|
|
Post by blue on Aug 20, 2005 0:15:44 GMT -5
Any input from anyone? I'm dying to talk about it, just got back from seeing a late showing of it. I thought it was pretty good, not the best though. I probably would've been bored and let my mind wander if Cillian wasn't a main character. There were some good scenes, and a few places where people jumped (I swear I got back problems -- Someone behind me jumped so high they kicked my chair really hard! Rrrrr  ), but I can think of more thrilling ones. I would go see it again, though. A movie doesn't have to be the best for me to like it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tanya1976 on Aug 20, 2005 0:19:26 GMT -5
I voted alright, cause he's in it. Not great, but not bad. I would give a B-
|
|
|
|
Post by blue on Aug 20, 2005 0:24:07 GMT -5
It wasn't bad. But I'm pretty easily entertained, I like a lot of things. The fact that he was in it made it excellent in my mind, so I had to imagine someone else in it to rate the movie. Id give it a solid B.
|
|
|
|
Post by kurenai on Aug 20, 2005 13:29:37 GMT -5
Note: I'm a harsh critic. The only reason I saw this movie was because of Cillian (haha) but, even so, I'm not the kind of person to fawn all over a movie just because one of my favorite actors/tresses is in it.
It was okay (as in a C). That's pretty much all I can say... I'm not a big fan of Craven's work. It certainly wasn't as bad as a local paper made it out to be... at least, with the characterization. As far as the plot line went, they had it pretty dead on (basically trite, bland, Hollywood crap). I didn't find McAdams's character to be as bland and annoying as they said she was, and I didn't find Cillian's character too goofy to be taken seriously (as their reviewer said). I actually found the characters good, you know, nice and realistic.
So basically, the story was pretty mediocre and VERY illogical, but the characters made it bearable.
|
|
|
|
Post by natalie on Aug 20, 2005 15:36:09 GMT -5
I totally agree, in general Wes Craven's movies are C's...B's at best. Cillian's performance basically carried the movie (or maybe I'm just partial). Rachel McAdams was also convincing.
My main beef about the movie was that Jackson (Cillians character) was WAY underdeveloped. I kept asking myself "who is this guy?", "what's his background?". "why is he doing this job?", etc. It would have been more believable if some of the gaps were filled in. Also, Lisa's father was underdeveloped. We were supposed to worry for his safety, even though he was in like, 2 very short scenes.
Some good things about it :
Rachel McAdams and Cillian had good chemistry. There scenes together were intense, and believeable.
Wes Craven played on Lisa's fear of flying...kept me on the edge of my seat.
Quite intense, so the fact that most of the film was in a confined space didn't hinder it.
I wouldn't have seen this movie if Cillian hadn't been in it, but he made it worthwhile. He does villian so well.
|
|
|
|
Post by aurora10 on Aug 20, 2005 15:45:50 GMT -5
I see that you guys were like "eh" about the movie but I loved it....a lot. I was smiling the whole time. I thought it was very entertaining and the acting was great (especially Cill). He makes the best villian!!!!!!!! I can't wait to see it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by blue on Aug 20, 2005 18:36:05 GMT -5
Like I said, I'm easily entertained, I'm not a movie snob (I'm not saying that anyone here is, btw.). I enjoyed it, but its not the greatest. And I haven't seen any of Wes Craven's other works, I heard they were mediocre. I liked it, and would see it again. The acting was good, the rest of it just needed a bit of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by ontheedge on Aug 20, 2005 19:11:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kurenai on Aug 20, 2005 20:41:12 GMT -5
Saw it again, this afternoon (ha... My friend and I are such losers... but she payed, so... moohahaha...).
The only thought in my mind for the first part of the movie was "what happened to the nachos?" (Along with other movie mess-ups. Hehe...) 'Cause he gets the nachos, and the plate is well, HUGE, and in the next scene he's in, they're gone.
All hail Jack the Rippner, who can pack away a heaping plate of nachos in under 5 minutes. If that ain't the American way, I don't know what I'm talking about. .....Yup..... (*is sleep deprived... majorly*)
Anyway, I think that not knowing much about Jackson Rippner was part of his characterization. He starts off as a good kind of guy, helpful and charming, and then, well, the truth comes out. It wasn't supposed to be a deep look into the characters, it was one of those... action over depth kinds of things. Truth be it, he wasn't meant to be anything but the bad guy, and in a lot of productions like Red Eye, the bad guy is very... er... flat (at least, from my observation). I think the only reason why they went so far into Lisa's life was to show how much Rippner knew about her and her father, and how dedicated she was to her job.
|
|
|
|
Post by dior4ever on Aug 20, 2005 20:42:40 GMT -5
i loved the movie with or with out cillian!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Puggems on Aug 20, 2005 22:00:23 GMT -5
The only thought in my mind for the first part of the movie was "what happened to the nachos?" (Along with other movie mess-ups. Hehe...) 'Cause he gets the nachos, and the plate is well, HUGE, and in the next scene he's in, they're gone. All hail Jack the Rippner, who can pack away a heaping plate of nachos in under 5 minutes. If that ain't the American way, I don't know what I'm talking about. .....Yup..... (*is sleep deprived... majorly*)  I didn't notice. That's so funny! Cillian probably ate them between takes, I mean, the guy looks like he hardly eats!  |
|
|
|
Post by blue on Aug 20, 2005 22:05:46 GMT -5
Yeah, I felt the need to stuff him with nachos, just so he gets a little fat on him. I feel blind... I didn't see any nachos! Maybe I just forgot. The thing I was thinking about was when he goes "Do you need a bellhop?" The stewardess is walking and reaches a certain point, before they cut to a new take and she's in a completely different spot.... Just noticed that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Puggems on Aug 20, 2005 22:09:41 GMT -5
Wow, I was so busy keeping my eyes on Cill that I missed all of these little inconsistancies.  |
|
|
|
Post by Puggems on Aug 20, 2005 22:12:40 GMT -5
The thing I found hardest to believe is that he would even get up and help that lady with her carry-on. I mean, he was really such a slimeball, you'd think he would just be like "tough." I mean, it wouldn't have really affected his agenda if he didn't help her, so why did he?
|
|
|
|
Post by blue on Aug 20, 2005 22:19:17 GMT -5
He was quite the charming lad when he wasn't being his true self, and he did have to keep that act up to others. And that lady was pretty persistent anyway.
|
|
), but I can think of more thrilling ones. I would go see it again, though. A movie doesn't have to be the best for me to like it. ;D
I didn't notice. That's so funny! 
