MovieChat Forums > Interstate 60: Episodes of the Road (2003) Discussion > Shockingly bad

Shockingly bad

posted 17 years ago by cyder534
21 replies | jump to latest

I usually tend to go for films with high marks on IMDB - most of the time its a good indicator as to whether a film is worth watching or not.

7.7 I thought, thats a good mark for a road movie. Its a good mark for any film! Then I saw the Cast.. Kurt Russell! Gary Oldman! Bloody hell!

At first I thought, ah this is fairly endearing. The first 25 mins or so. Then It began to sink in. This film is for children?! The simplistic, spoon fed moral and "life" tales really were nauseating. Everything is done with a heavy hand. Not one message is illuminating nor subtle.

Apart from being dissapointed with the messages, the simpleton like manner they are conveyed. There are other problems.

The writing is really poor. I mean there are moments in it that remind me of really egregious soap operas. Two scenes really grated me. The scene with the horny girl testing the guys "capacity to not *beep*" and the scene with the "euphoria" drugs place were RIDICULOUS. The acting was vile also. Oldman was good was he? average! Have you seen him in any other films. This was just another fifth element comedy filler for him!

So to summarise:

1) messages were clunky, moralistically naive, and preachy.

2) writing was sub-standard.

3) So was the acting - some of the bit parts were really poor. the main actor has about depth and charisma as a dead accountant.

4) The plot was all over the place, and it was being weird for weirds sake. Wow a film is different - that means its good... no, no it doesn't. I can understand that this might be a film that entertains a teenager. It reminds me of a poor mans version of I heart huckerbees (and thats not a great film).

INFACT the only think I concede is that it might be nice escapism for teenagers. But adults??

Shocking - so thanks IMDB for not always getting it right ;)

[–] tiger-crane 17 years ago

how does IMDB get it wrong? That's just your opinion. The score is made of an accumalation of scores, which means a higher percentage of people rated it highly.

Maybe the film was too intelligent for you?

[–] cyder534 17 years ago

I KNOW how IMDB works. I ment wrong as in the masses seem to have shined to the horrid morality tales it spews out, over-looking its major flaws. I can't quite see what was intelligent about this film. It certainly didn't have any depth or any philisophical revelations.
If you think this was a film that merited ANY intelligence at all - I suggest you don't reply to this - I will make you look like a fool.

[–] r32motorman 17 years ago

...or maybe they just found it to be entertaining?

Thank you for riding with MTA, New York City Transit.

[–] tiger-crane 17 years ago

cyder534 the only fool is you. "Ment", should be spelt "meant". Basic spelling error.

Your lack of intelligence really does shine through in your post.

ALL films carry flaws....ITS A FILM. Did it not cross your mind that people just "enjoyed" this film for what it is, a bit of harmless fun.

Just because you did not enjoy it or found flaws in it, it does not make this film wrong, boring, rubbish.

Tw@t

[–] Sweet_and_Lowdown77 17 years ago

SO it's okay for you to attack someone's spelling but not me???? Spell this... H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

Cyder, check out the CHAOS threads and you will pick up spelling errors by Tiger_Crane and him making fun of me for calling him on it.

He also criticizes me for making fun of his intelligence. And - what do you know, he's making fun of your intelligence.

Really Tiger, you are truly pathetic.

[–] cyder534 17 years ago

Yeah. All the Ad Homien attacks in the world don't save this film. I am yet to hear a decent account of what is GOOD about it......

[–] Wuchak (8774) 6 years ago

All the Ad Homien attacks in the world don't save this film. I am yet to hear a decent account of what is GOOD about it......

It's ad hominem, not whatever you said. If you're going to use a word/phrase to (presumably) impress people it's a good idea to get the spelling right. Just a tip.

[–] tiger-crane 17 years ago

Im so glad im making it your life to sit at your computer and follow my threads and read all my posts to see where you can attack me.

Mmmmm pathetic? yes you really are. How sad is that?? Why would you do that? Do you REALLY have nothing better to do? eh?

And in future please have the decency NOT to place an underscore in my ID, as its incorrect.

Im off to post somewhere else, fancy following me and seeing if you can intervene. hahahahahahaha!

You are boring, please use another excuse to attack me, as spelling errors and grammar are not what this site is about. Loser

[–] dr_hendrix 17 years ago

The film IS intelligent with great reflections about life, the only thing is that they made it all simple so ''stupid people'' could understand it anyway.

The film was inspiring, I think.

Every time my fingers touch brain I'm SUPERFLY TNT,I'm the GUNS OF THE NAVARONE

[–] Conkers 16 years ago

Yes, this movie is intelligent... for a 13 year old christian. I completely agree with the thread starter about everything, couldn't say it any better. This is probably the cheesiest and lamest film i've ever seen.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ehopkins3 16 years ago

Agree 100% with OP. Absolutely horrid. Spent most of the movie cringing at bad dialogue and worse acting.

[–] dgates64 16 years ago

The 7.7 rating was the reason I wanted to see the film in the first place. It only goes to show that people can't differentiate between good films and bad.

I knew from the opening scene that this was going to be a turkey. HORRIBLE acting, even worse directing and the writing was the biggest offender.

This felt like some rejected pilot for Nickelodeon.

[–] megatosspot 16 years ago

You speak truth, brother.

I can only think that the congregation of some obscure sect voted en masse under instructions from their leader.

The male lead is a mouth breather. Some girls can pull it off briefly, but grownups just look thick.

[–] Mad-i- 16 years ago

100% agree with the OP and above posters. This movie is god awful, one of the very worst movies I've ever seen that I actually went into expecting it to be good.

http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=7775244

[–] Eve66 15 years ago

I liked it, simply because it was odd and made me laugh. Perhaps it's a good thing that I had no idea it was going to be on tv or what it was about, otherwise I would have put expectations on it and then be dissapointed, which seems to be one of the reasons why people appear to dislike it.

The movie was like a very odd dream to me, so I didn't try to find any logic and whatsoever and just watched where it led me. It made me laugh. It made me think. It made me remember tales of the old about leprechauns and other fairy-tale creatures, it made me wonder what strange thing would happen further up the road. And the 8-ball made me smile every time it was on screen, if only for remembering what odd questions I have asked one some time in my life.

Sure it is no 'Shawshanks Redemtion' nor like any other intelectual movie. But it did not try to be one.

I also wonder why so many people leave rants about how bad the movie was on forums. If I don't like a movie; I don't watch it anymore and I definitely don't go search it out again on internet to rant. If you wish to tell ohers that the film is a waste of time(like I assume the first post of this tread was meant): write a review. But use the forum to dicuss with other people why exactely you didn't like it, and if they felt the same, or how you think it could have been improved. There are no specific questions like that in the posts, so...

[–] DanGagea23 15 years ago

This was crap. The acting ... there is none, and the main actor it's the worst of all. But what really lacks in this movie it's making a believable connection to the surreal world. It's not like Pan's Labyrinth where everything just connects and makes you interested and intrigued so that the beautiful story just drags you along with the characters in the fantastic world depicted. No, this was shockingly annoying to watch, boring, with no story and a childish plot and writing. I don't recommend it.

I gave it a 3, but I think I may change my mind and go for a 2.

It's me bitches ...

[–] dgates64 15 years ago

What it shows is how much of an influence Zemekis and Spielberg were to BTTF. Because without them, Gale can't string together a coherent film.

[–] prplayer 9 years ago

agree

so many movies, so little time

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 8 years ago

I don't agree with you on some points--for example, I'm not sure why you see the film as moralistically naive--it sure doesn't seem that way to me, but more importantly than that, it really seems like you simply didn't understand Interstate 60's tone. It has a tall tale, irony-loaded satire, magic realist vibe. It's a bit like a more adult, feature length "Eerie, Indiana," with a great underlying theme of existentialist authenticity. Changing some of the things you're complaining about would have ruined the tone, and a lot of the film's magic comes from the tone.

[–] Boromir (10061) a year ago

Poster raised several valid points.

Initially, I shared the same astonishment regarding the movie's remarkably high rating. The perception that this film might be overly simplistic and overly sentimental, given its elevated rating, was indeed quite surprising.

The performances, particularly that of the lead actor, struck me as somewhat amateurish and devoid of the emotional resonance one would anticipate, considering we need to like the character.

He right about the fact that the simplistic message of the film "choosing one's own path" (aka "own road") is delivered straight to our face without any refinement. In truth, this central theme is readily apparent from the outset. Oddly, though, this message is conveyed in a perplexing, fragmented, and incoherent manner, largely attributed to subpar editing and writing

It remains unclear what the protagonist is meant to glean from his encounters with morally ambiguous individuals along his journey, including his guides. This leads to an unaddressed issue—the disconcerting moral ambiguity shared by both the main character and the mentor tasked with imparting wisdom. The mentor, whether characterized as a guru, genie, or guide, exhibits immoral tendencies, including theft and violence, and even derives amusement from such actions . Neal Oliver is incredibly annoying and unscrupulous who is willing to exploit vulnerable individuals for financial gain and treats his father with utter disdain.

On positive note, the film does boast a enjoyable opening sequence, and it successfully maintains the audience's curiosity regarding the eccentric characters the protagonist will encounter next. I appreciated the underlying concept that each location he visits represents various forms of personal dependence, such as substance addiction, submission to carnal desires, or oppressive legal regimes. While the execution may not always be flawless, the result is reasonable and at parts enjoyable.