ZeromiserY Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 a few questions.1.what the fuck was going on in this movie? i followed the first 30 minutes but was totally bewildered thereafter. (especially the mintal glowing manny)2.what did you think of the english guy (from 28 days later) and his american accent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulscoconutass Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 a few questions.1.what the fuck was going on in this movie? i followed the first 30 minutes but was totally bewildered thereafter. (especially the mintal glowing manny)2.what did you think of the english guy (from 28 days later) and his american accent?1) The sun had died and they were going to re-ignite it. However, they didn't mention how this would be done (although it looked like some sort of nuclear fusion bomb). They also failed to explain how the shields on their ship could stop the sun from burning the ship up. AND no explaination for gravity on the ship, although it was rotating they could still walk down corridors that they should have been flung violently to the end of!2) Fuck knows, but the film was full of B-list, trying-to-make-it-big, actors. The main guy from Non Another Teen Movie, Buster from Arrested Development... Also, I wish there was some sort of compensation for every time you heard the word 'payload'.It was an alright film, well worth seeing, but they could have explained more, and showed you more of earth. The physics of the film (Which I feel puts the 'retard' into 'Flame Ratardant') was the biggest let-down, so don't bring your 'Big Book of Space' with you.SPOILER - DON'T READ THE NEXT BIT IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE FILM.The horror end of the film was totally shat. From what I could gather the Captain from the first mition sabotaged it, and gained a god complex, because he felt that natural life had ran it's course and that god didn't intend for us to out-live the sun's natural time. How the fuck could he survive in the room in full-view of the sun?!?! What a tosser!Another thing, how could the guy survive, LET ALONE STAND UP AND FIGHT, in a spinning box, inside the sun?!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeromiserY Posted April 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 i count at least 10 "payloads" in that movie.mr plothole was the main character in this movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsheepie Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 2) Fuck knows, but the film was full of B-list, trying-to-make-it-big, actors. The main guy from Non Another Teen Movie, Buster from Arrested Development... Also, I wish there was some sort of compensation for every time you heard the word 'payload'.Buster wasn't in it, and the guy from 28 days later is Irish (and i didn't think his accent was that bad)It was an alright film, well worth seeing, but they could have explained more, and showed you more of earth. The physics of the film (Which I feel puts the 'retard' into 'Flame Ratardant') was the biggest let-down, so don't bring your 'Big Book of Space' with you.I agree the end was a bit stupid but overall i liked the film. It was a sci-fi film, about space so i'm glad there wasn't more Earth stuff. It doesn't have to be realistic, it was a film to entertainment people not a documentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 they've made no secret of the fact that the physics are nonsense. but since when has that made a sci-fi film bad? it's an ace british sci-fi film with a strong cast and some outstanding special effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyboy Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 i liked it; wouldn't say it was hard to understand either... yeah the physics are completely unrealistic but is's sci-fi... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeromiserY Posted April 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 so we've established it un-realistic sci-fi. its the bi-mon-sci-fi-con.it was alright i suppose. if you just watch it with a blank mind the way you would watch 'sister sister' or 'kenan & kel' you'd quite enjoy it.but really its full of holes. dont think to yourself "okay, these guys just spent about 50 seconds at -227 degrees and all he has is a frost bitten finger".coz then you won't enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Savant Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 Which I feel puts the 'retard' into 'Flame Ratardant'Well said, Paul! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 so we've established it un-realistic sci-fi. its the bi-mon-sci-fi-con.it was alright i suppose. if you just watch it with a blank mind the way you would watch 'sister sister' or 'kenan & kel' you'd quite enjoy it.but really its full of holes. dont think to yourself "okay, these guys just spent about 50 seconds at -227 degrees and all he has is a frost bitten finger".coz then you won't enjoy it.you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeromiserY Posted April 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies.why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 why is that?because you're one of those people that ruins a good film by picking it to bits and forgetting that it's a fictional piece of entertainment, not a science documentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeromiserY Posted April 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 who said it was a good film? i cant just sit there and accept glaring ommisions and plot holes. like i said.....kenan and kel - sister sister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 its the bi-mon-sci-fi-con.You've been watching too much Simpsons The movie was good eye candy, but not too be taken too seriously. ...they could have put some shagging in it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.