quote:<HR>demon
[/B]<HR>

I appreciate your honesty, like they say we have a difference in opinion.



------------------
"A word is dead when it is said, some say; I say it just begins to live that day."

I just saw this last night, and was surprised by how much I liked the movie. As with any serial killer movie, you cant help but make comparisons to SOTL. But this movie moved beyond that by introducing the science/"mind-meld" thread.

The acting, except for Jennifer (and I've never been thrilled with Vince either), was excellent! The supporting cast is a well rounded troop, especially Jake Weber and Vincent D'Onofrio who gave their usual excellent performance.

The plot was above average, playing off the split between the "young" Carl, "modern" Carl, and "King" Carl, within his own mind. It also gave good back story on WHY he was a psycho.

And visually speaking, well everyone above points out how awesome the visuals, colors, and costumes are, so I dont need to beat that into the ground.

With all the extras, I give the DVD an 8/10, and have added it to my "buy list".

Thanks for reading!
Beno.

As I posted in the DVD Talk forum:
SPOILER:

Why the hell doesn't the FBI investigate the maker of the bad dude's contraption before they decide they have to do some wacky mind experiments?
It makes no sense, and I am more than willing to suspend my disbelief for movies, but this seems beyond disbelief...

The Cell is style over substance...and that is what they said about Bladerunner when it first came out (some still do). When will people realise that film IS a visual medium. If it's great stories and characterisation you want may i suggest books. Moving PICTURES not moving stories or moving characters. I guess for a lot of people films are books for those who are too lazy to read. I'm not saying that a good story isn't necessary, but it's not always that important. In The Cell the whole "find the serial killer" aspect isn't that well developed, but then it's not a true serial killer type film like "Seven". It's a film that from the outset was going to focus on the strong visuals and the story (what there is of it) is used to tie these scenes together. I find it much easier to watch strong visual films over and over than a film that has a so-so story. The only other types of films that are easy to watch are one's with strong storylines but there aren't many of these.
Another film I like is "Snow Falling On Cedars" beautiful film so-so story.

[This message has been edited by 16x9ONLY (edited February 05, 2001).]

When the dog is the best actor in the movie, it probably sucks.

At least they had the gratuitous Jennifer Lopez potsmoking booty shot in front of the refrigerator!

------------------
"I've done some...questionable things, but nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for."

- Blade Runner

Add me to the "visually impressive but otherwise mediocre" camp.

I'm glad to see that the "you don't understand the film and that's why you don't like it" debate ended quickly. I thought this might turn into another Eyes Wide Shut thread.

------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -H. L. Mencken

Pretty pictures, shallow story, some lousy acting and direct rip-offs from a dozen NIN and Marilyn Manson videos. Skip it.

everyone says tarsem rips off NIN videos, but you can't blame him for that. the set designer, tom foden, worked on some NIN videos and that's why they look similar.

i thought the film was entertaining in the theaters and i just recently rented the dvd to listen to the commentary. i don't htink i'd ever buy the dvd though. i don't know how many more times i could sit through it.

From a woman's point of view, I thought it was really good, but extremely unsettling and disturbing.
In a way it's every woman's nightmare, the serial killer picks an unknown woman, and she is basically helpless,totally under his control.
Even Jennifer Lopez's character is a helpless victim in his mind.
I thought the movie was one of the most chilling I've seen, and even though I liked it, I decided to sell it.
It's not something I want sitting on my shelf.

[This message has been edited by KayUK (edited February 07, 2001).]

quote:<HR>The Cell is style over substance...and that is what they said about Bladerunner when it first came out (some still do). When will people realise that film IS a visual medium. If it's great stories and characterisation you want may i suggest books. Moving PICTURES not moving stories or moving characters. I guess for a lot of people films are books for those who are too lazy to read. I'm not saying that a good story isn't necessary, but it's not always that important. In The Cell the whole "find the serial killer" aspect isn't that well developed, but then it's not a true serial killer type film like "Seven". It's a film that from the outset was going to focus on the strong visuals and the story (what there is of it) is used to tie these scenes together. I find it much easier to watch strong visual films over and over than a film that has a so-so story. The only other types of films that are easy to watch are one's with strong storylines but there aren't many of these.<HR>

There's a difference between BladeRunner and The Cell. Some people didnt' like BladeRunner because it was confusing or they didn't get it or it was just too strange for them. Why do some of us hate The Cell? Because it was a simplistic and utterly stupid movie with an extremely empty plot, bad acting, and a very disappointing ending. How is it disappointing? After ALL that crap in the psycho's head, the detective solves the case using sheer detective work. So then what was resolved at the end of the movie? Nothing. Visually it was an interesting movie...which isn't a surprise since the director only has experience with MTV music videos...but take away all the "cool" and disturbing imagery and you have a really, really bad movie.

Oh as for the part of the quote in bold....LOL. What are you saying, movies shouldn't have good stories and should just be a bunch of visually cool scenes? If that's what you think, I pity you. And you don't deserve to be called a real movie fan.

[This message has been edited by tha_dvd_man (edited February 07, 2001).]

I liked the movie in the theatre. I did not love it. I felt it fell short of my expectations of leaving with a disturbed feeling for the following three hours. It was visually stunning and I had hoped that Tarsem would use his ability to turn this into a fanasty roller coaster of images which don't leave your mind no matter how hard you try to repress them. The deleted scenes which were utilized in the European version convied that a bit better, I felt . I was impressed at the character development. I enjoyed the subtle hints at the character's past. I think if the movie was longer it would have afforded the director the opportunity to delve into that more. I'm surprised at all the posts here stating the bad acting. I thought Jennifer Lopez's performance was well above average and I also liked Jake Weber very much. I do agree with the afoementioned posts that the movie is not for everyone. Some might find the scenes disturbing but that is what I was in the movie for. The psycological aspect, if understood helps the movie much as DVD Smurf pointed out and I applaud him/her on that. What's the deal Kim Deal, cliched, lousy acting, generic story. Twice. Enlighten us a little huh.

I did forget to add in response to all the posts about the movie ripping off other's ideas. My neighbor is a student at Art Center where Tarsem is from and said that there was much discussion at school that he is known for ripping other's ideas off.

Of course the scenes were disturbing. The disturbing scenes WERE the whole movie. The "psychologicl aspects" of the movie meant nothing; they did nothing to deepen the sorely shallow plot, and absolutely nothing to help resolve the movie. Just becuase there may have been some psychological significance in the movie in no way means that it's automatically a good movie. Just because a Viet Nam movie deals with the psychological aspects of fighting in Nam doesn't automatically make that a good movie either. Same thing with The Cell. It had a very flawed, weak and shallow plot. And sorry, but beside the guy who played the serial killer, the performances in this movie were pretty weak (as if Jennifer Lopez could ever act her way out of a wet paper bag).

And one more thing- the ending of this movie was EXTREMELY disappointing. *spoiler* What exactly was the point of Lopez going into the killer's mind? The whole movie was about her entering the killer's mind to help the detective solve the case and find the missing girl......and guess what, he does it ALLLLL by himself without any help from JePez. She wasn't even needed. That gives the same disappointing and unsatisfying end-of-the-movie-feel as if you watched some big, epic movie, the main character just almost defeats the evil enemy and wins the girl, and then he wakes up....all a dream, and goes on with his life and The End. It would have the same kind of "what the hell was the point of watching the movie to begin with?" kind of feel that The Cell had. It was just terrible.

shoot me an email at [email protected]
if you'd like to have this DVD and want to trade.

I will agree with some of your counter points dvd_man. You made your case well. Just because a movie deals with psycologiacl aspects of something does not make it a better movie. i.e. Jacob's Ladder is a good example of something that did, I agree the Cell is not on that level. However the difference of opinion might come from perspective. When I went in to see the film I expected no depth or character development whatsoever. I knew that the director and his crew were handpicked by him and also knew he was of the "artsy" variety with a background in music videos. To go from 3-5 minute shorts which definatley lean towards style over substance to a two hour film is a huge leap and I didn't set my expectations high, thus I was surprised when their were suble psycological implications thrown in and small pieces of the character's background.

No need to apologize dvd_man but I will still disagree with you on the acting. I've seen a few movies in my time and have see much less convincing performances, I'm sure so have you. Jake Webber and Vince Vaughn were above average. Not outsatnding but they could have done alot worse.