I think I'll check out "Inside Man" tomorrow.

John

Wait a second, is Jason implying that the Super Mario Brothers movie is bad? How could a film starring Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper be anything short of brillaint?.....
Man, sacrasam sometimes just doesn't come across in print.

Hey, "Unleashed" (aka "Danny the Dog") had Jet Li, Morgan Freeman, and Bob Hoskins in what was basically an adaptation of "Frankenstein", one of the greatest English-language novels ever. It still sucked.

Tyler...it's not just bad...it's godawful...so godawful I wanted to [:.(]

God, bring back the Super Mario Brothers Supershow.

It's true, you guys are right. The sound mix was bad and hard to understand half the dialog because of that damn mask. I thought the film had a good look about it but it just delivers too conveluted of a story. It rarely made any points to sink our teeth into and ended up being more confusing rather than feeling rallied behind the main character. It was really no more than a simple tale of revenge, but it had very little substance, or too vague to make me feel connected to rooting on the hero.

I can't say I had issues with the acting as it seems passable enough. The action sequencing wasn't as bad as Batman Begins and you could at least see what was happening, but for the love of God, GIVE us some action! And as I said, I also liked the look and art of the film. It's unfortunate it couldn't have had a better flow instead of bouncing us around in additional tales to create a bigger picture of . . . well . . . nothing! Perhaps the story should have had better focus on the backdrop which was government control; however, instead we get a more personal story of one guys vengence along with Portman who just adds more trash to a story that is already a mess.

Oh, well, it's not the most major disappointment I have ever seen. Generally speaking, it wasn't that bad and certainly not a campy film for this genre, it was just dull. If dull superhero films are your thing then this film will work in every detail of your dull imagination. Honest to God, I literally dozed off a couple times in the theatre. If anything, listen to the staff members of DVDtown and save your money for rental, or not. ;)


5/10
Timmaaaaaaa! :D

[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Jul 17, 2006]

Funny you guys mention the sound mix problem, which is weird. I could hear and understand Hugo Weaving pretty well. Perhaps the problem lies in the sound setups of cinemas.

I finally saw this film today and loved every minute of it. It's a simple, romantic adventure with political overtones for the present. The only dialogue I couldn't understand was at the very beginning, the prologue, because the background music drowned out the voice. Other than that, Weaving's dialogue was perfectly clear. YCH may be right; it might be a matter of a theater's sound system.

John

John and YCH:

How do you account for the fact that every actor other than Hugo Weaving was intelligible? My guess is that cinema owners didn't conspire to mask one guy's voice. ;)

Eddie

Well if they did it would be one funny comparison to the movie wouldn't you think?

Eddie

I figure a few possibilities:

1) John and I have super ears
2) Everyone else has crap ears

But mosy likely:
3) There are always peaks and dips in the frequency response in certain spots of a room (cinemas included). This sound field is going to vary from seat to seat. I'm guessing a combinations of bad speaker setup + unfortunate seating resulted in a dip around Hugo Weaving's voice range.

EDIT: LOL @ the bad pun :D