Kelly fanNov 17th, 2007 - 06:01:06

It is not graphics you f****ng idiot. It is called special effects, and plus Kelly is a genius. I've seen both Cannes version and the new one and I do believe that neither one had people sleeping or running for the door. It is a plot that requires some thinking ( most people prefer mindless action with little thought into the story). So it must be that you are a brain dead stupid son-of-a-b**ch who has no taste nor intelligents.

Report this comment

Not A Kelly fanNov 19th, 2007 - 05:49:34

Sorry, pretentious drivel doesn't count as 'genius', I'm afraid. No need to insult the intelligence of the nay-sayers, we just don't tolerate bullshit or pretend that incoherent nonsense is somehow 'profound'. I seriously question the sanity behind the film-maker, also, he seems to have a real thought disorganization-thing going on, like many schizophrenics I've treated. And the sci-fi was childish, 'perpetual motion machine', Lord, how ridiculous! 'Tears in the space-time continuum', and that other tired old screenwriting fallback device, amnesia----if I see another movie with an amnesiac, I think that I'll throw up (amnesia is incredibly rare in the real world). Sad to see so many cameos by has-been actors, talents wasted mouthing such foul and banal lines!
And, yes, buddy, I did run for the door!

Report this comment

CBNov 21st, 2007 - 22:32:25

Although you seem to make a good point about the rarity of amnesics in the real world, (I understand as a psychologist, it is used ALL too often in modern film) you seem to entirely miss the point. The movie is not set in the real world, it is set in a near future that does not yet exist. The setting for the movie gives it the scope for whatever it wants, and that's what I love about it: The sense of a 21st century '1984' trying to predict a future we do not know as yet know. That is how I feel it should be interpreted; not as someone suggesting what WILL happen but as a theory as to what MAY happen...If you see this way you can enjoy it for what it really is; beautiful cinematograpy, alright acting and 'The Rock' in a wife-beater.

Report this comment

Ron WilkinsonNov 26th, 2007 - 17:52:49

Not A Kelly Fan pretty much says it all---we nay-sayers simply don't pretend that incoherent nonsense is somehow profound. As for the debate regarding the film-maker's sanity, the bigger question is the sanity of those who screened the film at Cannes and then green-lighted it.

Kelly Fan--Lighten up guy! My rating of 5.0 is well above the prevailing RT Tomato-meter of 34%, so that's actually sort of a compliment, in a way. Maybe you should copy your comments to the other 42 critics on RT who trashed this flick. They might listen to reason. As for being someone 'who has no taste nor intelligents,' I promise to improve my intelligents as soon as possible.

Report this comment