Next (spoilers)

[CutteRug]

Just netflixed "Next" with Nicholas Cage and Julianne Moore.

Complete and utter dreck. Vague Euro-badguys with some amorphous plan to blow up a bomb. Crappy action. Inconsistent rules of Nic's "ability" to see into the future. And to top it all off, a new variant of the "it was all a dream" ending (which may or may not have been in the original story, but certainly was crapola in the movie).

And don't even get me started on Nic's hairdo. :eek:

Please, if you can - run right out and miss this film.

AC

[dodo1]

Didn't watch the movie, but read the screenplay. I liked the first third or half of it, didn't enjoy the rest.

[CutteRug]

Didn't watch the movie, but read the screenplay. I liked the first third or half of it, didn't enjoy the rest.

Amen. The number of people who can write a good first half of a screenplay will always outnumber the people who can write a good entire screenplay by about 100 to 1.

At least reading the script, you didn't have to look at Cage's hair. :eek:

[Terrance Mulloy]

I'm always a sucker for a bit of Nic Cage, but I don't think I'll bother with this one - or National Treasure.

This film seemed like a poor man's De Ja Vu'.

[Moviequill]

I'm always a sucker for a bit of Nic Cage

just watched Lord Of War tonight -- what did you think of that one? Personally, I thought there was way too much voiceover in it and could have had more dynamic action scenes

[seh]

I couldn't get past the hair, either.

However, I think the movie did do one thing remarkably well: exploit the concept. They really did exploit that time thingee from every angle - I thought there was something to be learned from that, at least.

[j over]

This film seemed like a poor man's De Ja Vu'.


I thought "Déjà Vu" was the poor man's "Déjà Vu". :|

[wcmartell]

The story is nothing at all like the movie (which I haven't seen - but it's about post nuclear war mutants, including a man with golden skin who can see a couple of minutes into the future... didn't get any of the from the trailer).

- Bill

[winter dreams]

Didn't watch the movie, but read the screenplay. I liked the first third or half of it, didn't enjoy the rest.

Finally caught "NEXT" on HBO. From this comment, it sounds like the film stayed true to the script, because the film fell apart at the beginning of Act 2. It's another example of what NOT to do in the second act.

It had a good to excellent set up, with an exciting scene in a casino demonstrating Cage's ability to see two minutes into the future. He then somewhat inexplicably steals a car, but the preceding was so good I was willing to stick around to see if there was an explanation.

As he's hiding from the authorities, the FBI (Julianna Moore) swoop in on him and explain that they need him to help them defuse a potential nuclear attack on L.A.

Great. So I'm expecting an exciting second act in which Cage (reluctantly at first) assists the FBI in saving the west coast. But what does our protagonist do? He takes off running and starts stalking Jessica Biel! Why? Because apparently he can see farther into the future with her. Who cares! This isn't exactly a passive protagonist, it's more a case of a protagonist gone AWOL from the movie he's in! Instead of fighting the good fight against the terrorists, he's out trying to bang Jessica Biel.

So the movie then becomes the FBI chasing after Cage so they can get him to help them save LA. In fact, Moore is more of a protagonist than Cage is, she is actively seeking a goal that is germane to the drama and stakes. And then the bad guys, for some reason, are also aware of Cage's abilities and they're after him too. By this time I'd completely lost interest. The entire Jessica Biel sequence is unbelievable as pointed out, she would never have gone with this loony dude in the first place and slept with him in a seedy motel.

And regarding Cage's hair -- on another site I saw it described this way -- he borrowed Tom Hanks' hairdo from the DaVinci Code. :rolling:

[vmf]

While the movie has serious script problems, some dodgy CGI, a bad Cage hairdo, and doesn't live up to the concept, I still found it very watchable and much better than the horrible reviews.

And as opposed to the Sid Field fanboys on here, I thought that the non-traditional protagonist and his unwillingness to help "for the greater good" kind of refreshing. Why does everyone have to be a cookie-cutter boy scout? This guy just wanted to be left alone and get some Jessica Biel action - what's so weird about that?

[winter dreams]

While the movie has serious script problems, some dodgy CGI, a bad Cage hairdo, and doesn't live up to the concept, I still found it very watchable and much better than the horrible reviews.

And as opposed to the Sid Field fanboys on here, I thought that the non-traditional protagonist and his unwillingness to help "for the greater good" kind of refreshing. Why does everyone have to be a cookie-cutter boy scout? This guy just wanted to be left alone and get some Jessica Biel action - what's so weird about that?

Nothing weird about it at all, if taken alone -- but in the context of the movie, where the big threat from the antagonist is nuclear attack, it's dramatic suicide for the ostensible protagonist to go off gallivanting after a hot chick. Or to put it another way -- going after Jessica Biel is another movie, not the one that was set up in the first act.

I mean in real life, yeah, there's probably a lot of dudes who would go after Biel rather than save L.A. But in the world of the movie, I didn't think it made any sense at all.

In dramatic terms, Cage's character was an AWOL protagonist.

[TheKeenGuy]

Nothing weird about it at all, if taken alone -- but in the context of the movie, where the big threat from the antagonist is nuclear attack, it's dramatic suicide for the ostensible protagonist to go off gallivanting after a hot chick. Or to put it another way -- going after Jessica Biel is another movie, not the one that was set up in the first act.

I mean in real life, yeah, there's probably a lot of dudes who would go after Biel rather than save L.A. But in the world of the movie, I didn't think it made any sense at all.

In dramatic terms, Cage's character was an AWOL protagonist.
This is also the reason why Hamlet was a dramatic failure.

[JonnyAtlas]

OMG, I actually agree with vmf on something. :eek:

Honestly, I wasn't expecting anything stellar when I saw it. I think perhaps because of that, I was entertained. I just sat back and enjoyed it. Watching the inventive ways they used his ability was enough for me.

I had also already been told that it was ridiculous, and even laughable, so I wasn't concerned with whether or not it was good. Just entertaining. For me, some times that's enough.

[winter dreams]

This is also the reason why Hamlet was a dramatic failure.

Hamlet was not a passive protagonist, or an AWOL protagonist, so I don't understand why you would say this.

[TheKeenGuy]

Hamlet was not a passive protagonist, or an AWOL protagonist, so I don't understand why you would say this.
Are we talking about the same play? Hamlet spends the majority of the story struggling over whether to carry out his mission of avenging his father's death. It should not have been a difficult task, but Hamlet's inner torment exacerbated the situation until it ended up tearing the whole kingdom down.

And yes, it's one of the most brilliant literary works there is.

[winter dreams]

Are we talking about the same play? Hamlet spends the majority of the story struggling over whether to carry out his mission of avenging his father's death. It should not have been a difficult task, but Hamlet's inner torment exacerbated the situation until it ended up tearing the whole kingdom down.

And yes, it's one of the most brilliant literary works there is.

I've never bought the "Hamlet is a passive protagonist" argument. Sure he is tormented but he does not spend the majority of the play (or films) doing what you describe. He actively seeks out the truth behind his father's death. he actively seeks out his father's ghost when told of it by his friends. he actively stages a play to prick the conscience of the king. And he kills the king. he is an active protagonist who is tortured mentally by what he must do. The film "NEXT" could have used a little of that.

Hamlet would have been a more apt comparison if, after hearing from his father's ghost that the King killed him, Hamlet then decided to spend the rest of the play chasing after Ophelia. (He did spend some time with Ophelia, obviously, and imo, that's where the play drags the most)

And yeah, it's a pretty good play. ;)