like The Hulk, and they said this movie sucked.
-
well i just got back from seeing it. And I have to say I rather enjoyed it. I liked how they tied everything together in the end(Like when his father was chocking him and the knife scene).
Man it was rather good. Only for a minute did I think it dragged on and i was waiting for the next thing to happen. Man the the no hands part was halarious.
All and all it was very interesting I sure with i could do that.
It is worth the 8.50
-
Originally posted by Bozco
I talked to four of my friends after they saw it tonight. They\'re the type that like anything, including stuff like The Hulk, and they said this movie sucked.
Maybe thats the thing is that they actually had to think in this movie to understand it???
-
This movie was ok, but not anything I will remember for the rest of my life. Basically, it\'s a good idea that could have been executed just a little bit better to achieve the best effect.
[sp]The structure of the story required a huge amount of set-up and exposition at the beginning. I think there was about 30 or 40 minutes of set up before the actual conflict in the story was revealed. This is an inherent weakness, so there\'s not alot you can do about it. However, it felt like they were rushing through that section. It could have been more believable if they had paced it better, running time be damned.
The basic premise of the story requires you to believe that one little change in the events of your life can radically alter your entire future. That\'s why they call it "The Butterfly Effect." I thought in some cases this was believable, such as the difference in the Kayleigh that was molested as a child, and the one that was not. However, in other cases they pushed it too far. Kayleigh\'s brother (Tommy?) went from being an antisocial psycho to a jesus-loving glee club member just because he saved a mother and child from being killed by a prank that HE organized? There are other examples, as you remember.
Finally, there were some unrealistic elements of the fictional world they created. Kayleigh\'s crack whore apartment was just a little to stereotypically awful. The fraternity house was just a little too over the top. Worst of all, it seems that there is only one medical facility in this town, and everyone goes to the same place for their psychoanalysis, CAT scans, and more severe mental conditions. Usually the "nervous hospital" is not the same facility as the psychiatrist\'s office. Also, they usually have more than one doctor. Oh well, it just seemed a bit false.[/sp]
-
HORRIBLE MOVIE!!
I didn\'t like it one bit, the whole concept is alright, but the movie sucked.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
HORRIBLE MOVIE!!
I didn\'t like it one bit, the whole concept is alright, but the movie sucked.
That was a pretty useless comment. It would help if you explained why. Remember, that\'s what the teacher asks you to do in English class. :p
-
I think it would be hard for him to explain it, other than he didn\'t understand
-
I wouldn\'t assume that. There was a lot to dislike even for those of us who understood it.
-
I\'m not assuming that I\'m just kidding with Mystiq, I know not everyone liked the movie even if they did understand it.
-
yes but is it scary It almost sounds like a cool movie but I dont do scary...
-
I understood the movie. Dude, I understood the Matrix I sure as hell understood this. Like I said, the whole traveling to the past to fill in gaps is cool. But the movie was cheesy to me. Kutcher should stick to being funny.
-
I disagree man I thought Kutcher did a great job and fit that role perfectly. He was still Kutcher, but he pulled off a semi-serious role pretty well.
-
WAS IT SCARY?
-
Originally posted by Cyrus
WAS IT SCARY?
Yes, be sure to wear Depends because you will crap your pants. Or, if you\'re not a wuss, then don\'t bother. :)
-
I just came back from seeing this movie, and I agree, it was heavily under-rated. It\'s true that it is unrealistic, but hell, 90% of movies are that way so that\'s no reason to devalue it.
The Butterfly Effect had an awesome concept, but I also felt some of the stuff was over the top. But hey, it got the point across.
-
I\'ll watch it eventually, I won\'t go out of my way to see it. The concept just seems tired and boring. A man can go back in time, he finds out that no matter what he does, he can\'t correct things, he can only change them and often for the worse. Hello? It\'s been done before.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I\'ll watch it eventually, I won\'t go out of my way to see it. The concept just seems tired and boring. A man can go back in time, he finds out that no matter what he does, he can\'t correct things, he can only change them and often for the worse. Hello? It\'s been done before.
Very true, but the psychological anomalies in this movie are alone worth the ticket price. This is one movie where the acting is half-decent.
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
Very true, but the psychological anomalies in this movie are alone worth the ticket price. This is one movie where the acting is half-decent.
No offense, but I have a hard time taking you serious now that you have used "acting is half - decent" while reffering to a movie with Ashton Kutcher.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Yes, be sure to wear Depends because you will crap your pants. Or, if you\'re not a wuss, then don\'t bother. :)
FU Im a wuss so what... I can handle "suspense" I just dont like that jumpin out at you shit.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
No offense, but I have a hard time taking you serious now that you have used "acting is half - decent" while reffering to a movie with Ashton Kutcher.
I was very impressed with Kutcher\'s dramatic role acting. I felt like his acting was very real, and that he showed all the emotions well. Maybe that is because I am in his age bracket, but I found something real about his acting and was pleasantly surprised by it.
-
I saw it yesterday, going to see Monster today.
And yes, it was a decent movie, barely above average. It\'s a great concept just terribly executed. Ashton can\'t act, I\'m sorry but it\'s true. You say he\'s still Kutcher...that\'s the problem, he shouldn\'t be in this film.
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
I was very impressed with Kutcher\'s dramatic role acting. I felt like his acting was very real, and that he showed all the emotions well. Maybe that is because I am in his age bracket, but I found something real about his acting and was pleasantly surprised by it.
Some people are just so biased to anyone that they will no matter what believe that someone can act. As much as I hate to say it just like Ben Affleck, not saying the guy can act just as an example.
-
Whats unfortunate is some of you are being so narrow minded that you can\'t look past the actor Ashton Kutcher to actually notice the character in the movie that he is portraying.
His acting was fine.
-
Really dragging this up from the dreggs of the forums, but i just saw this movie and omg it was actually really good.
I really didnt know ashton kutcher (sp?) could act, thank god i haven\'t seen Dude wheres my car in ages or i would never have been able to take it seriously :), it was just released on DVD here just in case anyone got it.
-
I thought it was okay, he made quite a few stupid ass mistakes which kept the movie from being better.
And yes, Ashton can act.
-
That bastard dates demi moore.
Used to have the hugest thing for her when i was a kid.
I wonder how her kids must feel.
-
I saw this movie for the first time a couple of weeks ago and actually liked it. There were some probability issues but name one movie that doesn\'t have at least one.
I\'ll probably grab the DVD just to have it.
I also just saw Bad Santa. A++ GREAT Movie.
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
That bastard dates demi moore.
.
He\'s just "Punking" Bruce Willis.
-
There were some probability issues
you mean like the whole time travel thing:p
The biggest mistake was when he was trying to stop the lady from getting to her mailbox. He knew full and well what was going to happen yet he walked up to it as if that would help. I pretty much stopped paying attention after that...
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
But the movie was cheesy to me. Kutcher should stick to being funny.
Or maybe he should stick to something that he\'s good at?
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Or maybe he should stick to something that he\'s good at?
modeling? he is kinda hot:ghey:
-
Yeah, you would say that!
... huh?
-
is confused
but I did say it...
-
...
...yeah...
...think about it..!
...
-
is thinking
in the mean time clean out your pm\'s
-
ok
-
Yeah I saw this movie about 2 weeks ago. Much better than I expected, but it started getting stupid when he came back with no limbs.
-
In the aussie version he kills himself at the end... how F@#ked up is that....
-
that\'s in the director\'s cut here and I thought it was pretty dumb.
-
I liked both endings. In terms of impact, the womb killing was better. I guess it all depends on the person. I dont think i have a preferance.
He\'s just "Punking" Bruce Willis.
As messed up as that would be, it would be damn hilarious.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
that\'s in the director\'s cut here and I thought it was pretty dumb.
Tell me about it... That was a horrible ending. The entire \'fortune teller\' scene was ridiculous...
-
liked the movie, Ashton surprised the hell out of me.
-
okay,
i rented this movie last week and only seen the director\'s cut version. I didn\'t get to see the theatrical version because there is a store rental sticker on it and it makes it unplayable....
Only the other side of the disc played.
So i wonder if you guys can tell me what happen in the theatrical version that is different than the director\'s version...
-
He tells her to basically go f@#k herself when they first meet as kids. Stopping the chick from staying for him thus stopping all the crap from happening, she leaves for her mother’s house etc.
Ashton becomes a stock broker and meets her later on the on the street in what looks like NYC. One version she walks past and keeps on walking, in another they start talking..
-
I think all the proposed endings were lousy. I like the idea that Ashton should have died to avoid tons of crap from happening, but not in the womb. That was :ghey: imo.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
He tells her to basically go f@#k herself when they first meet as kids. Stopping the chick from staying for him thus stopping all the crap from happening, she leaves for her mother’s house etc.
Ashton becomes a stock broker and meets her later on the on the street in what looks like NYC. One version she walks past and keeps on walking, in another they start talking..
I wonder how many versions are there?
One, he died in the mother\'s womb.
2nd, he killed himself in the end.
3rd, theatrical version which he is a stock broker and later he met her in the end and both walks away...
4th, they met in the end as the 3rd version, but they get to talk to each other....
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Ashton becomes a stock broker and meets her later on the on the street in what looks like NYC. One version she walks past and keeps on walking, in another they start talking..
It may be different in the Aussie version but I am pretty sure he became a psychiatrist.
-
yeh it sounded like he did
-
yeah, where the hell did you get stock broker from? He was going to school for Psychology
-
wow, one said psychologist and other said pyschiatrist....
-
yes well, we all know that if he became a psychiatrist, he would be the first, considering the fact that there\'s no such thing.. but I wont hold that against you black sam :)
-
i believe there is such thing as a psychiatrist.
the differences between psychiatrist and psychologist one is more about mental problem while other is more about emotional problem?
who knows...
but it makes more sense for him to be a psychiatrist because he was taken to the mental hospital like his father was and nobody believes his thing.
from what he been through, maybe him being a psychiatrist can help and understand the patience better...
Shrug...
-
Originally posted by MPTheory
yes well, we all know that if he became a psychiatrist, he would be the first, considering the fact that there\'s no such thing
????
I\'m pretty sure that a psychiatrist is someone who deals with mental problems/disorders while a psychologist is someone that tries to understand how the mind works. Could be wrong though.
Maybe psychiatrists are creatures like the tooth fairy who our professors told us about so we would be good in class?
-
Originally posted by MPTheory
yes well, we all know that if he became a psychiatrist, he would be the first, considering the fact that there\'s no such thing.. but I wont hold that against you black sam :)
Of course there is such a thing as a psychiatrist. The main differnce between a psychiatrist and a psychologist is that a psychiatrist is a medically trained doctor that can prescribe drugs to help with mental problems and a psychologist can\'t - they help people with mental disorders through therapies etc, there\'s also many different types. I hope u were being sarcastic or somehting :)
-
I hate psychology. Thank god its only one semester long.
-
i\'ve just read he became a stock broker.. I mean, if altered his future by not making the chick stay. Isn\'t it likely his schooling, career could have totally changed with that choice... After all it is the butterfly effect.
-
Yeah but he was on the phone talking to his mother about his "patients". Not many stockbrokers have those.
Plus in every alternate future he was still a psych major.