| Author | Message | ||
     Rosswarren (Rosswarren) Username: Rosswarren Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 217.39.69.169 |
Saw this last night and found it to be unbelivably poor. Unitentionally hilarious at times it was pretty mundane and boring. I was shocked to see THREE writers credited at the end! | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Thanks, mate. That'll be saving a few spondoolies. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
be me (I meant) | ||
| Jamie Rosen (Jamie) Username: Jamie Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 99.240.203.201 |
In my experience, more writers leads to shakier scripts, because it indicates how dissatisfied the filmmakers were with the initial script. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Weird... the review I heard yesterday, from a critic who normally hates this stuff, waxed lyrical, claiming it to be intensely disturbing and unsettling, and well worth watching.... (This same critic, btw, claimed the opening sequence - whatever it is, he wouldn't say - in Clint Eastwood's new film HEREAFTER, was the greatest opening sequence he'd seen in a film ever! He didn't even praise the movie as much as PA2, and said that. Okay... there's a gauntlet thrown down....) | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Which is why I'd be wary, mate. But then again, as much as everybody told me Shrooms was awful, I thought the photography was remarkable. It reminded me a lot of east Asian film photography. Not that I'm saying this excuses the fact it wasn't any good. | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 82.6.94.181 |
I seldom ever go to see anything wth a 2 after the title (except of course, if the 2 is part of the title or the film is part of a series). The words "milking it" spring to mind. I mean, the first or original film is usually a complete idea, a one-off flash of inspiration (or mediocrity). A follow-up film is born of that oh, this worked lets keep flogging it till the horse is dead philosophy. For example, too tired to get off the sofa and go to bed last night, I ended up watching he opening half hour or so of "Saw 3" (God, not just a 2, a 3!). I quite appreciated the nasty cleverness of the first film and its unbearabley bleak ending. What I saw of number 3 was overwhelmingly awful, clumsy, sledehammer blunt crap. A lot of money's been made out of the idea, but precious little else. So 2 gets a miserable zero out of me. Cheers - grumpily Terry | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Terry - I agree with everything you just said, not because I don't have an opinion of my own, but because you you hit that nail squarely on the head. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.34.237 |
We watched this last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's good seeing Ken Loach dipping his feet into such unexpected waters. Just joking. These film's aren't high art - they're just a ghost train in your living room, an attempt to remind us when we used to be scared of chairs falling over and such like, and people did use ouija boards. I found it less clumsy than the first, in fact I really liked it very much. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.34.237 |
Craig - the opening scene of Hereafter is one of the most stunning things you'll see - followed by one of the most irritating and dull 'stories' you will ever watch. Clint's most pedestrian film to date. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.34.237 |
Yes - Shrooms was a bit of a coffee table film. Soooo boring. |