MovieChat Forums > Ten 'til Noon (2006) Discussion > A Waste of Time

A Waste of Time

posted 17 years ago by thespy8
17 replies | jump to latest

I can't figure out why so many of you scored this movie so high. It's a bad little film and once you sit thru it all and see the ending, you must ask yourselves why did you spend an hour and a half for this crap, that, or you were high on something and really didn't care.
As to the movie itself, as said before, it's the same 10 minutes played thru the eyes of the different characters. Devoid of any originality and not the least surprising, aside from the ambiguity of the ending. No issues were settled for any of the characters still alive at the end of the movie, no motives are explained as to what drives each character and I have to blame the director and/or editor for putting out such a confused clatter. The acting is mostly very amateurish, certainly co-insides with a low budget production. I scored it a 2/10.

[–] rocknrico 17 years ago

I agree 100% with your assessment. I gave this movie a shot because of the wildly varying reviews and I should have listened to those like you. It was just plain terrible.

From the Samuel L. Jackson and Steve Buscemi wannabe, through the non-sensical sexual content, all leading up to the predictable ending of the buggy-eyed wife. Oh brother. You got love how they threw in the extra carpet piece to avoid a carpet cleaning service.

Plainly put: the Simpson's episode with the robot Mr. Linguo was better than this movie.

[–] joe1991-1 17 years ago

I have to agree with thespy3, this was like watching those late night cheesey showtime movies that didn't make the cut, which is likely where you'll see this next.
I'd go a bit higher and give it a 5/10, it was actually watchable, and any film nowadays that isn't too dark, doesn't over-use hand-helds, and has a flicker of a plot, automatically gets 3 points from the start from me.

The acting is the worst aspect of the film, Morgan Freeman's kid is okay, the lady assasin is okay, the others need to visit Starbucks less, and acting class more.
The 'hook' that got me to watch was the reviewer from OC weekly that called it "the best thing since Pulp Fiction". ...well, he should be shot on sight.
Maybe "best acting since Quentin Tarantino's acting in Pulp Fiction".

One of the scenes that could have been one of the best was not even there. I would have liked to see the kid go into the bank, they could have had a lot of fun with that scene, since the outcome wouldn't really affect the rest of the movie.

I didn't mind the low budget or the "memento-like" plot, even the winceable acting could possibly be overlooked if this had a decent ending. I was waiting for the next "ten minute" chapter-like scene, but the credits started rolling, so I assumed it was over.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sweatsock 17 years ago

I also agree. This movie was a contrived assault. People shouldn't talk with their mouth full.

[–] rpors 17 years ago

I agree.

It sucks big time.
Bad acting written all over it!!!

[–] minucher 17 years ago

I just wasted 1.5 hours of my life watching this movie.

It's a confused heap of COMPLETELY pointless violence, without any meaning connecting it. It's like the script was written by the Virginia tech shooter - just a ranting sequence of over-blown, wanna-be-impressive-grotesque violence.
The acting is to put it mildly very poor.
The idea to follow the action trough the perspective of different characters is actually good, but the story is utter catastrophe.
There should be an N rating for movies - NONSENSE, and this piece would be the definition of it.

If you don't know what to do with your time, watch some busy street instead of this movie, you'll see a more meaningful action there.

[–] forgether 17 years ago

Agreed. I usually like tricky writings/editing, but when there's not much content in the script itself, it's just vain. Most of the acting was lousy as well. The wives (Becky and Sheba) were the worst.

[–] fakant 17 years ago

I agree with all the points listed but everyone seems to be forgetting the cheesy soundtrack, cringe worthy to say the least.

I would give it about a 4 or 5 out of 10. I must admit that I did enjoy the first 10 minutes of the movie but the rest was just really, really lame.

[–] cadetnick 17 years ago

Yeah I really noticed the soundtrack too... Just terrible.

As for the rest of the movie, it just seemed really cheap to me. The guy obviously thought he had a brilliant idea, and said to himself "well, this is going to be the best thing since Pulp Fiction, people are going to be blown away". And the fact that he thought he knew this shows... Badly.
And for the actual review that claimed it was the best thing since Pulp Fiction... I just can't understand that one myself. That's the most misleading review claim since I once read "The Covenant is an interesting if not totally original tale of 4 teenagers with a secret power". And that's saying something!

Also, has anyone else noticed, that as of yet no one has tried to defend this movie in this thread. Usually in this type of thread you have the people saying it's bad, but then eventually the people who love it come to defend it. Well, not this time. It seems they know that it's a battle they cannot win. The odds are against them. Haha.