WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Clive Owen Agrees With You

Posted: September 17th, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Clive Owen Agrees With YouSubmit Comment
Something that we constantly hear at WorstPreviews is fans complaining about how Hollywood keeps churning out the same trash over and over again. Well... actor Clive Owen (Sin City, Children of Men) completely agrees.

Owen recently told Details magazine that he is shocked at the amount of money studios are throwing at terrible films, especially during a recession. He added that he has seen some of the worst scripts get the greenlight.

"They are not very good. And these are films that are funded and ready to go -­ expensive movies," Owen stated. "You're amazed that people are funding them. I start to think it's me, that I'm being too choosy."

Source: Details


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 75 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Ranger writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:38:17 AM

It's ballsy of him (career-wise) to speak up like this. Good for him. Although I don't know it it'll do any good, and may only harm him (meaning not getting offered a job he may have normally gotten, but won't... but we (and he) will never know).
Ted Mosby writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 6:06:17 AM

does this explain Duplicity & The International?... he needs restart his career with another Children of Men type movie... and when i say type... i mean "WORTH SEEING"
The Skippy Spartan writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 7:29:07 AM

The International wasn't too bad, but could have been better, Other than that, he is one of the best actors around!
VDODSON writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 7:53:41 AM

Clive Owen owes me ten bucks for my ticket to Duplicity. You know what old Jack Burton says in times like this. Yes sir, the check is in the mail.
scarface85 writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 8:08:37 AM

lol a good actor has a good way of thinking + 10 for clive owen!
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 8:38:21 AM

I can forgive him for Duplicity, but not for Children of Men. Just make a sequel to Shoot Em Up, Clive, and all is forgiven.

Anyway, good to hear something smart coming out of Hollywood.
c-prime writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 8:41:45 AM

How could you not like "Children of Men"?
nea writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 8:43:55 AM

You are getting Picky here. The International was ok and could have been great. Duplicity... ok, I had Popcorn and a Coke, so it was just plain entertainment cinema. Still, his portfolio is one of the best (in overall movies and variance)
eViL.kEv2 writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 8:57:24 AM

@VDODSON:

"Jack who?"
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 9:00:51 AM

"How could you not like "Children of Men"?"

Umm, because it was sh*t? A dull, dry heap of excrement? A politically-correct nauseating, not to mention boring as hell, so called sci-fi film? Ooooh, it's set in the future. That doesn't make it sci-fi. I can write a book about a guy taking a dump in the year 2050, but I wouldn't call it sci-fi.

It's a gritty, bleak and negative film that panders explicitly to the environment naysayers and prophets of doom. It was filmed with one of the most repulsive palettes. All browns and other drab colors. I could go on, but I'd rather not.

All i will say is this: I'd rather have some jailer at Abu Graib tie me down to a rusty chair without a padded seat, have my eyes forcibly held open, and watch a 100 reruns of The International, than watch CoM one more time.

RoorToken writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 9:04:44 AM

I dont know how anybody could like Shoot Em Up. That was one of most pathetic excuses for a movie that I have ever seen. I would rather watch animals being slaughtered.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 9:15:17 AM

To each his own, but at least CoM knows that it's a ridiculous film, and aims squarely for that result, whereas CoM comes off as nothing more than a pretentious pile of politically correct puke. CoM exemplifies the grossly deficient negativity that pervades the scientifically illiterate crowds.

Read d*ck Taverne's 'The March of Unreason' to understand. That, and as I've mentioned, CoM was deliberately filmed in the most depressing color palette imaginable. Way to go, way to bring everyone down with your nonsensical, pseudo-scientifically inaccurate and irrational nonsense, Alfonso Cuarón. Now go f*ck yourself.
ACTIONFIGURE writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 9:34:23 AM

Yeah...they are so bad. However-comma you don't seems to have any probles with taking their money. Oh well, After his remarks, he'll be great as the lead male in Lifetime network's new movie "Honkey girls that dance while cleaning for no f*ckin' reason!" Can't wait to DVR that sh*t.
c-prime writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 10:46:20 AM

I liked "Shoot 'Em Up", too. It's very conscientiously cheesy (can one ask for anything more?) and the stunts were outrageous satisfying. I got the sense that Paul Giamatti was giddy with delight from his role. Fine quality in an actor. Leave your suspension of disbelief at the door and you should really enjoy this movie.

As for "Children of Men" being bleak, well, of course, it's gotta be. I couldn't see any other tone working for that movie of that kind. Very grimy, cold, and downright unsanitary feel to it - reminiscent of "Twelve Monkeys", one of my all-time faves. While the hoity-toity placement of Britain as the last bastion of civilization is a tired and banal concept, I thought everything else was impeccably well orchestrated. Special mention goes to the cinematography which, in my opinion, deserved the Oscar for that year. I can overlook any potential real-world parallelisms the film might contain for the top-notch acting and camerawork.

But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 11:09:03 AM

"While the hoity-toity placement of Britain as the last bastion of civilization is a tired and banal concept"

As I'm aware, from my tired and rather worn recollection of the film, Britain wasn't chosen merely to present a final peghole for civilization, but more to complement Owen's accent and, far more importantly and justifiably so, because author P.D. James was *born*, has lived and currently resides, in Britain. James wrote the book that was adapted into the Cuarón film.

The choice of the location only reflects the author's birthplace and her ostensible familiarity with all things English.

Had she selected another nation to scribe the centrality of the plot, Latvia for example, in order to more effectively balance the salvation of humanity in fiction, James would have had to travel there, or at the very least, conduct extensive research.

Or, more conducively, she would've felt required to live in Latvia (e.g.). Considering that authors are typically under contract to meet a very specific deadline as required by the contracting publisher, I don't imagine that any of those options were viable to James at the time.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 11:14:26 AM

"I got the sense that Paul Giamatti was giddy with delight from his role."

Well, that was how he appeared in the film itself. Whether he genuinely enjoyed the roled, I have no clue. Often, actors appear to relish their work in a particular film, only to later rant how they hated the role, the script, the director, ad infinitum.

That Paul Giamatti appeared to greatly enjoy his role, while playing that role, isn't definitive for anything except to say he's an excellent actor. If he revealed he reviled his Shoot Em Up character, that would only enhance his performance. I would prefer the latter over the former.
bale01289 writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 11:23:25 AM

Kudos to you, Clive Owen! Maybe the rest of Hollywood will pull their head out of their asses now! Cool points for you, my friend!
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 11:33:19 AM

" I can overlook any potential real-world parallelisms the film might contain for the top-notch acting and camerawork."

Many films feature excellent camera work and primo acting. 'Wolverine' featured a fine performance from Jackman, and some quality cinematography. More important to the film, in fact the most important aspect of *any* film, is the story, and how well the story is told.

CoM's central problem, the issue that brings the entire film down, is the absolute preposterousness of the concept, a concept that drives the entire film. Without that concept, CoM is nothing.

What's the concept? That somehow, miraculously, in the near future, more than three *billion* women, almost instantaneously and virtually simultaneously, are rendered sterile. How would you render that many people, immediately, sterile? What chemical known to man could shower the earth, infiltrate every woman down the ovaries, in so short a time, obliterating every female gamete on the planet? At the molecular DNA level?! It can't! The physics of Star Trek are more probable, today, than the driving premise of CoM!

And then, what's the feel good solution to this fantastically ludicrous setup? An African female immigrant. How politically correct and patronizing is that?

And then you have Owen's character forced to fight the nebulous and nefarious forces, corporate I assume, that are somehow, laughably, content with the status quo! Mindblowingly baaaaaaaad, in every way.

CoM is like Michael Jackson dancing on the interstate. He get's hit, his guts are splattered for a mile by a drunk hillbilly behind the wheel of a Peterbilt, and then the coroner, while mopping up the brain matter says "Well, he died dancing well". Irrelevant!
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 11:49:19 AM

A good actor and I enjoy most of his films, Children of Men included.

I do believe more actors should be 'choosy' when getting scripts in. There seems to be periods when they appear in far too many films throughout one year. Nick Cage being an example. I hate to see decent actors chasing the dollar when they are already 'loaded' enough. De Niro, I'm looking at you!
Charlie9 writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 12:06:44 PM

Maybe an actor who has a good back catalog should be saying these things, but Clive Owen plays the same/similar role in every film, moody emotionless prick, even the good films he's been in (Sin City/CoM/Closer) he doesn't give anything extra to his usual performance. shoot em up is the worst piece of unoriginal sh*t ever. Clive Owen is wooden not brave.

Wow, I never really noticed how much I hate Clive Owen before
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 12:24:37 PM

"Clive Owen is wooden not brave."

I wasn't aware those are thematic opposites. Or mutually exclusive. Thanks for clearing that up. But I guess you wore yourself out on the monthly MENSA newsletter, huh?
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 12:30:56 PM

Just screwing with ya, Charlie. Sort of.

Unoriginal or not, Shoot Em Up was an outageously insane film. You have to (not really of course, if you don't want) enjoy a film that deliberately parodies, in the most crass and vulgar way, a number of action film themes and tropes.

That's why it isn't 'original' looking, and yet you seemed to miss that fact. For shame.

Shoot Em Up's entire purpose isn't originality, it's a mocking caricature of much of what we've seen before. Period.
triggax writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 12:34:43 PM

You're such a bastard....

I thought Children of Men was garbage... I've got buddies that call it the best Sci Fi of the last 15 years... I say you have to be on drugs for that to pass as Sci Fi... It was too f*cking dry... Nothing in the film peaked my interest.. Sat there looking unimpressed for it's over long duration... Poop movie.

Though I enjoyed Duplicity... Tony Gilroy is nothing short of fantastic in my book....
The fight between Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti during the intro was f*cking legendary.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 12:44:21 PM

"You're such a bastard...."

And then some.
dandythelion writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 12:46:01 PM

clive owen is the greatest human being thats ever lived. nuff said
Johnny Neat writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 1:32:58 PM

I like the dude, but isn't doing a cameo in The Pink Panther helping push trash?
thedudeman69 writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 2:55:35 PM

LOL. this coming from a guy that starred in a movie that had a 60 million budget and only made 20 million overall.
Dead Milkman writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:07:57 PM

I thought CoM was pretty cool, it was a little slow and drawn out though. Michael Caine was a pretty cool pot farmer in it though.
stevepoots writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:16:04 PM

minkowski .. you're way off base dude. Children of Men was a beautiful film.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:25:46 PM

LOL GUISE COM WAS A BAD MUVEE CUZ IT WERE UGLEE ND I DINT UNNERSTAND IT!!!

AVATAR WIL B BETTUR THO CUZ IT HAZ PRETY COLOURS AN IN 3-D!!!!!
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:29:36 PM

No, no I'm not. It was crap. Sunshine is a beautiful movie. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a beautiful movie. Hell, anything Michael Mann has shot in the last 15 years is beautiful.

CoM is an ugly and incredibly stupid film. And by beautiful, you and I mean visually stunning, so I'm not quite sure how you could call CoM beautiful in any way. Bold camera angles doesn't equal beauty.

And I dare anyone to prove to me how the premise of the film isn't incredibly, incredibly farfetched and stupid.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:31:31 PM

How is it farfetched?

No children being born because of mysterious reason that's never explained.

And it's beautiful because it's ugly. It's a realistic and damp look at a future with such a bleak outlook.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:32:26 PM

and don't start with the 'enviro message garbage' bullsh*t because 'avatar' is on the green bandwagon more than CoM is.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:33:15 PM

"And I dare anyone to prove to me how the premise of the film isn't incredibly, incredibly farfetched and stupid."

GOSH GOLLY GUISE Y ISNT EVRYTHIN SPOONFED 2 ME!
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:35:54 PM

Well now you see, reading the comments, I learned something about CoM...

Triggax HATED it!

Therefore, anyone who isn't retarded should absolutely love this movie.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:36:02 PM

"No children being born because of mysterious reason that's never explained."

Fine, if you want to toss CoM into the LOTRs and Narnia genre. The genrea know as fantasy where the ridiculous isn't explained, but instead is taken for granted. But when you call a film sci-fi, when you throw it into the sci-fi woodchuck, you're expected to remain within the framework of what's possible, realistic and potentially expected. And then if you make it a realistically portrayed film that appeals to environmental paranoia, then it's a undeniably a farfetched film.

And Spooky, I actually read science. I know a little something about what it is, how it works and what's possible within it's framework. Can you say the same thing? No. You don't even understand the basic technology of a film like Avatar.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:37:29 PM

"and don't start with the 'enviro message garbage' bullsh*t because 'avatar' is on the green bandwagon more than CoM is."

Yes, moron, but Avatar is at least somewhat realistically viable, whereas CoM would require near magic to realize.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:39:12 PM

"Therefore, anyone who isn't retarded should absolutely love this movie."

So you hated the film too? Or is your only contribution to this site repetitive trolling in the vain hope you'll somehow make a name for yourself? Well, kiddo, it isn't working. So you can gladly cease and desist with the sarcastic kiddy speak.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:42:44 PM

"And it's beautiful because it's ugly. It's a realistic and damp look at a future with such a bleak outlook."

That makes sense. You're smart because you're mentally challenged. Excellent explanation. you were a star pupil, no doubt. Tried shoving the cube into the circular hole, did you?

And I wasn't talking the film's setting, genius, I was referring to the way it was shot. I guess you'd defend black and white films, saying, well, hell, they were shot a long time ago, and because the films are old, they should look black and white and grainy. Makes sense to me!

CoM is a visually unappealing film with a stupid, unscientific premise that panders to people that know no better, or people that want to live in a paranoid ignorant state. Like you, perhaps.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:42:59 PM

"but Avatar is at least somewhat realistically viable,"

And this is why you're opinion on CoM is invalid.

100 years from now, we're terraforming the moon?

100 years from now, war vets will still using manual wheelchairs, on a planet with giant robot suits and gunships?

100 years from now, we'll be able to travel to the alpha centauri system?

100 years from now, we'll still be sending humans in those giant suits instead of just making the suits piloted from earth?

100 years from now, we still won't be able to rehabilitate the paralyzed, even though we're close to complete rehabilitation of the paralyzed now?

100 years from now, we'll be able to sh*t all over neuroscience and put a human mind into that of an alien?

Oh yeah, I guess that's much more logical than women not being able to reproduce.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:45:33 PM

Enjoy your kiddie film, Mink, I hope the many colours and sexy curves of a cgi alien will fill up your giant scientific mind with delight. Meanwhile, I'll be here watching CoM, which is a movie that doesn't have to dress up in pretty colours to be entertaining, or thought provoking.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:47:02 PM

All of those thigs listed are in fact theoretically possible. They actually have plans to terraform the moon by importing cosmic snowballs, aka comets. Perhaps not in a 100 years, but in a thousand perhaps. All the other itens are somewhat technically feasible, whereas magically making 3 billion people sterile at the DNA level in two decades would require an event that would either do a whole lot more damage (enormous burst of gamma/x-ray radiation) or would do a whole lot less. It's grossly infeasible and unlikely. And f*cking patronizing.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:49:18 PM

"Perhaps not in a 100 years, but in a thousand perhaps."

Oh well it's ashame that this is set 100 years in the future, isn't it?

Well thanks for admitting you're wrong about the realisticness of 'Avatar', Mink.

"It's grossly infeasible and unlikely."

But, lets say, terraforming the moon in the next century is much more likely, right?
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:49:49 PM

"Meanwhile, I'll be here watching CoM, which is a movie that doesn't have to dress up in pretty colours to be entertaining, or thought provoking."

Yes, and I'll be over here on the john reading 'Lectures on Choquet's Theorem', and Richard Li's 'Forensic Biology', and you'll be scribbling in your Karl Marx coloring book.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:53:27 PM

"Oh well it's ashame that this is set 100 years in the future, isn't it?"

I have no idea. They may discover anti-gravitons tomorrow for all I know, making earth to HEO space travel extremely cheap. A 1000 years is only what we call a conservative estimate.

"Well thanks for admitting you're wrong about the realisticness of 'Avatar', Mink."

You're arguing, idiotically, about the time frame, and I'm talking about what's possible. Get with the program, queer.

"But, lets say, terraforming the moon in the next century is much more likely, right?"

It's more possible than the virtually impossible, yes.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:58:07 PM

"They may discover anti-gravitons tomorrow for all I know,"

Alright, well then using your same principle, why couldn't a gamma leak happen tomorrow? or a flu pandemic?

CoM isn't trying to say "this is what will happen if we dont [insert some roland emerich anti-america bullsh*t here]", it's saying "if something crazy like this were to happen, this is what it'd probably be like".
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 4:58:26 PM

I'm missing something. How am I supposed to understand a premise that, according to you, is neither explained nor needs to be explained. Makes no sense.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:00:52 PM

"How am I supposed to understand a premise that, according to you, is neither explained nor needs to be explained."

Because the plot isn't about women becoming infertile, it takes place in a time where BEING infertile exists.

It's like when people say that D9 makes no sense because they never explain why the ship is floating there or why they ended up there. That stuff isn't a part of the central plot, it's only a backdrop.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:02:34 PM

"Alright, well then using your same principle, why couldn't a gamma leak happen tomorrow? or a flu pandemic?"

Gamam leak? LOL. It would take a nearby star going supernova, or giving off a massive gamma burst, and the LEAST of what would occur would be sterility. It would be the total destruction of the earth, perhaps not immediately, but I can assure you, we wouldn't all be standing around wondering when someone will give birth.

And I have no idea what you mean by flu pandemic. Flue virii have no effect on female gametes. None whatsoever. On the other hand, reproductive gametes can have an effect on the flu.

"CoM isn't trying to say "this is what will happen if we dont [insert some roland emerich anti-america bullsh*t here]", it's saying "if something crazy like this were to happen, this is what it'd probably be like"."

So if I make a film where everyone inexplicably (notice that word, look it up if you need to) mutates into three legged talking fish, you'll agree that premise makes no sense, either,right?
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:03:07 PM

That's like if I complained about harry potter because I wasn't explicitly spoonfed the facts about where hogwarts is or when and how it was built.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:04:15 PM

"So if I make a film where everyone inexplicably (notice that word, look it up if you need to) mutates into three legged talking fish, you'll agree that premise makes no sense, either,right?"

That depends if the story line and character arcs are good or not.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:04:32 PM

Like, why the f*ck would I bitch about a backdrop or setting?
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:07:33 PM

"Because the plot isn't about women becoming infertile, it takes place in a time where BEING infertile exists."

The plot of Narnia isn't about talking lions, it takes place in where talking lions exist.

I didn't say plot, I said premise. There's a difference. And the plot revolves and depends on the premise. If the premise is preposterous and nigh impossible, then so is the plot. Not to mention all the leftist paranoid environmental and political bullsh*t.

"It's like when people say that D9 makes no sense because they never explain why the ship is floating there or why they ended up there. That stuff isn't a part of the central plot, it's only a backdrop."

The plot of D9 doesn't depend on one central premise, the floating ship. So you're mistaken. And anti-gravity is a shade more possible than massive, irrversible instantaneous sterility. But that's beside the point. The ship is floting there because the alien came to earth. Duh. Why else would it be floating there. use your imagination aided by soem physics and some sci-fi. On the other hand, no amount of imagination will explain the supporting premise of CoM. None whatsoever.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:09:02 PM

"That's like if I complained about harry potter because I wasn't explicitly spoonfed the facts about where hogwarts is or when and how it was built."

Harry Potter is FANTASY! It's not science fiction! It's not expressed as a function of known reality nor rendered as a realistically plausible possibility. Jesus, you're thick!
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:10:41 PM

"Like, why the f*ck would I bitch about a backdrop or setting? "

Massive and impossible infertility within 20 years, for 3 billion people, isn't a f*cking backdrop or a setting, it's the CORE PREMISE of the f*cking film. Pay attention!
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:12:11 PM

"use your imagination aided by soem physics and some sci-fi."

Ditto.

Oh but wait it's all just "hippy liberal poop" to you, you ultra manly elite conservative you!
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:13:02 PM

"That depends if the story line and character arcs are good or not."

Fine, but don't f*cking tell me then that it makes any sense. Whether you like it or not s irrelevant to whether the central premise makes scientific sense! Just because YOU like CoM, becauseit appeals to your negative, ignorant and juvenile political prejudices doesn't mean the films premise is technically feasible. You're confusing bias with objectivity. And that tells me you know sh*t about science.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:15:41 PM

"Oh but wait it's all just "hippy liberal poop" to you, you ultra manly elite conservative you!"

CoM's nonsensical pandering, patronizing, paranoid political message of crass negativity is besides the point, moron. The issue is whether, again, and I'm exhausting myself on the shore of your stupidity by repeating myself, the core supporting premise is scientifically feasibl and/or functional. It is NOT. The garbage political tripe is but cliched icing on the sh*t cake.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:17:01 PM

Well Mink, you win, I officially do not care if CoM makes any scientific sense, I don't care if it's an ugly film, because that's what you think. Not what I think.

You win Mink, conglaturation.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:19:22 PM

Good for you, cupcake.
The5thBeatle5 writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 5:30:16 PM

Clive Owens the man!....endo story.
triggax writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 6:10:16 PM

"Sunshine is a beautiful movie. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a beautiful movie. Hell, anything Michael Mann has shot in the last 15 years is beautiful"

Favorite director of all time, Michael Mann, hands down.. I whole fartedly agree with you minkowski...
Sunshine is probably the best sci fi i've seen within the decade... For me anyways..

"Triggax HATED it!

Therefore, anyone who isn't retarded should absolutely love this movie."

Though, I obviously don't have as much to say about it as Minkowski, I resent that comment Spooky... And I stick to the fact that, CoM sucked my hairy ass... The ONLY redeeming quality that movie had was Michael Caine... and he felt misused and out of place the whole time..

f*ck head.
stevepoots writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 6:12:40 PM

well everyone's entitled to their opinion.. even if it's wrong.
but i do agree with you on sunshine and eternal sunshine.. and i know other huge movie fans that didn't like children of men.. i loved it though. something about it .. it just got to me. I try not to break down every detail of movies i watch.. i just take em for what they are.
triggax writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 6:15:29 PM

Speaking of Clive Owen, you know what was really decent were "The Hire" short films he did for BMW back in the early 2000's.. Love the one by Tony Scott.
Mr. Vengeance writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 6:15:59 PM

Gentlemen...

I have read this whole string and I laughed. Because it's funny. I love reading people debate movies because thats what forums like this are for.

Ultimately, neither one of you is going to agree with the other. You've both made some valid points, and then it comes down to, you both know your sh*t when it comes to filmmaking. I don't know much about science Mink, but alot of the things you've said are very interesting. Spooky, I liked "Children of Men" so I agree with you as well.

So, let's all agree that CoM is a movie that is not for everybody. After all, we don't all like the same movies.

Unless said movie is "The Big Lebowski" and then we could talk for days about how great it is.

Godspeed.
stevepoots writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 6:21:13 PM

your 100% right vengeance.. no one will ever agree they like a movie from what someone else tells them about it .. thats the fun with movies. i like throwing my hat in here n there though
vwkombi writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 7:14:19 PM

Clive Owens agrees with me because i am always right.

And Mink, i'm surprised you didn't like Children of Men. But your right, Shot 'em Up is awesome.
rabid writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 8:39:53 PM

Temperocentric much, Clive?

There has always been a steady stream of crap movies flowing from Hollywood. Like David Byrne said, "Same as it ever was."
You learn to just be entertained.
minkowski writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 10:13:20 PM

"The ONLY redeeming quality that movie had was Michael Caine... and he felt misused and out of place the whole time.."

I know, right? What a blatant waste of fine talent.
vwkombi writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 10:38:34 PM

In that picture, he looks like his ready to Shot 'em Up.
vwkombi writes:
on September 17th, 2009 at 10:38:34 PM

In that picture, he looks like his ready to Shot 'em Up.
Lulupendragon writes:
on September 18th, 2009 at 3:07:09 AM

Hmm... The pieces keep falling in for a country like the one in Idiocracy. =(
synthetic1985 writes:
on September 18th, 2009 at 5:36:18 PM

you're not being too choosy mr. owen.....viggo mortensen saw the same...don't give in to these rich ass execs thinking they can bullsh*t anyone and anything...hollywood always thought they were right...people like charlie chaplin proved them wrong...so anytime i hear about 'hollywood cares for their audience' i just think, yea why don't you go play hide and go f*ck yourself?
FFantasy1984 writes:
on September 19th, 2009 at 11:38:31 AM

I agree with him, but the actors, directors, movie studios, and people that pay to see them are the ones continuing to let it happen. If they didn't make money off bad movies they wouldn't make them, but they know that people will continue to see them.
blinkbomber writes:
on September 20th, 2009 at 4:33:37 AM

I think people who like Children of Men are people who think it's a good movie... and people who hate it are people who think it's a bad movie. There, argument settled.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved