Kind of on and off topic at the sametime and I didn't want to start a new thread. I saw BHD earlier tonight and I liked it. Weird story. I asked the girl working the booth for BHD but instead she prints out a stub for "A Walk to Remember". I was thinking she might have misheard me. My friend also says BHD. Again the girl prints out a stub for "AWTR". Its really no big deal since they don't check what movie you decide to watch however I was wondering how this girl's actions affect BHD. She said don't worry about it. For every "AWTR" stub she prints out, doesn't "AWTR" get some portion of the ticket price? So not only does "AWTR" get some money, it also inflates the number of viewers. What BS. I collect stubs and now I have a "AWTR" stub instead of "BHD" stub. It goes great with my "Orange County" stub
Bueller...Bueller....Bueller Hey I just want to know how the top box office rankings are done - based on ticket sales or # of theaters carrying the movie. BHD is 1st for the weekend ending 1/27.
From The Daily Texan: A Walk to Remember could be one of the worst date movies of all time. A girl may go out crying; but a man will need, at the very least, not one moment less than six hours of hardcore p*rnography to wash away the filth of A Walk to Remember. Let me leave you with a cliche that will haunt this movie in many a review: this walk is one to forget. And I paid for that movie I didn't see it fortunately.
Just saw it last night, very good movie, I think I need to watch it again to fully appreciate it. The beginning was very slow, which made the movie as a whole seem a bit too slow for my taste...
I don't know if it really matters if they were cheering or jeerin, does it? I mean, if they were cheering, it was because the Americans were leaving. If they were jeering, it's because they hate the Americans. Right? (sorry to bring up an old debate, but the thread had already been pulled back up)
I saw the movie and liked it very much. A couple things though: 1. The "jeering" in queston: At first, if you're watching, there are crowds of people jeering and throwing rocks and shooting, but when the soldiers get closer to the Pakistani-held stadium, the people in the UN-held area are cheering for the soldiers. There's a change there, and it comes when the guys running cross into friendly territory. 2. I didn't think the movie needed any (or at least anymore) "character development". I think the point of the story was that these guys were American soldiers. That's why we care about them. Not because they have a sick kid, or a pregnant wife, or they're from Houston, or they're an only son, or some other sappy crap. All those guys probably did have something to tell about their civilian life, but it didn't matter. These were just guys like you and me, but they were sent over there to protect the rights of human beings. That's why you care. 3. On how "slow" it was. Man, the first part of the movie may have been a little "slow" in terms of action, but it showed how the guys interact on a daily basis. It also gave a little background on what was going on in that region at the time. After they go into Mogadishu, man it is NON-STOP action. I swear when the movie was over and I was walking out of the theater, my chest hurt, because I was so tense from the last hour or so of the movie. It was almost like I had held my breath the entire time. 4. There were a couple of things I didn't like in the movie. They were the "cookie cutter" hollywood bullcrap characters: the "new kid who gets hurt", the "young guy thrust into a leadership role", the "assassin-type" guy who can't get enough, etc. Other than that, the movie was great. I don't know exactly where I rank it yet. I'll have to watch it again. If you like a movie the same or more the second time around, then you know it's a good movie.
The interaction between the characters in the beginning didn't really do much for me at all. It might have shown how they interacted, but they could have easily shortened that a little. They could have cut a few of the early male bonding scenes and I wouldn't have felt less sympathetic for the characters...
Dreamer, 1. that makes a lot of sense, now that i think about it. glad that got cleared up 2. i agree with you on this one. it's not a movie that needs the development. the people that want a 'saving private ryan' type movie should go see that instead. this was just about americans and the incident. 3. i think the movie needed the beginning. the rest of it was so intense. and the situation did need to be set up some 4. yeah, however good it was in all the other terms, did you expect hollywood to leave all of stereotypes out? as far as seeing it again, i probably will. a lot of it, for me at least, was a little confusing...just who was who and where everyone was. nothing big. i got out of the movie what i was supposed to. but i think i would enjoy it again, personally.
You do know that it was a true story, right? What did you want them to do, leave out someone that was really there to make it seem less "cookie cutter"?
