Fair thriller trashed here by the pro gun nuts
Added 9/28/2009
No one is saying that this Wesley Snipes vehicle is academy award material...Far from it..But it is certainly just as good as about 85% of films of a similiar nature..What this film has going against it-at least here in the amazon review section-is it's politics..The pro gun nuts are out in force against this one for no other reason than because the politics involved suggests that BOTH people AND guns kill people,something the bullet no-brainers here vehemently disagree with
Since so many of the gun nuts have chosen to give all of the plot details,and comment on the flat acting why don't we concentrate on the politics,which,in almost every negative review here IS the whole purpose of the review?...
Most developed nations don't allow thier citizens to have the sort of access to guns that the USA does,and for the most part thier crime and murder rates are much lower than ours..And,hey..These same developed nations are not threatened by dictatorships just because every tom,dick,and harry citizen isn't packing..
Guns,like bubble gum,lamp-shades,cough medicine,and sweet corn,are a commodity,a product,a way for some corporation or other to make a buck..except that for the most part the other items that I've listed,plus millions of other products that I haven't listed do not,as thier sole purpose,kill things..People,animals,you name it..Guns kill things and do nothing else..
So when one of these things are used to kill a loved one,as in the film,whom do we blame?The killer,sure,but the killer alone? Why?Sure,a killer could use a knife,or rope,or a bowling ball to kill,but then we are back to that knotty problem involving these items,which are not used for killing only,while guns have no other purpose..Hold the manufacturer as responsible as the trigger-puller and you would see some very stict gun control laws come onto the books pronto,and that is because our corporate types want to continue making big bucks off thier lethal product and would have to go along or go out of business..
Then there is that pesky clause about"the right to bear arms"..Written when the Usa was a dangerous wilderness,the nation was new,there were neither standing armies or even police forces,and no refridgerators or super markets and you can see why guns were allowed,even encouraged..Our only military at that time was the citizen-militia,and,afterall,what good would an army do us against an invader if they didn't have-couldn't have-weapons?But that was over 200 hundred years ago,and that need to be your own army,your own police force,your own grocery store is long over,and what is also long over is any real need for the average citizen to possess guns..Still,this does not stop the gun nuts from banging thier empty chests about thier"rights",or the bogus threats from criminals and/or our government that alledgedly validates thier"need" to go around armed..
Hey-I didn't think the film was so hot,but some of the points made about guns and responsibility were spot on..It's just too bad that they were not made all that well or in a better motion picture...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
This movie is laughably poor
Added 11/27/2008
And even worse, it has already been done before in "Phone Booth," with Colin Farrell.
Can we really be expected to believe that everyone and their brother knows where to go to a hot dog stand in broad daylight to buy drugs? Can we really be expected to believe that it took, like, 45 minutes for an ambulance to be brought to an officer?
Snipes lines seemed.......labored. I don't know if it is because it was out of character for him or if the writing was really just that bad.
Whatever the case, this movie went right into the trash after being viewed. I am out of CNY2 (US$0.33). Not the end of the world.
I know that the authors were trying to make a point about gun control, but I had a hard time staying awake long enough to consider it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Heavy handed politics ruin an interesting film
Added 2/20/2006
Warning***Some spoilers below
This movie has good moments, and creates a surprising amount of intensity for a story that revolves around an individual literally standing still. However, the political statements related to gun accessibility are way over the top and so heavy handed that they become trite. After a short while I found myself focusing more on the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the political arguments instead of the movie itself.
For example, the individual who is upset about the random murder of his daughter by a gunman thinks nothing about killing other people's children. Hmmm... Not a particularly good protagonist.
There is absolutely no counter balance to the story, and the characters become so stereotyped that they lose an real appeal. This is especially true of Liberty, who lacks any redeming quality. Further, nearly everyone in the story winds up dead, except for Liberty, who gets to walk off with her boyfriend after leaving her husband, who unnecessarily placed himself in danger to try to save her, dieing on the street. She didn't even give him a backward glance. I have to admit that by the end of the movie, she was the only character I really wanted to see die. Instead, she is the only one who lives. Go figure... (I think the director wanted us to think of the husband as the villain and Liberty as the hero, but I can't think of a single appealing characteristic of Liberty whereas the husband demonstrated bravery, motivation, and a willingness to sacrifice for others.)
Over all, the movie isn't worth the ride. The cinemaphotography is stylish and the concept is neat. However, the politics are just too dogmatic and poorly argued, and the characters are not compelling. It could have been a good movie, but it just didn't turn out that way.
4 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
Just a simple entertaining movie!
Added 2/5/2005
A desperate man - Wesley Snippes - wounded in his most intimate feelings , betrayed and shocked by his daughter's loss decides to assume the justice according his ethical codes. A man who knows the most detailed issues concerned with explosives, high precision weapons and electronics.
His chosen target will be the seductive wife of an important executive. She is not precisely a special angel and devoted couple.
Despite certain inconsistencies in its dramatic profile and two serious defaults of artistic edition the film gets its goal. A good entertaining with some awesome statements in the overlong cell dialogue between the hunter and his frightened victim.
In the other hand the dramatic parallelism with Phone Booth is more than obvious.
Which are the two faults? . Well, the first of them is Where could Linda Fiorentino get a blanket to cover the corpse of the murdered? Do you really think it was inside the Hot Dogs expenditure?. And the second issue is related to a clever mistake in the make up and stylist hair of Fiorentino . Please watch very carefully in the second third part of the film this detail: if she is enchained to the car after several hours of high emotional tension I guess she must be tired, with a no delineated make up and disordered hair: But not , she looks gorgeous, splendid as if she came from the hairdresser.
These little details may seem unimportant for many people but it delimits the best intentions because you must not bet with the intelligence of the viewer.
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
GOOD, BUT IT SUFFERS FROM BEING COMPARED TO PHONE BOOTH
Added 8/8/2004
SEEKING REVENGE FOR HIS YOUNG DAUGHTER'S MURDER, A SNIPER [WESLEY SNIPES] TRAPS A GUN COMPANY OWNER [LINDA FIORENTINO] TO A HOT DOG STAND THAT'S TRIGGERED TO EXPLODE. I AGREE, THIS AIN'T AS GOOD AS PHONE BOOTH, BUT IT'S A GOOD MOVIE NONETHELESS. THIS MOVIE'S DEFINITELY WORTH A WATCH IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY SEEN IT. IF YOU DON'T WANNA PAY ANY MONEY TO SEE IT, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CATCH THIS MOVIE ON TV SOMETIME.
0 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
Fair thriller trashed here by the pro gun nuts
Added 9/28/2009
No one is saying that this Wesley Snipes vehicle is academy award material...Far from it..But it is certainly just as good as about 85% of films of a similiar nature..What this film has going against it-at least here in the amazon review section-is it's politics..The pro gun nuts are out in force against this one for no other reason than because the politics involved suggests that BOTH people AND guns kill people,something the bullet no-brainers here vehemently disagree with
Since so many of the gun nuts have chosen to give all of the plot details,and comment on the flat acting why don't we concentrate on the politics,which,in almost every negative review here IS the whole purpose of the review?...
Most developed nations don't allow thier citizens to have the sort of access to guns that the USA does,and for the most part thier crime and murder rates are much lower than ours..And,hey..These same developed nations are not threatened by dictatorships just because every tom,dick,and harry citizen isn't packing..
Guns,like bubble gum,lamp-shades,cough medicine,and sweet corn,are a commodity,a product,a way for some corporation or other to make a buck..except that for the most part the other items that I've listed,plus millions of other products that I haven't listed do not,as thier sole purpose,kill things..People,animals,you name it..Guns kill things and do nothing else..
So when one of these things are used to kill a loved one,as in the film,whom do we blame?The killer,sure,but the killer alone? Why?Sure,a killer could use a knife,or rope,or a bowling ball to kill,but then we are back to that knotty problem involving these items,which are not used for killing only,while guns have no other purpose..Hold the manufacturer as responsible as the trigger-puller and you would see some very stict gun control laws come onto the books pronto,and that is because our corporate types want to continue making big bucks off thier lethal product and would have to go along or go out of business..
Then there is that pesky clause about"the right to bear arms"..Written when the Usa was a dangerous wilderness,the nation was new,there were neither standing armies or even police forces,and no refridgerators or super markets and you can see why guns were allowed,even encouraged..Our only military at that time was the citizen-militia,and,afterall,what good would an army do us against an invader if they didn't have-couldn't have-weapons?But that was over 200 hundred years ago,and that need to be your own army,your own police force,your own grocery store is long over,and what is also long over is any real need for the average citizen to possess guns..Still,this does not stop the gun nuts from banging thier empty chests about thier"rights",or the bogus threats from criminals and/or our government that alledgedly validates thier"need" to go around armed..
Hey-I didn't think the film was so hot,but some of the points made about guns and responsibility were spot on..It's just too bad that they were not made all that well or in a better motion picture...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
This movie is laughably poor
Added 11/27/2008
And even worse, it has already been done before in "Phone Booth," with Colin Farrell.
Can we really be expected to believe that everyone and their brother knows where to go to a hot dog stand in broad daylight to buy drugs? Can we really be expected to believe that it took, like, 45 minutes for an ambulance to be brought to an officer?
Snipes lines seemed.......labored. I don't know if it is because it was out of character for him or if the writing was really just that bad.
Whatever the case, this movie went right into the trash after being viewed. I am out of CNY2 (US$0.33). Not the end of the world.
I know that the authors were trying to make a point about gun control, but I had a hard time staying awake long enough to consider it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Heavy handed politics ruin an interesting film
Added 2/20/2006
Warning***Some spoilers below
This movie has good moments, and creates a surprising amount of intensity for a story that revolves around an individual literally standing still. However, the political statements related to gun accessibility are way over the top and so heavy handed that they become trite. After a short while I found myself focusing more on the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the political arguments instead of the movie itself.
For example, the individual who is upset about the random murder of his daughter by a gunman thinks nothing about killing other people's children. Hmmm... Not a particularly good protagonist.
There is absolutely no counter balance to the story, and the characters become so stereotyped that they lose an real appeal. This is especially true of Liberty, who lacks any redeming quality. Further, nearly everyone in the story winds up dead, except for Liberty, who gets to walk off with her boyfriend after leaving her husband, who unnecessarily placed himself in danger to try to save her, dieing on the street. She didn't even give him a backward glance. I have to admit that by the end of the movie, she was the only character I really wanted to see die. Instead, she is the only one who lives. Go figure... (I think the director wanted us to think of the husband as the villain and Liberty as the hero, but I can't think of a single appealing characteristic of Liberty whereas the husband demonstrated bravery, motivation, and a willingness to sacrifice for others.)
Over all, the movie isn't worth the ride. The cinemaphotography is stylish and the concept is neat. However, the politics are just too dogmatic and poorly argued, and the characters are not compelling. It could have been a good movie, but it just didn't turn out that way.
4 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
