Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cell' started by Bev Vincent, Nov 4, 2013.
I love the purple monkey.
....I know...it's only out of respect for Marsha that he doesn't visit more often....
Yep, every time that thing makes an appearance your chances of making it into the kitchen diminishes......
I do too. Chocolate snakes!
Urban Dictionary: chocolate snake
Oh boy. I just had a recovered memory! In 4th grade my biology teacher Mr. Caldwell, who looked sort of like a buff Wally Cox (it's true! he could have never done the voice of Underdog though, but he could have done the voice of Wolverine), he had this damn green snake, and he went from desk to desk with it, and when it got to me, it crapped all over my desk! I had snake doo doo all over my desk! It was white! Telling the story, I can still smell it! I was what nine? I swear, all true. Put that in your pipe & smoke it Marsha! Now Marsha, you must tell me a rat story. Let the healing begin!
Snakes, rats and monkeys notwithstanding, I still haven't seen Cell yet ....
I forgot all about this!
There's NO WAY it can be THAT bad!
Going to find it now...
RE: Cell (film adaptation)
My local library has Cell on DVD, but it has a 1 - 3 day wait.
I've placed a hold on it. I've also read so many bad reviews that my expectations have reached depths below sea level, so there's no way I'm going to be let down.
Seriously. Let's have an extremely brief history review.
Has Sam Jackson ever been in anything unwatchable? Yes.
Has Cusack? Yes.
Has the director ever directed anything unwatchable?
Well, I had to check that dude's filmography because his name rang no bells, but the answer is an astounding YES.
So, okay: maybe, just maybe, this one time, everything I've read on the internet concerning this film might be right.
But you know what? I like MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE, and the majority of its online reviewers bash it, so: there's that happy crappy.
All digressions aside, I'll return to share my spoiler-free take on it once I've watched it.*
* You can't say I didn't warn you.
(It can't be worse than Sometimes They Come Back... Again!)
If you can read this, you don't need glasses.
Bring it! We're big boys.
My opinion.....the movie was terrible. The directing was a wreck. Seemed as if the the filming was rushed with no editing....as if the director just gave up on it. Very disappointing.
Yikes. That's when a studio would normally stick in a fixit director to do a patch job. Someone not brilliant, but who knows how to get it on film. Was there anything you liked? The opening scenes in the preview looked pretty good.
Wow, Cusack is starting to age kind of hard. Or maybe the makeup people were terrible too.
Grin.....there were a few good scenes. But the whole movie just didn't flow together well. Once (if) you watch it, you can tell why it never went to the big screen and instead straight to video on demand. The review "Rotten Tomatoes" gives is spot on.
Well, the library just got my copy in, so I'll be back to share my feelings on it in about three hours.
(My posts will all be meaningful once I've exceeded 100. Just in case you're all like, "why would someone even post that?". (Which is what I would be 'all like'.))
Sorry, fellow friends and neighbors,
I just started watching 20 minutes ago.
I can tell you this so far: at the 19 minute 56 second mark, somebody accidentally held the camera still for 1 whole second!
More on this as it comes in...
All the main actors are giving good performances. (Stacy Keach in the house, y'all!)
But: and yes, this is a
The Raggedy Man is WHITE! Damn it! I always pictured Ice Cube as The Raggedy Man!
So far, I wouldn't not advise anyone to watch this. There have been quite a few good moments. (Well, quite may be an overstatement...)
Right now I just hope the jerky camera-person doesn't show back up.
And in world news: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!
And now, a word from our sponsor:
My final two cents:
I enjoyed a solid hour of this movie. The first 20-25 minutes was mostly "shaky-camera-action" sequences, but after that, I enjoyed it.
the end. I preferred the ending in the book.
The Raggedy Man wasn't creepy. I don't give a rat's hind-end what ethnicity anyone is. (It just throws me for a loop if I've previously envisioned someone else playing the part while reading.) All that matters when it comes to performers is their performance and their screen presence. The Raggedy Man didn't have much screen time at all, though, in his defense.
Overall, I thought it was a three out of five star flick. But, I could see how someone could find it horrendous. Terror pictures walk the line more than most other genres that way, I think. Especially adaptations of great novels. Everyone expects something different from them. That is a good thing, in my opinion. I like variety. But back on point...
It wasn't the book (they never are), but the essence was there on numerous occasion.
There were quite a few good moments. There were even four or five times when I caught myself grinning and nodding my head.
I've definitely seen at least ten King adaptations that were worse. (NOTE: I'm blocking the first 20 minutes of the film (due to the shaky camera) from my memory. (And I may forget what went down in the last 10 minutes
(due to content.))
The following should let you know whether or not to value my opinion:
Stuff you can watch involving Mr. King that I enjoy (in no particular order):
Cat's Eye, 1408, It, Stand By Me, Misery, Cujo, The Mist, Maximum Overdrive, Kingdom Hospital, Rose Red, The Shining by Kubrick (sorry, Mr. King! I like the book better, if that's any consolation!), The Green Mile, Silver Bullet, Pet Sematary, The Dead Zone, Firestarter, Creepshow (featuring Joe Hill AND Stephen King) & Creepshow 2, Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (pretty much only 'The Black Cat' segment, though), Desperation, Christine, Carrie (old and new), Thinner ... blah, blah, blah. The list goes on. That should give you enough of an idea of who you're dealing with.
In the end, I will text the people I know who got excited when the rumor about
Eli Roth wanting to direct this surfaced. (We were excited. Whatever online grapevine it was later said that the studio wanted it to be PG-13, and Mr. Roth respectfully
declined. (WARNING! THIS IS ALL MY FADED MEMORY OF HEARSAY.)
Anyway, I will text them, advising them to watch this. "Just make it through the first 20 minutes, if ye don't dig the action sequences," I'll say.
One of said group will probably prefer
the way this ends. She HATED the end of the book. Whereas, I thought it was damn good! (I felt the same way about the end of The Dark Tower! I may have actually declared, 'Hell yeah!' aloud.) NOTE: I'm the minority in our humble group on both counts. No one can tell me how they would have ended the story though...
I should also probably mention that they made this movie in under thirty days with a modest budget.
Also: lots of big productions employ that cursed shake-the-handheld-camera technique, too. (Did the Bourne movies popularize that technique?)
99% of the performers with speaking roles put on good performances.
It's not quite the feeling you get from the book, but the essence surfaces frequently.
Sorry for the length of this, but I really did enjoy the movie for about an hour straight. Thought somebody else might, too, and I almost passed on it due to all the bad reviews.
I respect everyone's opinion. If you dislike the movie, that's cool with me. I understand. I admit that I sometimes like poorly made films as long as they have good characters and the story at least mostly makes sense.
Didn't mean to take over the thread or anything.
(Also, I misspelled Mr. Keach's name earlier. Stacy Keach, not Stacey.)