Ya know, this movie really annoyed me for some reason. it came off as really cheesy and uninspired. The characters were so generic. I enjoyed the "Pirate" flicks as well as the "National Treasures", so I thought this would be a shoe in, but it felt way more juvenile then above mentioned flicks. I can safely say that Jay Baruchel is a one trick pony. I hated his roommate and was glad that he was hardly in it. The beginning seemed very rushed and unevenly paced. I didn't care for any of the characters. I don't think Johnny Depp could have even saved this movie. haha
I have to agree with everyone else. This was a great concept turned sour because of poor casting and plot development. This could have been a very good movie. I don't know what was on Jerry Bruckheimers mind or Disney's when they cast Jay Baruchel as the hero. A Whinney, beyond nerd, lousy actor, with a voice that irritates so bad that you would rather have "root canal" work then listen to him for 2 hours. This is a lesson in how to blow a potentially good movie with bad casting! What a waste....
It's odd that, when a movie comes out that I think is mediocre, and I check out what other people think, they all agree-- except for different reasons.
I thought the main character was the only thing that SAVED this movie from being a steaming pile.
I really enjoyed it. I thought it was fun, but I did not go in expecting an Academy Award drama, I went in expecting a fun movie, and was not disappointed. I thought the characters were good, and the special effects were great. Yes, the script was predictable, but it was still good. Star Wars was the most predictable movie in decades when it came out. Did that make it a bad movie?
I read somewhere that there are only 15 stories, and everything is a variation of those, so of course, there will be predictable stories. Predictability does not equate a bad story.
Oh, I really liked this movie. I thought the special effects were great, the car chase and the dragon scenes were very exciting. Jay Baruchel is adorable, and he had some funny lines. :)
Maybe a bit violent for a Disney movie, but overall, it was a good story, and I love how they adapted the old Mickey Mouse cartoon into the mop and bucket scene. Classic! :)
"If everyone loves you, you're probably not doing anything important."
Denise, I'm afraid your post leaves me skeptical. It doesn't quite ring true. This movie isn't so awful that someone who *usually* tries to give a movie one full viewing would reject it halfway through. You did have some vague idea beforehand, didn't you, of what it was about, the cast or crew or even studio responsible, or at least its genre? If you went in "cold," okay, I could understand watching five or ten minutes and then deciding whether you wanted to continue, but halfway into the movie? If you gave it 45 minutes, then you must have had *some* interest. Why not let it finish, as you say you usually do? By the way, I don't believe the people who claim that they walked out of the cinema halfway through a movie, either.
I have walked out of two movies, but they were Big Fat Liar and The Ring. Plus, they were free tickets so I hadn't paid for them.
I can't imagine walking out of TSA. It has everything.
Actually, when Disney starts having it on their cable channels, I kind of wish they would play up young Becky and Dave's friend who are in the hugely successful Wimpy Kid film series based off the books.
I found it on-demand, switched it on, saw Nic Cage in it (he can be hit and miss in his performances, IMHO) and saw Disney and that was about it.
I started to watch it as I said in my posting and then switched it off and on to another movie after about 45 minutes.
I *do* usually give movies a chance (and I said I might try this one again another time), and actually I could have switched this one off after the first 15 minutes (silly plot; heavy reliance on overdone special effects; action just for the sake of action; corny dialogue; etc.); however, I kept going, but after another 30 minutes of the same, I switched it off.
Maybe *you* really like this movie and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
I am similarly entitled to mine in addition to not being called a ‘liar’, in so many words.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, I agree. We all have different tastes. This isn't about whether you liked it (what you saw of it, at any rate) or not. What you're doing, though, is soliciting the opinions of others who *have* seen it all the way through. Why? Are you looking for agreement or debate? If you really thought it was that bad, why give it 45 minutes? Is it your standard practice to cut off those movies to which you *don't* grant one full viewing when they're halfway through? Why would you still be interested enough in it to post a necessarily incomplete review?
When I asked: “Having turned it off after that, I assume it doesn't get much better?”, I was actually being charitable.
My own belief is that it doesn’t get much better, but I left the question somewhat open.
If someone could change my mind about that which then in turn could cause me to want to attempt to watch it again, fine. If not, fine.
I already explained about my first ’45 minutes’ of viewing, which is what you apparently are getting hung up on.
Given the actors in it, and the storyline as it *appeared* to be going, I sat through it as long as I did. But, it kept getting worse and worse and so I turned it off.
It’s that simple.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
"If someone could change my mind about that which then in turn could cause me to want to attempt to watch it again, fine. If not, fine."
Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind. Any attempt to change it would only be met with more and more stubborn resistance. I make no such attempt, because, honestly, (and no offense intended), I don't care whether you like the movie or not. As I said, we all have different tastes.
Why do you have such apparent difficulty believing what I post?
I am not laying some kind of 'trap' for someone who likes this movie...
What "stubborn resistance"??
I *wanted* to like this movie, but attacking my credibility in what I post is not going to bring me any closer to the movie. That's just ad hominem and red herring.
And, certainly *no one* has to care whether I personally like a movie or not.
You like it -- fine and dandy :)
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
"I have 'made up my mind' so far as I said." Is this what you meant to write? If so, you confirm my impression. The problem, I think, is the phrasing of your assumption. When you write, "I assume it doesn't get any better," that says you've already made up your mind. However, you also seem to be inviting someone to *try* to change your mind. That sounds like a challenge that nobody's going to win. If you really are open to persuasion, the tone of your post should be modified to reflect that. Otherwise, it comes across as if you're spoiling for an argument. Hope that clarifies things.
So far as I said, meaning what I wrote in previous posts...
e.g., the 45 minutes thing again...
Assuming something is not certainty.
You seem to want to nitpick my posts instead of offering up something substantial about the movie (Hello!!! The real subject of this message board).
I don't need to modify my posts so you can read what you want to hear or believe.
I don't spoil for fights nor am I a troll.
I would think that someone implying that a fellow poster is lying in their comments about how they watched a movie, without anything to support that implication and/or allegation, seems to be more likely 'spoiling for a fight'.
And, over what??
A flippin movie??
Dear, dear…
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
Temper, temper... The subject of the message board is (ostensibly) the movie. The subject of the thread is various posters' negative opinions about it. I've actually offered quite a bit of "something substantial" about the movie, if you'd care to do a search. Since you didn't bother to even finish watching it, though, I don't expect they would mean much to you. You claim to be tolerant enough that you'll give "most movies" at least one full viewing, yet the only critique you wrote about this one is a list of shortcomings from the first half, as if you were just looking for things to criticize, rather than allowing yourself to let the story unfold. That doesn't sound like a very high tolerance level. Do you see the contradiction? TSA doesn't even contain the offensive material found in most R-rated movies. Don't tell me that "most movies" meet all the standards that this one apparently did not.
I don't see why I should research *your* other posts about this film as you can't seem to understand my short, simple original post and continue to bungle what I wrote, apparently doubt my veracity AND my motivations, and can't seem to comprehend my later (apparently wasted) attempts to clarify.
If you can't get any of that right, I don't see why I should trust your other assumptions/opinions.
As I stated before: You like the film; fine.
Go watch it a third and fourth time or whatever.
Have fun.
"We would have been fine, if there hadn't been any.....mess"
I'm not asking you to trust them, particularly opinions. I simply attempted to correct a mistaken assumption on your part, that I hadn't offered anything substantial about the movie. I have. If you haven't watched the movie, then you can't be expected to know whether my assumptions/opinions have any validity, since they're based on a complete viewing. I see you changed your signature.