People would be crazy over this movie. The only reason why it wasnt a hit is because it had Mel Gibson. So sad that ppl care that much about a great actor/director's personal life.
shareI agree. After the movie finished I was trying to work out just why this movie rated so low.
There is only one reason this movie has a 6.7 rating.
“It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious.” Bill Hicks
6.7 isn't nearly low enough. 6.7 is average. This movie sucked
shareIt's just the tabloid mentality of our media and society now. I personally don't care at all about Mel Gibson's personal life or how much of a jackass he is....I watch his movies because he's a talented director and actor, not because he may or may not be a jerk in real life.
shareGibson hardly helped matters by calling a chatshow host a prick on his one TV interview promoting the film. When he keeps on providing the media with fresh ammunition like that it's hardly surprising the film gets overlooked.
"Security - release the badgers."
Haven't seen the interview, but in all fairness, its not uncommon for a chatshow host to be a prick.
---
I know a spell that'll make you show your true form! Cave rat taught it to me.
[deleted]
I don't care what he gets up to in his personal life, but it has to be said that his failures are self-inflicted.
Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me
I disagree. The storylines are a mess because of the shoddy adaptation and characters hang about as useless spares, because of the shoddy adaptation. Their attempt to shorten the story for a film appears to have nicked part of the back-story for Eraser. The sound production is woeful and the acting average to, IMO, mediocre with that Boston accent mangled all over the place, sometimes within the same scene.
What the hell Campbell thought he was doing I've no idea. They've taken a state of the nation masterpiece and turned it into a tacky sub-Taken thriller. It's clear where the talent lay in the original. No lead actor could have redeemed this, again IMO.
Disagree. Hanks could not have pulled it of; he is too portly for the role of a scrappy Boston cop, and Clooney is at his best when there is an element of satire, which this script, much like "The American" -- currently sitting at a 6.4 user rating -- had none.
share[deleted]
Failures? Wasn't this the first movie since 2002-2003 where he was the lead actor? Wouldn't exactly call that a failure but a choice he had made.
sharenaaa, George of Tom couldn't of made this movie better.
look, just because you have this clean image does it mean you can pull in more fans?
If you ask me, many woman think george Clonney is a slut! playboy, and probably doesn't treat women that good, considering he uses them and changes them every few months, women see this! sure a lot of girls would sleep with him because of his fame, but a lot of girls still think he is just a player.
tom hanks is to innocent to take on such a dark role. so a lot of fans would of not wanted to see tom in this kind of role.
also george and Tom have both made films which bombed recently.
so really, this film probably should of made 140 million, so I am surprised it didn't make a bit more, maybe the dark theme didn't sit well with young movie goers.