Posted on 08/07/2004 8:06:59 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
Yes Unbreakable was supposed to have a knock down drag out fight. If you look at the 2nd disc on the dvd he explains the reason why he cut the story. My teacher is on the disc.
You're kidding right?
So likely events on a radio in a movie is somehow Bush bashing?
The "Elder's Oath" negated the entire purpose of the commune, anyway. Killing their own children for the "greater good". It flew in the face of their motivations. I'd bet they lost more that way than they would have if they hadn't run away.
Our President believes in the sanctity of life.
Or maybe the director was using the Iraq reference to cue the audience to the actual time frame of the movie. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
That radio bit was there simply to present a time-line in the "city." What could be more 2004 than a report about an ambush in Iraq? I think it's silly to stretch it out into a Bush slam. Or perhaps they could have used a radio announcement having to do with Paris Hilton............
LOL!
This movie really points out the dangers of denying reality. Gee, what political party does that reflect on?
Yup. If anything, the movie was more of a slam at idiotic "uptopia" lovers (Bliss Ninnies) than a slam at Bush.
I don't know, but a friend saw it and said it was lame, predictable ending, very disappointed.
but the more i have thought about it, the more i think that the bush bashing was the whole point of the movie and was done VERY POORLY...an infantile treatment of a much more complex problem. i have actually felt, looking back, that it was stupid.
if it hadn't been bush-bashing and night had focused on a REAL theme, it could have been a really good movie. as is, very amateurish.
Gee, if Bush lied, then 9/11 was a big hoax. Who knew.
I saw the film the day it opened. In no manner did it "Bash Bush". The main characters are not a religious conservatives, mean-spirited control freaks, CEO's or any of the various elite liberals enjoy labeling conservatives. It's best not to judge the film until one sees it. It's reminicent of an Alfred Hitchcock film - including a brief sighting of the writer/director himself. I found it a fascinating, film and well-worth the ticket price.
I believe you when you say you are not kidding. Unfortunately you are so far off base as to be comical. The psychologist's billionaire father is murdered in the 1970's so he gathers others who have suffered the loss of loved ones through violent acts and with his inherited money creates a preserve that takes them all back to live the way some people did in the 19th century. The movie criticized VIOLENCE not BUSH or any political ideology for that matter.
Odd link, a stupid vanity post, and you're nuts about this film bashing Bush.
No Bush bashing. Just a bunch of Luddites with *zero* common sense.
[Oops - try it again]
I saw the film the day it opened. In no manner did it "Bash Bush". The main characters are not a religious conservatives, mean-spirited control freaks, CEO's or any of the various ways elite liberals enjoy labeling conservatives. It's best not to judge the film until one sees it. It's reminicent of an Alfred Hitchcock film - including a brief sighting of the writer/director himself. I found it a fascinating, film and well-worth the ticket price.
I saw the movie last night. I guess we saw different movies.
The one I saw had no political undertones at all except the the human ability to be controlled when you have no other basis for reality besides the environment you are in.
You are way too paranoid.
First, it didn't bomb.
Second, the removal of the colors red and yellow, (both primary colors, btw), would make for some rather "blue" movies.
Grow up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.