Reply With Quote
it was horrible....i mean...c'mon.
Much better than I expected.
Could be due to the fact that I did two huge lines before going in and feared that there would be cops waiting for me once I was done with the movie.
it was horrible....i mean...c'mon.
Agreed. That movie sucked!! It was basically a rip off of Irobot..
have not seen it, but given my hate for both shia le and rosario dogson i don't anticipate enjoying it.... lines never hurt though.
White liiiiiines
shoulda known you'd be here soon to suck TSA's .. ing got
I saw the trailer, so this is basically an outside, action film with less gore version of Saw?
I thought it was pretty ok, better than i thought.
Besides both being computers trying to take over (and even that was different as she was going to have another person run the country), the rest of the film is very different. Most films involve a master computer/robots taking over...Matrix, Terminator so i harldy call it a rip off.
It was alright. Nothing special.
it's a ing COMPUTER????
Then again, anything with Shia Le is bound to be some pretty gay .
Bingo!
I have to admit though that the driving/action scenes were pretty kickass.
Must have been good stuff SANX, because Eagle Eye sucked.
i was really disappointed...the action scenes were ok but c'mon....a ing female computer? most of the they go through is just ridiculous. i don't have the time nor the inclination to type a complete review of it but this, from rodger ebert, pretty much sums it up:
The word preposterous is too moderate to describe "Eagle Eye." This film contains not a single plausible moment after the opening sequence, and that's borderline. It's not an assault on intelligence. It's an assault on consciousness. I know, I know, I liked "Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," but that film intended to be absurd. "Eagle Eye" has real cars and buildings and trains and CNN and stuff, and purports to take place in the real world.
You might like it, actually. Lots of people will. It involves relentless action: chases involving planes, trains, automobiles, buses. Hundreds of dead. Enough crashes to stock a junkyard. Lots of stuff being blowed up real good. Two heroes who lack any experience with violence but somehow manage to stick up an armored car at gunpoint, walk on board an unguarded military transport plane and penetrate to the ultra-secret 29th-floor basement of the Pentagon.
They are Jerry and Rachel (Shia LaBeouf and Mic e Monaghan). Both are ordinary Chicagoans until they start getting commands from a mysterious female voice on their cell phones. Now try to follow this. Whatever force is behind the voice has control of every cell phone and security camera in the nation. They can control every elevated train and every stop light. Can observe the traffic and give precise driving instructions. Can control the movements of cranes in junkyards, the locations of garbage barges and arrange for a rendezvous on a dirt road in an Indiana country field. Oh, and when a guy drives down the road to meet them in a van, They can instruct them to warn the guy that if he walks away, he will be killed. If They don't want him dead, then why do They kill him -- since the situation clearly reflects Their power?
We haven't even arrived at the Pentagon, and already the audience is chuckling at the impossibilities. I won't even get started on the air cargo container, the syringes inside and the on-time recovery of the heroes after they give themselves shots. Turns out the syringes were in a briefcase that the heroes survived incredible death and destruction to pick up, and it isn't even needed after the plane takes off. I won't give it away, but the only thing They really need is an attribute of Jerry's. So here's an idea that would save billions of dollars and hundreds of lives: Why not get a couple of no-neck guys from the West Side to kidnap Jerry, haul him on board a private jet and transport him to Them?
OK, OK. Enough with the implausibilities. This whole movie is a feature-length deus ex machina, and if you don't know what that is, look it up, because you're going to need it to discuss "Eagle Eye." And yet I think I'll use the tricky star-rating system to give it two stars. Now why would I give it two instead of, oh, say, one star? Both because of the elements I've complained about, and in spite of the elements I've complained about.
Let me explain. If you're looking for a narrative that makes much sense, "Eagle Eye" lacks one. It's essentially a lot of CGI and stunt work, all stuck together in a row. LaBeouf is a good young actor, but you wouldn't discover that here. I barely had time to observe that he resembles an underweight John Cusack when he was off and running, as Jerry and Rachel became elements in effect scenes. The movie obviously intends to resemble and inspire a video game, and at that it is slick. I look forward to film students using their clickers to work out the average shot length. I'm predicting less than three seconds. So to summarize, "Eagle Eye" is great at all the things I object to, and I admit it. But I didn't enjoy it.
Yeah since I paid $13 to see it.. it was a rip off.
I dont even see why anyone would want to watch this movie in the first place.
damn, did they feed you grapes while you watched?
Haha! I wish.. no it was the IMAX price.
You couldn't tell it was gay from the previews?
I think it's pretty much become a moviewatching law that if Even Stevens is the star of the movie, it's going to get an A+ in licking balls.
Disturbia was pretty good.
It was decent. Won't buy it on DVD though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
