"too many problems with the film". really? the lights on the gazebo just ruined the movie for you?!? and yes, they cheated with the sunrise on the bay, and it clearly was shot off season. SO WHAT! if you didn't like the story, the plot, the acting, the dialogue or something relevant, then say so. otherwise, who cares?
do you actually think that this movie was made just for you? there's a world full of people who don't know jack about where to get the best taffy (or best boardwalk pizza, cheese fries, mini-golf (Seaside, now closed), or anything else specific to the Jersey shore), so who cares is the movie doesn't agree with you about taffy (btw, lived in Jersey my whole live, and sometimes I'll buy taffy in AC just because that's where I am at the time). if that's your big complaint, then you really don't have anything to complain about, do you?
I've also heard people complain that movie was too long (apparently just under 2 hours is a bit much for certain attention spans). these people don't say what they would have cut, and how this would have been done without taking away from the overall plot and character development, but they still complain about the length. much like complaining that it was shot off season, these aren't valid complaints either. it's like complaining that a movie set in Seattle was actually filmed in Vancouver - so what, who cares, it doesn't really matter, and 99% of the movie going public will never know the difference anyway.
y r u so angry?
my contention is:
if you're going to say the film takes place in X and you film it in X then you had better make sure that it looks like the real world X in every way shape and form...... or stipulate in the film why it does not
the movie was not too long for me
though the writing and the character development needed vast improvement...
Hobbits are not Fauns
Martin Freeman = Bilbo
oh, I'm just generally angry. doesn't really have anything to do with you ;)
actually, I'm angry with the reviews by the "critics". some critics contend that the movie was bad because it was too long. no mention of what made it too long, or how shortening it would improve it. and other blanket statements that is movie is bad, without explaining what was bad, or how changing it would have made it better.
I understand your complaint about it not portraying an area properly ("Boys on the Side" shot what was supposed to be a cross country trip, but never left Bergen County for the first half of the movie - I didn't appreciate that, but I don't think it lessened the movie). anyway, I just don't think that being critical for those reasons is the way to go. most people will never know the difference anyway, and since this thread seems to be about reviewing the quality of the movie, I just thought that your comments were out of place.
what didn't you like about the character development? I admit there were some lulls in developing the character interaction, and some characters (like the Commodore) were introduced and finished very quickly, but nothing that I saw as needing "vast improvement".
the writing is no Shakespeare, but I think it's better than most of what I've seen at the mall theater lately.