Artman

Didn't they use a body double for the nudity?(if any)

Brent L

I know they used an "ass double", because she was on Leno the other night talking about it.

Sorta off topic, but holy crap does she ever have one of the thickest accents ever. It made me fall in love with her just a little more.

Rypro 525

and i thought her american accent in THe Jacket was pretty good (there was still a tad of a brit in her.

PerryD

I want to see the movie to see what she does with the dildo she's holding in this ad:

UAIOE

My buddy in England told me her "Brit accent" was "phony".

Linn1

Man on Fire was the only film to ever give me headaches afterwards and I've seen a LOT of movies that I would think would steel me against something like that. If this is worse than that, I think I'll wait for video.

dolphinboy

She said that she told Tony Scott he could show her tits, but she said no to using her butt.

Even if you don't factor in that she doesn't have any boobs, it would seem to me that it would be a lot easier to show one's butt than one's boobs.

I thought that was strange.

Loved Man on Fire, but won't see this until it's on dvd.

The wife and I are going to see Elizabethtown instead.

Fincher Fan

Maybe she has three cheeks or something?

Cinemaddiction

"Domino"

Ms. Harvey was an infamous female bounty hunter. Her tale was equally as entriguing as her personality. While the world lost Domino on June of this year to an accident overdose on painkillers, Tony Scott has brought her tales to the big screen in a fashion only he knows how to do.

"Domino" was a cool-ass film. Not flawless, but cool nonetheless. The picture depicts the tale of Domino Harvey, who grew up fighting adversity all her life, namely in her own family. Born into money and popularity, Harvey was never one for the "90210 lifestyle" her mother was so fond of. She hooks up with Ed (Rourke) and Choco (Rodriquez) and becomes the 3rd piece of a bounty hunter outfit. The trio are asked to hunt down a $10 Million dollar prize that was heisted earlier from an armed security truck. Little did they know, they'd soon have the mob, and billionaire, and a TV crew on their tail.

The entire movie was well acted. Keira Knightley was very convincing as the lead, while Rourke took the whole shady bad guy to a new level. Christopher Walken was hilarious as the cable TV executive, and Lucy Lui's stonefaced FBI interrogating agent all complimented one another. There were two things that didn't set incredibly well with me, that may merit and second viewing. The plot was heavy, and incorperated A LOT of different characters, and with the time shifts, the chronology was thrown off balance, thus confusing me for the longest time. Thankfully, after sitting down and thinking, it all made sense. The other thing was Tony Scott's stylings. He's made the "seizure cam" a household name, thanks to "Man on Fire". The visuals were just overwhelming sometimes, and their charm wore off. Fuzzy filters, discolored frames, and honestly, not a lot of footage that was shot steadily, or cleanly.

All in all, it was a story, with liberties taken, made to entertain, namely with insane visuals and LOTS of violence, set to an awesome soundtrack. So, if you're in the mood for a cool story, with some contemporary camerawork, and a lot of people getting sprayed. check this one out.

fryinpan1

I still want to see Domino just for Keira and the 90210 spoof, but I will wait for the DVD.

BDB

I saw it, the 90210 angle was the making of it, without that the film would have been super lame..


Worth a rental, not much more.

cupon

I miss Crimson Tide Tony Scott. Where the hell did he go?

Terrell

Which is ironic because she has no ass either.

Artman

Yeah, I'd even take Enemy of the State or Spy Game Tony. I'll be seeing this tonight.. so well see.

bdshort

I might go see it if it plays here. I liked Man on Fire (from what I've seen, which is most of it, on HBO), though I thought the way it was filmed / edited was WAY too stylized, and I thought the occational subtitles were stupid.

Brian

Patman

Well, even though I knew I'd be in for a mess of garish colors and spastic quick cut (that make you wonder if a monkey was at the helm of the Avid machine), I still saw this movie.

The plot and all the twists and turns are a bit of fun, but Tony Scott's style just undercuts a lot of the irony/comedic moments with all the jump-cutting and timeline jumping. It's like Scott doesn't trust the audience to be able to concentrate on simple bits of storytelling and is compelled to throw in 5 quick cuts for scenes that require none.

The secondary characters are all under-developed, turned into stereotypes, and are simply there to drive the plot along in a story that thinks it's more clever than it really is.

If you think you can endure a seizure-inducing editing job, and are looking for something violent and fluffy, this might make for a good matinee viewing.

I give it 2.75 stars or a grade of C+.

fumanstan

I saw it tonight and thought it was a decent film, and far from the terrible reviews that have been posted. I never did see Man on Fire, but i'm aware of the "style" that Tony Scott has been using recently, and it didn't really bother me too much in the movie.

Norm de Plume

I remember that recent argument. There is a distinction in that you people are discussing star ratings, not thumbs. It's well and good to give a movie "thumbs up" with the reasoning "yeah, it's a piece of crap, but I was entertained", but Ebert has gone way overboard with that argument in recent years. Every Friday I look at his website (I don't know why) and it's nothing but a slew of 3-4 star ratings, whereas most other critics are much more discerning.
Of the two of them, Roeper almost always makes more sense than Ebert, and he is still new to the game.

Patman

I wish people would not focus so much on Ebert's ratings in every single movie that's released, and just give their own opinion of the film in question. I get so tired of people slagging or defending Ebert's rating/rankings in so many movie threads.

Trigger

I saw it and didn't think it was that bad. Had a few issues with it, but was entertained anyway.

dolphinboy

For those interested in the other thumb, it was up too.

So, they both gave it thumbs up.

Why So Blu?

Watched this on Blu-ray over the weekend and it's still fun as fuck. I saw it in theaters back in 2005 and it bombed. The TrueHD track is definitely demo-worthy. The cool bit that I noticed was the scene of the bounty hunters doing laundry is the laundry across the street of the place I get my hair cut at. Actually, only exterior is there but the interior is somewhere else.

It really is a grindhouse flick on acid. Edgar Ramirez made his breakout American film debut and is really a standout and young Kiera is always a treat.

Dr. DVD

Hindsight being what it is, this is a pretty entertaining movie.

stvn1974

Is it still getting horrible reviews, though?

TheMovieman

Haven't seen this in a while, and remember not liking it that much, but own the Blu-ray. Might check it out again soon.