The content of the ending was straight from the book. However, though I've not read the book, I can't help but think a little more effort was put into building the ending up. The word I'd use to describe the ending is "abrupt". Anyone who has seen the Lord of the Flies episode of the Simpsons will leave the theater thinking, "And the aliens were killed by, oooh, let's saaaay....Moe." (Just replace James Earl Jones with Morgan Freeman).

Copula.

Larf!

Movies have always used current fears to move audiences. Radiation is my favorite. There are plenty of popcorn movies that showed images of towns destroyed by the effects of nuclear weapons...or more "abstractly", destroyed by creatures created by radiation...and all after the absolute horror of Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Were they immoral in playing towards what people wanted to be frightened/thrilled by?

If you're going to condemn anyone making money off of tragedy, you better make a trip to Staples for some more pencils and paper. If you're going to say "I'll decide what's an appropriate way to make money off of tragedy" then that's your prerogative, but I can't possibly understand where the line can be drawn.

You know who I hated after 9/11? Those that made music ABOUT 9/11, ABOUT New York. Those that sold flags and bumper stickers that said "We will never forget." Those in the media that.......ok, I always hate the media. Making money by pointing directly AT the event is a sad thing in my book. But hey, we wanted to buy flags, so someone has to sell them, right? So I hold no grudges against them either.

There are plenty of people who think it's horrible that we have movies that depict people dying in any way, because we're capitalizing on fears, making death seem trivial, blah blah. Dude, people are always going to want to be thrilled/frightened, and death is IT. I feel the same way about 9/11 fears.

Because it's gross and cool.

As for other plot-holes etc, um, yeah. Long live the silly popcorn movie. :cheers:

Which I dug. The whole movie is from the perspective of Tom Cruise's Joe Shmoe character - no stupid President, Generals, etc. No knowing what's going on except what he's told and what he sees. I thought that was awesome.

Yeah, which is why it was lame. :eek: Sorry guys, I'm a fan of old sci-fi, but you can't use that old language in an updated movie. It sounded silly and people laughed, including me. Should have been integrated with the style of this 2005 film.

Ahh, yes I see. Well congaratulation on spotting that. I ment "Coppola" of course. I am so embarassed by my grammar. Perhaps I should have a roomate spell-check all my documents for me in the future so I can avoid these situatons. Thank you so very much for pointing out the inherent fallibility that is my nature. You are making me a better me. :snap: :snap:

Tom Hank's character in "Castaway" was the same way. I really liked the way they did not explain things like why the plane crashed or what the lights he saw out in the ocean were.

Mine are boring, yours was dirty. Dirty dirty dirty!

Made me laugh.


How long did that take, anyhow?

Too damn long, you spell way to good... ;)

I'll try unharder to spell good.

Too easy.