Isn't there anyone annoyed with the ending of this movie? The detective claimed to have been following the good guys in order to get the evidence he needed. Yet, while he was supposedly following them, there were several times where they were almost killed and only survived through luck. Yet we are supposed to believe that the detective sat back and watched all this, allowing the innocent victims to almost die (apparently, he was willing to let them die to get the evidence) in order to get his evidence.
Too many movies do this. They want their viewers to forget about everything that could have and really SHOULD have happened, because everything worked out in the end. Sorry, but I have too much common sense for that.
Some plot twists do nothing but insult the intelligence of the viewer. For example, how many movies do you see where the police sets up a main character (without his consent) to almost get killed just to get the evidence to put away the bad guy. Meanwhile, before all is said and done, the good guy has nearly been killed several times and has survived with no help from the cop. (As if the cop knew that the bad guy would just miss the victim by inches with 6 bullets.) And viewers are supposed to believe that a cop would knowingly risk the life of an innocent victim just to get that one extra piece of evidence, and not tell him about it.
But this movie goes far beyond that. And I am not saying that it is the only one that does so, but this one was just laughable. I am referring to the ending, so this will contain SPOILERS.
So, Tim Robbins has set up this one huge terrorist act. Obviously, he knows he basically has one shot at it. So he would plan it VERY carefully, and have many back up plans, right? I mean, toward the end, while fighting with Jeff Bridges, he even asks Bridges, "Did you really think I would leave anything to chance?"
But the ridiculous thing is, that is EXACTLY what he did! His bombing plot hinged on so many ridiculous things happening that just all happened to fall into place. For example...What if Jeff Bridges was able to convey to the FBI agent the plot via the cell phone? He might not have continued to drive there. What if, after losing sight of the delivery van carrying his son, Bridges never spotted the other van on the crowded street. Or, what if he had caught up to the first van and grabbed his son? Or, what if the FBI security did NOT allow Bridges car to get into the parking garage. (This is a HUGE assumption to make, especially when plotting such a major terrorist act.)
Now, banking on ONE of these things working out the way Robbins' planned is ridiculous enough. But banking a huge plot on ALL of the above happening just as planned is completely unimaginable. Again, it is an insult to the viewers to try to make them think that just because that is the way it DOES happen, that it is reasonable for a criminal genius to plan it that way.
It would be a little like a bomber setting up an elaborate plot to bomb Las Vegas, so he sets up a bomb that somehow will detonate when a certain roulette wheel hits on 21, 10, 00, 30, 35, 6 on consecutive spins. Could it happen? Sure. But someone is not going to have their plans hinge on that unlikely outcome.
Like I said, Arlington Road is not the only movie to do this. But it stands out as particularly laughable because of Tim Robbins actually pointing out that the rest of the movie was carefully "planned" by him. So the movie basically pointed out its own shortcomings.
This film's user's rating just goes to show how short an attention span people who vote for movies have. While I wouldn't say this was a bad movie, for it to rate in the top 250 is absurd. The film had a great build up, and an extremely suspense main scene. And then....nothing. One of the most unsatisfying endings to a high profile movie ever. It was as if the M. Night Shyamalan got writer's block and decided to just end the movie. I really feel cheated by him building me up for such a let down.
I see a lot of people, not just here, but elsewhere complain about mistakes in the movie because these people think the movie is set in 1987. It is not. The only connection to the 1987 strike is that they both used replacement players. Nothing else fits. For example, the 1987 replacement "season" lasted only 2 games. This one lasted longer. As if that isn't enough proof, here is a more obvious one. When Shane Falco is diving and picks up his All America Trophy, it say 1995 All America Team on it. 1995! Seriously, with all these sites talking about mistakes ni movies, some people watch a movie only to nit pick, rather than enjoy the movie. (Most of the time, these nit picking observations are completely wrong, or at least very explainable.) For those that watch a movie to be entertained, rather than to make themselves feel superior, they will find that this movie is a pleasant surprise. Certainly not the best comedy of all time, or even of 2000. But well worth the time spent watching it.
Back in the days of the NES, the object of the Mike Tyson game was to defeat the unbeatable Mike Tyson. And now, when it is so obvious that Mike Tyson was never a true champion but nothing more than a brawler who went through a bunch of set up matches, his video game does not allow players to do what his real life opponents find so easy to do these days. Stay away from this game. Break out the old Nintendo and play Punch Out instead. Like many new video games, game play is sacrificed for graphics and other "enhancements" that usually take away from the game's fun.
Everybody who mentions the "sequel" coming attractions at the end as if they were real just doesn't get it. That was a JOKE! History of the World Part 1 came out at a time when a lot of movies were making sequels even though they shouldn't have. Or they were leaving themselves open for sequels with endings that left some doubt. Mel Brooks was parodying these movies. At not point did he intend to make History of the World Part 2. Not even if the original had made $300 million! So forget about that and just watch THIS movie. It definitely had its good moments. Yes, some segments lasted a few minutes too long. But how many comedies DON'T have some moments that drag on?
I'm not sure why watching this movie would make someone afraid of roller coasters any more than watching Speed would make them afraid of public transportation and elevators. Just because they make a movie about a bomber who tried to blow up a roller coaster doesn't mean that all roller coasters are going to blow up in real life. This is a typical disaster movie from the 70s. Nothing great, but not a waste of time either.
Someone please explain to me this Hollywood theory that makes this kind of story a happy ending? This type of ending of played in movies often (The Wedding Planner) and they are always supposed to be a happy ending. What about their fiances? Was it happy for them? Do these selfish idiot main characters not care that they just used their loved ones and dropped them as soon as someone they knew for mere hours returned? Let's see, months/years of love and loyalty vs. 8 hours of bumping into each other one night. Which one should you be with? In Hollywood, they are expected to screw their fiances over. And audiences are supposed to go home happy about it?
OK, for those of you condemning Britney Spears for making this movie, calm down. She does NOT have to act differently from any typical 20 year old just because pre-teens happen to look up to her. She never asked for that responsibility and she does not need to change her lifestyle to live up to it. This movie was rated PG-13, which quite frankly means that pre-teens should not have been allowed in without adult supervision. And this movie was NOT a horrible thing for kids to see. If you shelter a kid from the realities of life, do you know what you get? You get a 35 year old baby who still lives at home because they are afraid of being away from their mommy. That being said, the movie wasn't great, but wasn't the worst thing.
I haven't seen that many episodes, so I don't know if the show tries to pass itself off as being a real show with real people or if it freely admits to being scripted. But if it DOES try to call itself real, and there i a single person in this country who believes that it is real, then I have lost all faith in society. It is so obvious that the reactions of both the cheater and cheatees are scripted because in real life, nobody acts that way. Never underestimate the dumbing down of television
This movie just annoys me. Because it makes me realize that the only thing keeping me from a career making movies is start up capital.
I KNOW I can act, write, direct and produce better than this thoroughly annoying piece of absolute garbage.
There is not a single moment of humor in this movie and because of the intended humor that falls so flat it just becomes uncomfortable to watch. When I watch, I just feel embarrassed for everyone on screen.
A lot of people were expecting this show to jump out of the gates as a classic. Why? Name one series that did that? Certainly not the show that most people are comparing it to. Did anybody actually WATCH That '70s Show when it debuted in the summer of 1998? It was horrible. And it focused too much on the 70s. But that is not all. Try going back and watching the first season of Seinfeld, or even the Simpsons these days. They are horrible. Why? Because the writers need time to develop the direction of the characters and the show in general.
Now that the series has had about half a season, they HAVE become less reliant on the 80s references and more on the plots. Yes, they throw the occasional reference in a few times a show. But I can say that as a child of the 80s, I want MORE references, not less. (Why have they not visited an arcade yet?)
This show is not destined to be one of the all time greats, but don't expect it to leave the airwaves any time soon. It is still doing pretty well for Fox, and anchoring the Wednesday line up, which is a difficult task to give to a mid-season replacement. Fox is not stupid. They will allow this show to grow, just as they allowed That '70s Show to develop.
Sportscenter's usefulness has gone with the appearance of the internet. As a result, the anchors, most of whom are horribly unfunny and annoying (are you listening Stuart Scott?) have had to resort to cheap gimmicks to attract viewers, rather than actually have any real sports reporting. So now, the show is for people who have no real knowledge of what sports is all about. Instead, it is for people who think sports is all about dunking, showboating, and classlessness. Oh yeah, and plenty of Michael and Tiger. I really love knowing that Tiger came in 23rd, 12 strokes behind, rather than getting any real clips of the WINNER.
I don't know why, but this movie has a strange fascination that makes me want to watch it. Not a great movie, but passable. But as far as Before They Were Stars, someone needs to realize that the highpoint of John Lithgow's career is NOT a stupid TV show about aliens. He was a big star WELL before this movie came out. He had two Oscar nominations and won an Emmy. Meanwhile, the other two known stars in this movie, John Mahoney and Cynthia Nixon were also quite well known before their TV roles, each with over 10 movies under their belts by 1986.
What is up with a movie coming out in 2001 acting as if the internet is still creating dot com millionaires out of nowhere? If this were real life, that guy would have already BEEN a millionaire but would be seeing his fortune being reduced to being able to afford nothing more than a hot meal and a cheap bottle of wine.
How do you make beautiful women extremely unattractive?
Now, I'm no prude or anything but there is nothing more unattractive than beautiful women with mouths that would make a mob boss blush. A well placed curse word can be very effective, but nothing screams "I trailer park trash!" more than peppering every sentence with the F word. Aren't these movies supposed to make the viewers WANT these women? If so, can't they make their personalities even REMOTELY desirable? Yes, I know they are horrible actors, but just for the 80 minutes of the movie can't they pretend to have a teeny tiny bit of class? It might make the movie more enjoyable for the viewers.
I loved this movie as a kid, and still like it. Especially when you compare it to the awful sequel. But there is just someting that I can't get over. OK, I can accept the fact that crime got so bad by 1997 that they had to turn a big piece of land into a prison. But I just cannot get over the fact that they would turn the most expensive land in the country into aprison. Why not Martha's Vineyard or some other island that woldn't involve displacing millions of innocent people and zillions of dollars of industry? Yes, I know with movies you have to suspend disbelief. But this is a little too much.
This movie was better 8 years ago. When it was called The Firm. Replace the mafia with a Microsoft-like company (which makes sense wince they are probably looked at as being worse than the mafia these days) and you get Anti-Trust. Between this and the laughable Arlington Road, it is clear Tim Robbins needs to stick to drama roles like Shawshank, rather than trying to play the villain in a thriller. Ironically, in 1995 my friends and I were discussing Robbins' career and we remarked how he always seems to pick winners. Unfortunately, he hasn't picked one since Shawshank. He is too good a talent to waste with movies like this one.
Why do people so often confuse trivia with intelligence. It does NOT require any intelligence to be on this show, just knowing a lot of worthless and obscure facts. Filling up your brain with this does not make you any smarter, just a freak with a sponge memory. Besides, lately the questions have even gotten more trivial. They had one that was basically a rip off of Pyramid. The 'answers' were a group of things with a common bond and the 'questions' were to be given in the form of "What are Things that are..." All it needed was Dick Clark and perhaps Nipsy Russell to help the contestants and it was Pyramid all over again.
The writers of Coach really had a no-win situation. The best part about the show was that he was taking a team of nobodies and trying to turn a football program around at a fictitious school that supposedly had a once great football program. Minnesota State was the underdog. They started out taking things slow. They didn't rush into making them champions. In th first season they were happy to just get a few wins. Then they made it to their first Bowl game (where they got killed in a blizzard). Then Hayden beat his mentor and won his first Bowl game. This culminated in the team winning the national championship.
That is where the trouble began and the producers knew it. Where do they go from there? Sure, the team trying to defend their championship was enough to sustain one season. But that was it. The main reason for the shows existence was gone.
So what did the writers do in a last ditch effort? They give Hayden another bunch of underdogs, an expansion NFL team. It just didn't work. Coach (the show) was about Minnesota State. Not Florida. The shows really lost a lot of quality after that move. It was a classic example of a show that should have gone out on top a season or two earlier.
It amazes me why people always want to believe something is fixed. (Such as the bug eating segment.) News flash to these people, no network would even ATTEMPT such a thing after the trouble game shows got into in the 50's. It is not like they had a damn thing to gain by making the girl drop out. Think about it! My problem with this show is it really has nothing to do with fear. In the first two shows, the only real phobias that have been challenged were the fear of things crawling on you (rats and worms) and maybe heights. Though with the harness, the fear of heights is diminished. But other than that, are people really waking up in a cold sweat with the fear of being dragged behind a horse or being shot with a paint ball? The name of the show is just completely wrong for the content, which is bad for the show. The content is better than the name. And the name will only lead to more people wrongly accusing it of copying MTV, as if Fear was original to begin with.
You know, some times an 'idea' has never been done before because it should never be done. This movie is a perfect example. Why on earth would anybody think that people want to see a movie split into four quadrants?
I mean, I could take a script as bad as this, and film it upside down. Does that make it good because it is 'daring and original'?