I just saw this film tonight in chicago, and thought it was one of the worst movies i've seen in a very long time. Exposition is thrown in your face, plot holes galore, shallow characters, and lazy performances
call me a film snob, but this movie was aweful!!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Did you guys feel that none of the characters were fleshed out at all. Naomi Watts' character development started and ended with her having a family. Clive Owen wasn't a character at all.
shareConqueringfooll-----
That was pretty much the main point of the movie. You can't resolve a problem, which the rich and powerful don't really want resolved. It was a difficult movie to follow, but when you step back and look at it, it's actually a pretty realistic thriller.
If You Miss It Dont Be Disapointed. There Are A Few Decent action Scenes But Overal I Wish I Would Have Save My Money And Waited For The Dvd To Come Out And My Local Library To Pick It Up And I Can See It For Free.
shareWhy the capitalization? Instead of spending your money on DVDs you could buy a book on English grammar. I'm sure it would be a better investment.
shareYou need an apostrophe with 'DVDs' as it is plural, but to be honest I couldn't give a Turd.
share>You need an apostrophe with 'DVDs' as it is plural, but to be honest I couldn't give a Turd.
Actually, that is a somewhat debatable area in grammar today, but to quote the wiki: "In strictly limited cases, it is allowed to assist in marking plurals, but most authorities now disapprove of such usage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostraphe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals
Thanks for clearing the apostrophe's usage problem for me :) as for the movie, I would have to agree that it kinda sucked - boring and with low credibility characters. The story has some truth in it, but overall is unrealistic - I mean, a single man can't take down such a corporation. I disagree though with the movie being difficult to follow, that isn't at all the case
sharethe shooting was excellent, the story mildly interesting but the movie was too heavy to bear and some performance bordered on ridiculous.
the ending was totally unexpected which ruined it too.
i gave it 7/10 for the shooting and Clive Owen acting.
the ending was totally unexpected which ruined it too.
[deleted]
You don't need an apostrophe because it is plural. You use an apostrophe when it's possessive, or when the noun being pluralized ends with s.
It doesn't matter if racing never changes.share
Wrong! An apostrophe is only required for the possessive! The plural requires only an "s". This is a common and annoying error.
shareCongrats! You managed to find something more annoying than ALL CAPS! It does seem rather labor intensive, however.
shareThis movie was so full of holes.
I'm sure the original idea was to make a serious film examining the role of banks in expose international arms dealing, based partly on the BIC case in the early 90s
Indeed, Lloyds Bank has just settled with the New York City's DA department in a similar case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/business/worldbusiness/10bank.html?_r=1
But then some Hollywood producer got hold of it, decided the plot was too complex for your average dumb popcorn eater and added lots of action.
So here is why I hated the movie, having lived in Europe and currently living in New York.
A guy has a threat-attack on a German Street. A second man gets knocked down by a car. And no-one stops to help. In Germany? Come on. Everyone's a policemen.
An unknown man with a gun walks down an Italian Street and no-one calls the police.
An extended gun battle take place in the Guggenheim Museum and it takes 15 minutes for the first police cat to show up???? There must be 15 patrol cars in that area right now.
Then our hero not only drags the injured man across the street and a few blocks north before entering Central Park then dragging the dying man up a flight of stairs without anyone seeing him.
And why is the reservoir jogging path, mysteriously bereft of joggers?
Why not just walk up to the nearest cop and ask for an ambulance?
The producers should have decided - complex plot involving international fraud, or action move? Choose a side.
NOBODY CARES. I don't go to the movies to see "realistic" stuff - I don't want to pay $9 to see something I could have watched on the news for free. No thank you. There shouldn't be such a thing as a "realistic thriller." I live reality every day. I don't want to see it in my movies too.
shareshallow
Time is Luck. The Luck has ran out.
vb sez: "shallow"
What Adam hasn't yet figured out is that if a "reality" movie is ***good*** (which International arguably ain't), then reality is where the _real_ action is, and is potentially the most exciting film genre of all.
Nothing wrong with this movie atall, its very well shot and a throw back to old school thrillers.
Reminded me Of Michael Clayton alot??
Ive just seen the 2009 Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, now thats an awful thriller.
Come to think of it, I had the same feeling when I was watching Michael
Clayton. I watched The International twice and I thought it was a very
good movie. And I loved the way it was shot. I also thought Clive Owen
and Naomi Watts did a great job.
[deleted]
[deleted]
unfortunately
it is not a Movie for demanding americans .. lol
I must be a minority and that is okay but I liked the movie. I had not problems following what was going on or anything. I thought it was a pretty realistic thriller in the fact that when a banking system like that is in control and the rich and powerful don't want you to find out something they will kill anyone to make sure it doesn't happen.
I do admit it didn't have as much action as in some movies, but I still liked it. I liked the fact that Owens character looked scared when there was bullets flying around and had a hard time reloading his gun at one point because he was scared...I hate unrealistic movies and if someone was shooting at you I am sure you would not be all calm, etc...LOL
Oh well, maybe its because I like Clive Owens too...HEHE
Not the best action movie of the year, but I will say again I still liked it. :)
One of the worst movies you've seen in a long time...you must not see many movies then.
shareTOTALLY agree!!!
Just watched the preview in Sydney the other night. Everybody there hated it, it was shockingly bad. Dull scripting, shocking pacing, bad acting, just a generally boring and unpleasant film.
Do not bother with this film! And whats with the 7.8 rating at the moment on imdb. You're joking right!!!
Common Tykwer, bring back the excitement of you other films.
Well considering 'Gran Torino' is in like the Top 20 movies of all-time, nothing should surprise you with the rankings -- I barely even look at them.
Personally, I think it's a completely decent mid-Feb thriller. Or maybe it's because I just saw 'Taken' two weeks ago and by comparison, 'The International' worked somewhat for me.
The reason you don't understand why Gran Torino is a top movie is because you have the opinion of liking this movie, all is well with the universe once more.
sharei fell asleep
shareJust saw it today. Hate to agree because I love Clive Owen (never disappoints, or did he just...?) and Naomi Watts. But it was formulaeic and, to me, the plot was complicated; too many characters. And although half of it wasn't very gory at all, the other half more than made up for it.
shareTom Tykwer has a very bad sense of pace. Which is why all of his movies are baldy paced.
shareClive Owen is the leading man, how can it be bad? It is not a fantastic movie that deserves many awards, but it is not a bad movie.
Insecure men supporting Feminist hate against themselves is the ultimate act of Chivalry
this movie was truly, truly awful. i understood none of what was happening beyond the basic premise (i've gotta say, i left the theater feeling far more ignorant than when i entered it). the fact that all the people in it looked alike and the main characters kept inexplicably switching locales did not help with my comprehension of this movie. all of the characters were uninteresting and i thought naomi watts' acting in particular left much to be desired (partially due to the tremendously cliche dialogue she was given). i wasn't expecting much from this movie to begin with, but i at least was expecting to be somewhat entertained...
share[deleted]
Just saw it. Wasn't blown away at all. Halfway through I figured it would become even more boring. There was zero tension in this movie and that shooting scene in the Guggenheim lacked "action" in my opinion.
Plus, is it me, or was Naomi Watts jut mega annoying in this movie? Her character was so "pointless" and "useless" and just didn't fit in at all.
I was honestly very let down by this film. The trailer looked so good...
-CW
Will disagree with you on the Guggenheim sequence, but you're spot on with regard to Watts. She really didn't look like she was putting much effort into delivering her lines. Overall not a BAD movie... but could have been so much more.
shareMaybe there's just something I don't get, and maybe the message of this film is lost on me simply because I'm too much of a simpleton to understand it.
Not only did Watts' character seem pointless and useless, the whole story was pointless and useless! The bank goes on! These characters spend all this time working toward bringing down this bank, and nothing changes. The killed the banker, but, like he said, he was replaced, and the bank goes on and continues to stir up trouble. I'm left not caring about any of the characters because they just have to lay over and stop caring about there ideals.
Like I said, maybe I'm just not getting it, but the film's message seems to be "The world is full of foul, evil people and things, and you can't change that, so just get over it." Well, regardless of whether or not that's true, (and I like to think it isn't), it makes for a dull story that leaves me as the viewer dissatisfied.
I like to think that a film is made to be as good as it can be, and this one just wasn't. It seems to have just been released to the public to fill a gap in the hollywood movie scene that had not been filled yet this year.
""The bank goes on! These characters spend all this time working toward bringing down this bank, and nothing changes. The killed the banker, but, like he said, he was replaced, and the bank goes on and continues to stir up trouble.""
The original plan toward the end of the film was for Owens character to record the chairman's conversation with the Turk, about how the Israellis already possess a countermeasure to the missiles. If Salanger was successful in obtaining this recording he would take it to the Syrians and the Iranians and therefore they would cancel all their order thus the International Bank would collapse (I think).
I agree that it wasn't a very good film. I sorta tagged along with my brother because he wanted to see it, and I regret going. It had no real plot, they kinda just jumped all over the place. The acting was unbelievably boring by both Owen and Watts. The shootout was a really good scene, and the only time I was on the edge of the seat for a movie that was supposed to be a "thriller." A previous poster made a good point that there were too many characters and nowhere near enough development. It could have been a lot better.
share